HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 06052014 - TWIC Agenda Pkt
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
June 5, 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, Department of Conservation and
Development)
4. CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the May 1, 2014 Transportation,
Water, and Infrastructure Committee meeting. Any handouts or printed copies of
testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. (John
Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
5. CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative
Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, DCD)
6. RECEIVE letter from the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) in response to the
Board of Supervisors request for a review of Kinder Morgan’s Integrity Management
Program (IMP) for pipelines in Contra Costa County and recommend that Public
Works staff contact OSFM for a copy of the report after they complete their review of
the Kinder Morgan pipelines. (Carrie Ricci, Public Works Department)
7. ACCEPT report on the implementation plan for the Appian Way Alternatives Analysis
and Complete Streets Study, as requested by the Board of Supervisors at the December
3, 2013 meeting. (Nancy Wein, Public Works Department)
8. RECEIVE Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan and Quarterly Update, and PROVIDE direction to County
Watershed Program Staff. (Cece Sellgren, Public Works Department)
9. RECEIVE update on the County's IPM program and take ACTION as appropriate. The IPM
Coordinator will present a report on the County's IPM program.
1
10. CONSIDER reviewing the proposed implementation framework related to the
regulation of taxicab services within the unincorporated area; PROVIDE feedback; and
DIRECT staff to draft an Ordinance to implement the proposed implementation
framework, including establishment of a fee for services rendered for processing new
applications and renewals for a taxicab permit by the Office of the Sheriff. (Timothy
Ewell, County Administrator’s Office)
11.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, July 3, 2014.
12.Adjourn
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
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
3
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:06/05/2014
Subject:ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.:
Referral Name:
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact:
Referral History:
Administrative Items. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
Referral Update:
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
4
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:06/05/2014
Subject:CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the May 1, 2014
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee meeting.
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
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 attached Record of Action for the May 1, 2014 Committee
meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
5/1/14 TWIC Meeting Record
5
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
May 1, 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: Julie Bueren, Public Works Department
Mary Halle, Public Works Department
Grace Schmidt, Alamo Resident
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).
3.None.
4.Staff recommends approval of the Record of Action for the April 3, 2014 Committee meeting with any necessary
corrections.
The Record of Action for the April 3, 2014 Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee meeting was
approved unanimously.
5.The Public Works Department recommends the following projects as candidates for ATP. If authorized to
proceed, staff will prepare preliminary designs and cost estimates for the application package, as well as move
forward aggressively with preparation of the NEPA studies in order to meet required project delivery schedules for
the ATP program and demonstrate a “shovel-ready” project. A second cycle of ATP funding will be released in
November 2014. Staff will continue to develop the projects considered for this grant opportunity and work
towards project readiness for the next call for projects.
The two projects recommended (in no particular priority order) include:
• Port Chicago Highway at Willow Pass Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project
• Pacifica Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Project
These projects are recommended based upon their ability to meet a tight delivery timeline and the ability to meet
all the rating criteria to provide the most competitive applications for ATP funding. Staff recognizes that both of
the recommended projects fall within District 5. Although staff concentrates on spreading grant opportunities
equitably throughout the County, this particular grant program and timeline has resulted in the most competitive
applications, both drawing from District 5 due to the tight delivery timeline per the new ATP criteria and
satisfying the location within a Community of Concern.
6
As noted over the past years, staff maintains a database of past grant opportunities categorized by grant program
and Supervisorial District. We will continue to monitor equity in grant opportunities.
It is recommended that the County submit applications for both of the projects recommended above which have
been determined to be the most competitive for a funding award. Staff will continue to develop the remaining
projects with the intent of providing more competitive grant applications in the future.
The Committee, unanimously, 1) approved the staff recommendation and, 2) approved giving staff the
discretion to consider other projects as appropriate.
6.CONSIDER report and take the following ACTIONS:
Direct staff to REPORT to the Board of Supervisors the status of CCTA's 2014 CTP Update and to
COORDINATE with any other necessary Departments on that report,
1.
Any other ACTION as deemed appropriate by the Committee2.
The Committee unanimously approved the recommendations and further directed staff as follows 1)
recommend to the Board of Supervisors adopt a "WATCH" postion on the following bills: three vehicle
weight fee bills (AB 2651 (Linder), AB 2728 (Perea), SB 1418 (DeSaulnier), and Assembly Bill 1324
(Skinner) Transactions and Use Taxes: City of El Cerrito, and 2) in reporting to the full Board of Supervisors
on the Countywide Transportation Update to consult and coordinate with each Supervisors office.
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, June 5, 2014.
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on June 5, 2014 at 1:00 PM in Room 101 at 651 Pine Street,
Martinez, CA.
8.Adjourn
The meeting adjourned in the afternoon of May 1, 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
7
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
8
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:06/05/2014
Subject:CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
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 Committee and 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 and action:
LOCAL
Altamont Corridor Express Update: See attached presentation (ACEforward.pdf) from the San
Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) modernization
effort, "ACEforward". Staff will be present to discuss the effort and provide an overview.
Also, see attached (Local - Items of Interest.pdf) for local items of interest to the Committee.
STATE
Tracked Bills: Attached to this report is 1) a complete list of bills currently being tracked (Leg
Report AsOfMay29-1500.pdf) and 2) a table of bills that the TWI Committee and/or the BOS has
either discussed or taken a position (Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2014.pdf) that includes
positions of other entities where available.
Mark Watts and/or County staff will provide additional, verbal updates at the Committee meeting
on bills of interest.
School Siting:At the time this report was submitted, a tentative date to meet with our legislative
9
School Siting:At the time this report was submitted, a tentative date to meet with our legislative
delegation has been set. The Committee should discuss an approach and agenda for the meeting.
Recent communication on this issue is included in the attached (Recent BOS Communication
ReTransLeg.pdf).
Mark Watts and/or County staff will provide additional, verbal updates at the Committee meeting.
FEDERAL
GROW AMERICA: At the May TWI Committee meeting there was a request for a review of the
GROW AMERICA (Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility,
Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America) Act, the
federal transportation funding authorization. Existing authorization under the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) expires on October 1, 2014. Staff is working with our
legislative advocate to bring a report to the June 5th Committee meeting.
For background purposes please find attached to this staff report (June 2014 TWI GROW
AMERICA Docs.pdf) the following:
• GROW AMERICA Summary Sheets from the Department of Transportation
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Summary Highlighting Policy Changes
• California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Reauthorization Ask & Letter to Congress Re:
Reauthorization and Bridges
• National Association of Counties (NACO) Summary, "Senate Advances Map-21
Reauthorization Act, Counties should be aware..."
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and
take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
ACEforward Rail Presentation
Local Leg Items of Interest
Leg Report as of May 29, 4:00PM
Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2014
Recent BOS Communication ReTransLeg.pdf
June 2014 TWI GROW AMERICA Docs
10
ACEforward
The new regional initiative to improve our connection
between the Central Valley and the Bay Area
SJRRC Board Meeting – April 4, 2014
ACEforward
Alternatives Analysis and Development
11
1. Alternatives Development and Analysis
Program level improvements
Project level improvements
Project-wide grade crossing evaluation
2. Project Schedule
Agenda SJRRC Board Meeting April 4
2
12
Bay Area
13
Tri Valley and BART Connectivity
14
San Joaquin Valley
5 15
Stockton - Merced
16
Impact of outside of UPRR ROW Treatment – Manteca
MANTECA
ACE corridor outside of the UPRR ROW
7 17
Manteca to Modesto – Overhead Structures
Manteca to Modesto
11 Overhead
Structures Rebuilt
with the Out of
UPRR Option
8 18
Oakland – Newark – Niles Triangle Context
9
Alternatives in this area are under development
19
Grade Crossing Improvements
CPUC Approval
Diagnostic Reviews
Sealed Corridor (Supplemental Safety Measures)
Wayside Horn
10 20
“Sealed Corridor”– Raised Medians
•No intersections or commercial
driveways within 60’
•Raised medians must be at least
100’ in length, or 60’ if an
intersection within 100’
11 21
“Sealed Corridor”– Channelization Devices
•At least three and
one-half inches in
height
•Affixed with
vertical panels or
tubular
delineators
12 22
“Sealed Corridor”– Four-Quadrant Gates
13 23
Wayside Horns
14 24
Sunol Area Noise Impacts –
dBA Contours with Train-mounted Horn
15
Bond Street
Main Street
25
Sunol Area Noise Impacts –
dBA Contours with Wayside Horn
Bond Street
Main Street
16 26
Salida Noise Impacts –
dBA Contours with Train-mounted Horn
Kiernan Avenue
Broadway Avenue
17 27
Salida Noise Impacts –
dBA Contours with Wayside Horn
Private
Golf
Crossing
Castlewood
Drive
Kiernan Avenue
Broadway Avenue
18 28
Castlewood Area Noise Impacts –
dBA Contours with Train-mounted Horn
Private
Golf
Crossing
Castlewood
Drive
19 29
Castlewood Area Noise Impacts –
dBA Contours with Wayside Horn
Private
Golf
Crossing
Castlewood
Drive
20 30
Product Target Date
Stakeholder and Public Outreach Ongoing
NOI/NOP Release June / October 2013
Scoping Period (Extended) July / November 2013
Scoping Summary Report February 2014
Ridership and Revenue & Benefits Analysis April 2014
Alternatives Analysis June 2014
Draft EIS/EIR June 2015
Final EIS/EIR February 2016
ACE forward FY 2013/2014 Work Products and Target Dates
21 31
ACE forward Schedule
22 32
Initial Ridership and Revenue Forecasts
Further Screening of Niles Canyon/Fremont Area Alternatives
Grade Crossing Improvement Projects to Improve Safety and
Reduce Noise
Draft Financing Plan
Contact
Dan Leavitt, SJRRC Manager of Regional Initiatives
209.944.6266 aceforward@acerail.com
Facebook/ACEforward www.acerail.com
Next Steps
Everything in life depends on a good connection. 23 33
34
35
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 1/20
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
Committee:Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee
Hearing:06/11/2014 9:30 am, Rose Ann Vuich Hearing Room (2040)
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.
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-7
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
36
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 2/20
Location:Assembly Inactive File
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.
Author:Mullin (D)
Title:Local Government: Assessment Or Property-Related Fee
Fiscal
Committee:no
Urgency
Clause:yes
Introduced:02/15/2013
Last Amend:02/10/2014
Disposition:Pending
File:A-17
Location:Assembly Inactive File
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:05/15/2014 In ASSEMBLY. To Inactive File.
Author:Lowenthal B (D)
Title:Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Sustainable Communities
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/20/2013
Last Amend:04/15/2013
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
37
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 3/20
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.
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.
Author:Bocanegra (D)
Title:Strategic Growth Council
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/22/2013
Last Amend:01/06/2014
Disposition:Pending
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
38
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 4/20
Committee:Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
Hearing:06/10/2014 9:30 am, Room 112
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.
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:05/06/2014 In SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Not heard.
MTC:Support
Author:Skinner (D)
Title:Transactions and Use Taxes: City of El Cerrito
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/22/2013
7.CA AB 1193
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
8.CA AB 1324
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
39
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 5/20
Last Amend:05/05/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Authorizes the City of El Cerrito, if certain requirements are met, to impose a
transactions and use tax for general purposes at a minimum rate, that would, in
combination with other specified taxes, exceed the combined rate limit provided
under the Transactions and Use Tax Law.
Status:05/15/2014 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE.
Author:Gatto (D)
Title:Vehicle Accidents
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:01/21/2014
Last Amend:05/23/2014
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:05/28/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To SENATE.
Author:Buchanan (D)
Title:School Facilities: Construction Contracts
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/03/2014
Last Amend:04/10/2014
Disposition:Pending
9.CA AB 1532
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
10.CA AB 1581
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
40
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 6/20
Summary:Requires a school facilities lease instrument and the agreement with the lowest
responsible bidder to include a requirement for the person, firm or corporation that
constructs a building to be leased and used by the school district upon a designated
site, including the prime contractor and electrical, mechanical and plumbing
subcontractors, to comply with specified prequalification questionnaires and financial
statement requirements. Requires the governing board to establish a process for
prequalification.
Status:05/28/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To SENATE.
Author:Frazier (D)
Title:Construction Manager/General Contractor: Transit Agency
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/14/2014
Last Amend:03/28/2014
Disposition:Pending
File:9
Location:Assembly Third Reading File
Summary:Authorizes regional transportation agencies to use the Construction
Manager/General Contractor project delivery method to design and construct certain
projects. Requires such agency after completion of any project using such method to
prepare a report that describes each project and relevant data. Requires the report
to be posted on the agency's Web site. Requires that agency to comply with
prevailing wage provisions and to reimburse any enforcement costs.
Status:05/29/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To
SENATE.
Author:Buchanan (D)
Title:High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Fiscal
Committee:no
Urgency
Clause:no
11.CA AB 1724
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
12.CA AB 1811
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
41
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 7/20
Introduced:02/18/2014
Last Amend:04/08/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Amends the value pricing high-occupancy vehicle program that authorizes the entry
and use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes by single-occupant vehicles for a fee.
Authorizes the program to require a high-occupancy vehicle to have an electronic
transponder or other electronic devices for law enforcement purposes.
Status:05/15/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
Author:Frazier (D)
Title:Department of Transportation: Vehicle and Equipment
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/19/2014
Last Amend:03/28/2014
Disposition:Pending
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 of General Services to prepare an
evaluation of the best value procurement pilot. Requires posting on the Department
of Transportation's Internet Web site.
Status:05/27/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To SENATE.
Author:Muratsuchi (D)
Title:Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:yes
Introduced:02/20/2014
Last Amend:04/02/2014
13.CA AB 1857
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
14.CA AB 2013
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
42
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 8/20
Disposition:Pending
Committee:Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Hearing:06/10/2014 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
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:05/15/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
Author:Bradford (D)
Title:Vehicles: Motorized Bicycles
Fiscal
Committee:no
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/20/2014
Last Amend:04/30/2014
Disposition:Pending
Committee:Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Hearing:06/10/2014 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
Summary:Redefines a motorized bicycle or moped by increasing the gross brake horsepower
the motor can produce.
Status:05/22/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
Author:Buchanan (D)
Title:Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities B
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:yes
Introduced:02/21/2014
Last Amend:05/23/2014
Disposition:Pending
15.CA AB 2173
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
16.CA AB 2235
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
43
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 9/20
Summary:Enacts the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014 to
authorize an specified 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:05/28/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time, urgency clause adopted. Passed
ASSEMBLY. *****To SENATE.
Author:Daly (D)
Title:Toll Facilities: Revenues
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/21/2014
Last Amend:04/24/2014
Disposition:Pending
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 toll revenues from the managed land that is administered by the
local agency remain available for expenditure within the respective corridor in which
the managed lane is located.
Status:05/22/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
Author:Levine (D)
Title:Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/21/2014
Last Amend:05/23/2014
Disposition:Pending
17.CA AB 2250
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
18.CA AB 2398
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
44
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 10/20
Summary:Provides penalties for drivers who violate rules of the road, including violations
regarding pedestrians and bicyclists wherein the violation proximately causes bodily
injury or great bodily injury to a vulnerable road user.
Status:05/28/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To SENATE.
Priority:High
Author:Frazier (D)
Title:Public Contracts: Change Orders
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/21/2014
Last Amend:05/23/2014
Disposition:Pending
File:59
Location:Assembly Third Reading File
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 the work that has already been performed, a documentation is
submitted. Authorizes the submission of a change order for extra work performed by
a subcontractor. Authorizes subcontractor request. Requires subcontractor
notification.
Status:05/29/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To
SENATE.
Author:Linder (R)
Title:Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/21/2014
19.CA AB 2471
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
20.CA AB 2651
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
45
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 11/20
Disposition:Pending
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:05/12/2014 Withdrawn from ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
05/12/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Ordered to second reading.
Author:Perea (D)
Title:Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/21/2014
Last Amend:04/24/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Prohibits weight fee revenues from being transferred from the State Highway
Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund or the Transportation Bond Direct
Payment Account, or any other fund or account for the purpose of payment of the
debt service on transportation general obligation bonds. Prohibits loans of the
weight fee revenues to the General Fund.
Status:05/23/2014 In ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee.
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
21.CA AB 2728
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
22.CA ACA 3
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
46
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 12/20
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.
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.
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
23.CA ACA 8
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
24.CA SB 1
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
47
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 13/20
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.
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-10
Location:Assembly Inactive File
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.
Author:DeSaulnier (D)
Title:Regional Entities: San Francisco Bay Area
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
25.CA SB 33
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
26.CA SB 792
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
48
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 14/20
Introduced:02/22/2013
Last Amend:05/19/2014
Disposition:Pending
Committee:Assembly Local Government Committee
Hearing:06/18/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 447
Summary:Requires members agencies of the San Francisco Bay Area joint policy committee to
complete an analysis of common functions and identify opportunities to save costs,
reduce redundancies and further the goals of the member agencies. Requires the
analysis to also include a statement relative to the expected reduction of overhead,
operation, and management costs. Requires the maintenance of an Internet Web
site containing relevant committee activities. Requires a public engagement advisory
committee.
Status:05/19/2014 From ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT with author's
amendments.
05/19/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to
Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Author:DeSaulnier (D)
Title:Public Works
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/10/2014
Last Amend:05/27/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Authorizes these provisions to be known and cited as the Public Works Project
Oversight Improvement Act. Defines a megaproject as a transportation project with
total estimated development and construction costs exceeding a specified amount.
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:05/28/2014 In SENATE. Read third time. Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY.
Author:Vidak (R)
27.CA SB 969
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
28.CA SB 990
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
49
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 15/20
Title:Transportation Funds: Disadvantaged Small Communities
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:yes
Introduced:02/12/2014
Last Amend:04/21/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Requires that no less than a specified percentage of funds available for regional
improvement projects to be programmed in the regional transportation improvement
program for disadvantaged small communities. Requires regional transportation
agencies and county transportation commissions, in programming these moneys, to
prioritize funding congestion relief and safety needs.
Status:04/29/2014 In SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Failed
passage.
04/29/2014 In SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING:
Reconsideration granted.
Author:DeSaulnier (D)
Title:Vehicles: Mileage-Based Fee Pilot Program
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/19/2014
Last Amend:04/21/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Requires the Transportation Agency to develop a pilot program designed to assess
specified issues relating to implementing a mileage-based fee in the State to replace
the State's existing fuel excise tax calculating mileage and collecting road use
information, processes for managing, storing, transmitting such fee. Requires the
Department of Motor Vehicles to submit a report on how best to implement such a
fee and recommendations on public and private agency access to fee data that
ensure privacy.
Status:05/27/2014 In SENATE. Read third time. Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY.
29.CA SB 1077
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
30.CA SB 1122
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
50
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 16/20
Author:Pavley (D)
Title:Sustainable Communities: Strategic Growth Council
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/19/2014
Last Amend:05/05/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Requires the Strategic Growth Council to manage and award financial assistance for
the purpose of supporting the implementation of sustainable communities strategies
or alternate planning strategies, to be funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund. Requires guidelines for funds use. Authorizes such assistance for the
development and implementation of agricultural, natural resource, and open space
land protection plans consistent with sustainable communities and greenhouse gas
emission reduction plans.
Status:05/23/2014 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee.
Author:Cannella (R)
Title:Vehicles: School Zone Fines
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/20/2014
Last Amend:04/21/2014
Disposition:Pending
Committee:Assembly Transportation Committee
Hearing:06/09/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 4202
Summary:Requires that an additional fine imposed 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. Requires the fine moneys to be
deposited in a specified fund for funding school safety zone projects under the Active
Transportation Program.
Status:05/19/2014 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
31.CA SB 1151
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
32.CA SB 1156
Passed Passed Passed Passed51
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 17/20
Author:Steinberg (D)
Title:Carbon Tax Law of 2014
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/20/2014
Disposition:Pending
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.
Author:DeSaulnier (D)
Title:Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/20/2014
Last Amend:05/27/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Authorizes a city, county, or regional park district to impose, as a special tax, a motor
vehicle registration surcharge for bicycle infrastructure purposes. Requires the
Department of Motor Vehicles to administer the surcharge and to transmit the net
revenues to the local agency. Requires the local agency to use the revenues for
improvements to paved and natural surface trails and bikeways, including existing
and new trails, and for associated maintenance purposes.
Status:05/28/2014 In SENATE. Read third time. Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY.
Introduced 1st Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Chamber Enacted
33.CA SB 1183
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
34.CA SB 1298
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
52
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 18/20
Author:Hernandez E (D)
Title:High Occupancy Toll Lanes
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:no
Introduced:02/21/2014
Last Amend:05/07/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Removes the limitations on the number of high-occupancy toll lanes. Specifies
additional requirements for agreements between the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Department of Transportation, and the
Department of the California Highway Patrol that identify respective obligations and
liability of each party relating to the program. Requires the authority to establish
appropriate traffic flow guidelines to not change vehicle occupancy requirements and
to define operation hours.
Status:05/27/2014 In SENATE. Read third time. Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY.
Author:DeSaulnier (D)
Title:Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service
Fiscal
Committee:yes
Urgency
Clause:yes
Introduced:02/21/2014
Last Amend:05/01/2014
Disposition:Pending
Summary:Repeals provisions of existing law which allow for the transfer of weight fees on the
registration of commercial motor vehicles from the State Highway Account to
reimburse the General Fund for debt service on transportation bonds. Requires of
specified percentage of the revenues derived from the increase in motor fuel excise
taxes to be deposited in the State Highway Account to be allocated to city and
county streets and roads, and another percentage to the State Highway Operation
and Protection Program.
Status:05/23/2014 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee.
35.CA SB 1418
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
36.CA SCA 4
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
53
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 19/20
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.
Author:Corbett (D)
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.
Author:Hancock (D)
37.CA SCA 8
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
38.CA SCA 11
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
54
5/29/2014 State Net
https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=19027&host=psweb1c086&query_id=BrZjoQhFYoAl&app=lpfs&mode=display 20/20
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.
55
Adopted Positions on Legislation of Interest – 2014 (Information Updated from Last Month is in bold/italics) Bill CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Assembly Bill 1324 (Skinner) Transactions and Use Taxes: City of El Cerrito Pending Watch Watch AB 2651 (Linder) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Pending Watch Watch Support and Seek Amendment AB 2728 (Perea) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Pending Watch Pending Watch Support and Seek Amendment SB 1418 (DeSaulnier) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service Pending Watch Support Assembly Bill 1811 (Buchanan) High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Support 4/22/14 Watch Watch Support Assembly Bill 2398 (Levine) Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists Support 4/22/14 No Interest Watch Support Assembly Bill 1532 (Gatto) Vehicle Accidents Support 4/22/14 Watch Support Support Senate Bill 1151 (Cannella) Vehicles: School Zone Fines Support and Request Amendment 4/22/14 Support Watch Support Assembly Bill 2235 (Buchanan) Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014 Watch 4/22/14 Watch Assembly Bill 1724 (Frazier) Construction Manager/General Contractor method: regional transportation agencies: Watch 4/22/14 Support No Interest Watch Support FEDERAL Senate 1708: (Merkley [OR])/ House of Representatives 3494: (Blumenauer [OR]) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act Support 4/22/14 S. 1708: 15 cosponsors (13D, 1R, 1I) H.R. 3494: 93 cosponsors (85D, 8R) G:\Transportation\Legislation\2014\Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2014.docx 56
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1" District
Candace Andersen, zoo District
Mary N. Piepho, 3n1 District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
May 28,2014
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor, State of California
C/0 State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: School Siting Reform
Dear Governor Brown:
Contra
Costa
County
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is writing to make you aware of
deficiencies in State school siting policies and practices. In short, the County has
witnessed a substantial gap between school siting and design practices and local/state
goals in relation to: safe routes to school, public health, land development/growth
management, and greenhouse gas reduction.
The County is encouraged by your 2013-14 budget proposal acknowledging the issue,
" ... now is an appropriate time to engage in a dialogue on the future of school facilities
funding ... " and, "School districts and their respective localities should have appropriate
control of the school facilities construction process and priorities." The County also
appreciates Superintendent Tom Torlakson's recognition of these issues in his recent
reports, and the California Department of Education's commitment to work with the
California State Association of Counties in identifying policy solutions to the issue.
We are aware that Assembly Bill 2235 (Buchanan), the Kindergarten-University Public
Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014 is progressing through the legislature. We
understand that this bill is an opportunity to address the aforementioned policy gap.
We are requesting that, as we work with our legislative delegation to craft a policy
proposal to solve the school siting issue, your office direct relevant State departments to
address this issue in a manner that reflects state and local policies and results in a
positive, practical outcome.
57
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr.
May 28,2014
Page2 of2
Please find attached the County's draft white paper, the California School Siting and
Safety Initiative, which we are using during outreach efforts on this issue. The white
paper identifies issues of concern and contains a discussion of potential policy changes.
Also attached find our previous communication to Superintendent Torlakson which
expands on our concerns summarized above.
On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors I tharik you for your
assistance on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District IV
C:
Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation
Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Jose Cisneros, President, League of California Cities c/o Eric Figueroa
John Gioia, President-California State Association of Counties c/o Kiana Buss
Amy Worth, Chair-Metropolitan Transportation Commission c/o Rebecca Long
Mark Watts -Smith, Watts, Martinez
Attachments:
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative-Contra Costa County (rev: 5/27/14)
5/8/12 Letter from Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to Superintendent Tom Torlakson
File: Transportation> Agencies > State> CDE >School Siting> 2014
g: \transportation \cunningham \memo-letter\letter\20 14 \govbrownschoolsiting&safety .doc
58
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative – Contra Costa County (rev: 5/27/14)
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 negative community development, environmental and public health/safety outcomes. Directly related to
this issue is the well-known, often cited decline in K-12 walk/bike to school rates. This decline should not be accepted as
inevitable, but rather as a trend and a problem to be reversed through a strategic public policy response. The State
has acknowledged some of the school siting 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 limited or no 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. School districts have
limited policies, authority, and expertise to ensure that school sites have positive outcomes related to safe access and
community development goals. It is the cities/counties, and the State that primarily have these responsibilities:
By statute, cities and counties have land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties cannot influence the selection
and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from this local authority6.
Although the state has substantial statutes and polices5 in place that should inform school siting and design, school districts
are not currently compelled to comply those policies in their school siting and design decisions.
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 Dept of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & 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.”
59
Contact: 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 restrictions related to the extension of
municipal services 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 in this paper]
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] of facility development, 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 funds should be directed to modernization programs than to new construction7.
Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive, systematic effort to
reverse the well-known decline in K-12 walking/bike rates which would include the following:
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 areas9. 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 legislation10.
Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet
Common Core 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. Bike/ped safety awareness with driver training should also be included.
SR2S11 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.
The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on auto speeds: In an effort to understand the decline in K-12
walk/bike rates, this study would 1) document the change in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to
improvements in vehicle technology, and 2) document how that change in speed has impacted other road users.
The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes; they do not necessarily reflect adopted policy positions.
8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.
9 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.
10 801.608 “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
11 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.
60
The Board of Supervisors
County Admini stration Bui lding
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, Califo rnia 94553
John Gioia, I" District
Candace Andersen, 2"d Di strict
Mary N. Piepho , 3'd District
Karen Mitchoff. 4°' Di strict
Federal D. Glover, 5th Dis trict
December 11, 2012
The Honorable Tom Torlakson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, C~l y 'j l
Dear Superintend4.f J ()rlaksonf
Contra
Costa
County
David Twa
Cl er k of the Board
and
County Admin istrator
(925) 335-19DO
/v
The Contra Cos~a County Board of Supervisors is writing on a topic of substantial concern: the
reform of State school siting policies. We understand you are aware of the issue and appreciate the
attention you have given it at the state level. The County and neighboring cities must attend to the
land use and transportation implications of poor school siting and design (made with the State's
tacit approval).
In our May 8, 2012letter congratulating you on the release of the Schools of the Future Report, we
were optimistic that school siting reform would be addressed in a positiv e and inclusive manner.
In that letter we also indicated our interest in participating in any implementation discussions.
Our optimism increased with the subsequent release of the "California 's K-12 Educational
b~frastructure In vestm ents : Le veraging the State's Role fo r Quality School Facilities in Sustainable
Commun ities" report. At this time we request that implementation of the findings of the
aforementioned studies include extensive outreach to local jurisdictions.
We unde rstand that that the Senate Education Subcommittee on Sustainable School Facilities
instructed the Director of Facilities to develop an implementation plan for the CA K-12 Educational
Infrast ructu re report. We understand that sev eral internal meetings have taken place to discuss the
implementation proce ss. During the "Policy Symposium" held on the 6th of this month, California
Department of Education (CDE) staff indicated that stakeholder outreach has already been
conducted. We are unaware of any consultation with local agencies or our associated
organizations.
As you are aware, the development of school facilities is a fundamentally local activity. As we
mentioned in our May 8, 2012 letter on this topic, " ... schools potentially act as the anchor of great
61
The Honorable Tom Torlakson
December 11, 2012
Page 2 of 3
communities ... " Local land use jurisdictions, not the State or school districts, should guide the
development of communities and:
• are the primary forum to which our constituents bring land use, traffic and safety concerns,
• maintain and implement plans for orderly land development, and
• implement underfunded safe routes to school programs, to address safety and school
access issues.
Considering the above, we would be concerned that, if the CDE did not engage local jurisdictions
in this study implementation process, the outcomes are more likely to be flawed.
We hesitate to wade into the details of the issue in this brief letter. However, we are unsure if input
opportunities will be provided given the absence of information on the study implementation
process. Absent a public outreach effort that might have allowed us to tailor our comments or
provide an opportunity to participate in a dynamic discussion on these matters, the Board of
Supervisors respectfully makes the following comments:
1. Recognizing the history of problematic school siting, eligible expenditures for future State
bond funds should include projects to repair existing school access and safety deficiencies.
Eligible expenditures should include on and off-site improvements and automotive and
non-motorized (safe routes to school) facilities.
2. The ability to preempt local land use authority in the siting and design of educational
facilities should be modified to establish a partnership with local government.
3. The State should update its existing facility development guidance1 as a part of the current
study implementation process. Please consider the following comments:
• Work with the Cities-Counties Schools Partnership, California State Association of
Counties, the League of Cities, local jurisdictions, the California County Planning
Directors Association, and the County Engineers Association of California to
develop an approach to integrating educational facilities into local land use plans
and processes while respecting the State's need to deliver school facilities in a
predictable manner.
• Best planning practices now incorporate land use context considerations into policy
guidance. School site acreage minimums are inconsistent with this and should be
modified.
• Compel local school districts and local jurisdictions to work together, either by
statute or financial incentives. The State's administrative responsibilities under the
landmark climate change bills, AB32 and SB375 or the Complete Streets Act of 2008
could be ideal vehicles for this approach. We understand that CDE is contemplating
this and we applaud this potentially efficient strategy.
• Require that the design of vehicular and pedestrian facilities (on and off-site) be
developed jointly with cities' and counties' planners and engineers, who are most
familiar with the community and likely travel patterns.
1 School Site Selection and Approval Guide , and Guide to School Site Analysis and Development
62
63
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
1\lartinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1" District
Candace Andersen, 2"d District
Mary N. Piepho, 3m District
Karen Mitchoff, 4rl• District
Federal D. Glover, S'h District
April 22, 2014
The Honorable Joan Buchanan
16th Assembly District
State Capitol, Room 3048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contra
Costa
County
Subject: Assembly Bill1811 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Dear Assembly Member Buchanan:
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports your bill, AB 1811 which would ensure that high-
occupancy vehicles would have access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes, on specified highway corridors, at all
times and also allow responsible agencies to continue implementing rapidly evolving toll collection technology.
Thank you for authoring this important legislation which will help keep our transportation infrastructure
operating efficiently. If you, or your staff, have any questions about our support position please contact me or
John Cunningham, Principal Planner, (925)674-7833 or atjohn.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us.
Sincerely,
Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District IV
C: Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation
L. DeLaney, Interim Senior Deputy County Administrator, CAO
Mark Watts -Smith, Watts, Martinez
g:\transpo11ation\cunningham\memo-lettei \Jette! 2014\apr22ndlegislation\cccounty-positionab 1811 hov lanes -2014.doc 64
65
66
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, I" District
Candace Andersen, 2"d District
Mary N. Piepho, 3"' District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
April 22, 2014
Heidi Weiland, President
California School Boards Association
3251 Beacon Boulevard
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Contra
Costa
County
Subject: School Siting and Design for Safe Access
Dear Ms. Weiland:
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is writing to make you aware of deficiencies in
school siting policies and practices. In short, the County has witnessed a gap between school
siting and design practices and local/state goals related to safe routes to school, public health,
land development, and greenhouse gas reduction. 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, the California School
Siting and Safety Initiative is attached. The County has submitted comments in the past on this
issue to various State representatives; we have attached this communication to provide
additional background and detail regarding our concerns.
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 this process, the County is making the
California School Boards Association aware of the following:
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
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)
67
C:
Heidi Weiland, President -CSBA
April22, 2014
Page2 o£2
4) Local Educational Agency (LEA) implementation of school siting and design can be
inconsistent with state and local policies3•
Given the above, it is the LEAs that have the responsibility for ensuring that school sites are
sited and designed with safe, efficient access for all modes of travel, and with all necessary
infrastructure in place prior to opening. It is our sincere hope that the CSBA will work with
responsible State agencies and representatives of the Legislature to ensure that adequate
policies and funding are in place to correct the deficiencies described above and in the attached.
If you have any questions about this matter please contact John Cunningham, Principal Planner,
(925)674-7833 or at john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty .us.
Sincerely,
Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District III
Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation Stephen M. Siptroth, Deputy County Counsel
Pamela Miller, Executil·e Director-CALAFCO
Paul Eldredge, City Manager-City of Brentwood
Bryan Montgomery, City Manager-City of Oakley
Amy Worth, Chair-Metropolitan Transportation Commission
John Gioia, President-California State Association of Counties
Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Attachments:
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
Lisa Silverman, Office of Public School Construction
Mark Watts-Smith, Watts, Martinez
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative -Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/l4)
Record of Contra Costa County Comments Re: School Siting
3 AB32/SB375, The Complete Streets Act, Safe Routes to School concepts, Health in All Policies Initiative, and
Urban Limit Line/Urban Growth Boundary ordinances.
g:\transpm1ation\cunningham\mcmo-lctlCJ ,lcttcr\20 14'.apr22ndlcgislationl20 14school siting -csba.doc 68
69
70
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative – Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/14)
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. Related to this issue is the well-
known, often cited decline in K-12 walk/bike to school rates. 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 limited or no 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 comply those policies in their school siting and design decisions.
By statute, cities and counties have land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties cannot influence the selection
and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from this local 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 Dept of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & 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.”
71
Contact: 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 restrictions related to the extension of
municipal services 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 in this paper]
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] of facility development, 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 funds should be directed to modernization programs than to new construction7.
Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive, systematic effort to
reverse the well-known decline in K-12 walking/bike rates which would include the following:
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 areas9. 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 legislation10.
Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet
Common Core 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. Bike/ped safety awareness with driver training should also be included.
SR2S11 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.
The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on auto speeds: In an effort to understand the decline in K-12
walk/bike rates, this study would 1) document the change in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to
improvements in vehicle technology, and 2) document how that change in speed has impacted other road users.
The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes; they do not necessarily reflect adopted policy positions.
8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.
9 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.
10 801.608 “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
11 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.
72
Department of
Conservation &
Development
Contra
Costa
County
Catherine 0 . Kutsuris
Di recto r
Aruna Bhat
De puty Di rector
C ommunity Developmen t D ivision
Community Development Division
Co unty A dministrati on Buildin g
651 Pine S treet
No rt h Wing, Fourt h Floor
Marti nez, CA 94553-1 229
Phone:
925 335-1240
Fred Yeager, Assistant Director
California Department of Education
School Facilities Planning Division
1430 N Street, Suite 1201
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Mr. Yeager,
November 30, 2009
The Contra Costa County Conservation and Development, and Health Services Departments
appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the California Department of Education's
(CDE) "Vision and Guiding Principles for California Public School Facilities". We understand
these concepts will inform the siting of educational facilities, please consider that our two
Departments have much at stake in this effort. We are optimistic that the principles espoused in
the draft Vision, combined with recent state legislation, can help to usher in a new era of vibrant
communities bolstered by the presence of a critical neighborhood element, the public school.
The County is enthusiastically supportive of this effort and believes that the timing could not be
better given the recent passage of Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solwions Act of 2006,
Senate Bill 375 -2008 (SB 375) and the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Complete
Streets Act). As I am sure you are aware, SB 375 is intended to result in reduced vehicle use
through more compact development patterns. The Complete Streets Act requires cities and
counties to design roadways to accommodate all users including,·' ... pedestrians, hicyclists.
children ... ". Both of these statutes reflect goals that are both supportive of, and need the support
of, the concepts found in CDE's draft Vision and Guiding Principles.
We are excited that the California Department of Education (CDE) has the opportunity and
interest to concuJTently improve its own operations and support these vital state initiatives. The
CDE may also find collaborative opportunities within the State in conjunction with 1) the
California Department of Transportation which is currently rewriting their own policies to better
position the agency to implement SB 375 and the Complete Streets Act, and 2) the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research which is currently rewriting the State· s General Plan
Guidelines to, among other things, reflect the aforementioned legislation. W e hope there is an
interest to coordinate these s eparate but related activities.
Below we identify topics in the draft Vision and Principles where our two Count y Departments
have significant responsibilities and expertise. As Contra Costa County prepares to respond to
AB 32, SB 375 and the Complete Streets Act by updating local health and planning policy, we
73
\1r Fn 'd Yn"'''
N cn·crnhn < 0. ~ ()( l<J
believe there may be potential for collaboration with Local Education Agencies (LEAs). We are
interested if CDE shares a similar vien·.
While our two Departments only represent the County of Contra Costa, the duties and
responsibilities \VC describe below are replicated statewide through our peer agencies. We
therefore make the comments confident that the input has substantial validity outside our own
jurisdiction . The comments below are provided according to the draft Vi.1.·ion 's numbering
system.
# 3. Scife fro//1 existing and potential hazards and incompatible land uses.
The County maintains the General Plan which, among other things, is a compendium of policies
which ensure that growth and land development, including education facilities, proceed in an
optimal, safe and coherent manner. Our General Plan includes elements on land use, public
facilities, safety and noise to address existing and potential hazards and incompatible land uses.
While state law exempts LEAs from local land use regulations, County policies arc consistent
with Principle #3 and would encourage the state to provide incentives for LEAs to undertake
cooperative efforts with cities and counties to provide school facilities safe from existing and
potential hazards and incompatible land uses .
# 8. Sustainable and efficient in the use of energy and natural resources that optimize
construction and l!fe cycle costs, limit greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage walking and
bicycling.
State law now requires local agencies with land use authority, including the Contra Costa County
D e partment of Conservation and Development (DCD), to analyze greenhouse gas emissions as
part of any development project. Both DCD and the Contra Costa Health Services Department
(CCHS) play a s i g nificant role in planning for safe walking and bicycling. County policies and
regulations are consistent with Principle #8. We encourage the State to provide incentives for
LEAs to provide schools that are energy efficient, centrally located and well integrated with
existing and planned transportation facilities and services.
# 9. Supportive of student health, nutrition, and physical fitness.
Local land use and development policies which will eventually stem from SB 375 and the
Complete Streets A ct will be m eant to foster active living lifestyles. The CCHS Department has a
broad range of programs designed to address the childhood obesity epidemic. The Department
b elieves that school location is a critical element in e nsuring that children are s ufficiently active
and are excited at the possibility of having the CDE as a partner in this effort.
# 10. Derivedfrom an open. community-based. and comprehensive planning process including
all stakeho lders and early dialogue with all involved planning agencies.
State lmv requ ires cities and counties to conduct puhlic hearings on land use planning activities
and to broadly di sclose the infom1ation used in d ec ision making. We have found that our best
planning occurs when all interested stakeholders are involved early in the process. As a
stakeholder and a planning agency the County is particularly encouraged by t hi s principle.
1 I. A part of the jitfl spectrum of commrmizvj(lcilities that support opportunitiesforjoint-use and
eductlllOIW I partners/ups.
Page 2
74
\ 1r rr ,-d \' t':l"l'l"
'\in,c mher _\0. :2009
The CoL111Ly is in a unique position to coordinate joint use proj ec ts in that we maintain and
co nstru ct numerou s faciliti es , proces s land devel o pment applications ami are either direc tl y, or
indirectly in volved in a multitude of countywide planning e ffort s .
As CDE m oves into the next ph ase s o f there-visio nin g process Contra Co st a County would lik e
to vvork with CDE to further develop the followin g impl e m e ntation concepts:
• Work with the State Legislature to implement incentives for sc hool s iting to he consistent
'' ith nc\\ l"l.:gulations thJt arc intcnu cd lo come oul of the Rc -\'isioning process as\\ ell as
cons is t ent with local and regional plan s .
• Work with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, as th e y update th e General Plan
Guidelines, to develop a process which would respect the aforementioned forthcoming
reg ul ations and en s ure an ex pedited , mutually beneficial (for LEAs and local land u se
agencies) sc hool siting process.
Contra Costa County requests that we be kept apprised of the process the CDE is undertaking
sp ec ificall y to this Vis ion/Principles development process and more broadly to the process
defined in the 2008 Re-Visioning School Facilities Planning and Design for the 21 s t Century
Roundtable. The County also requests that a record of comments on this promi s ing effort be
published so that we may be kept informed of the input and views of other stakeholders.
A s we l ook ahead to th e eventual implementation of the Vision and Guiding Principles we hope
that the s pirit of the mission ofthe Cities, Co unties and Schools Partnership will prevail, that
ne\v CD E poli c ies will, " ... build and preserve communities by encouraging local collaborative
e.florts ... "
Pl ease Jet us know if we can be of any assistance with thi s effort, we look forward to a successful
working relationship in the future.
Catherine 0 . Kut suris, Director
D e partmen t of Conserv ation and Development
c. Board ol ~liJX:Pd~or-~
Scmlot \l~r~ Dt:S~u llllcJ i~' Di>ll i<.:l
Wendel Bnmner, MD, Director of Public H ealth
Health Services D e partm ent
Sena te Select l ·nmmmee on State School bc1htJcs cto Senator Abn I owcnthal -
27"' DIS!I ICI
~wtl Morgan . Govt:mor s ( llli.:c ol l'lannmg and RcS<'ilfCh
C.\ ntlu.t l3f)anl. Go\cmor'; Olli.:c of Pianntng and Rc'>c.tr<.:h
.I ulm Johnston Governor's Ollic e o r Pl annml! and Research
Clerk o r the l3 oard
( ·,ucs , l "ountJcs and Schools l'artnetshJp, do ( 'onmc A . !3usse
Cahl(unla School !3uard Assoc ta!Jon do Jamcc rncscn, D irect or -Rcg1ot1 7
Joan Solknhcrger. l "alirans -1 ranspo11a t1on Plannmg Manage r
l'AO
PJI C!IStall
Better lio,cmmcnt Urdmancc lilc
Page 3
75
Department of
Conservation &
Development
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Phone:
925-335-1201
November 26, 2008
Mary D. Nichols, Chair
Air Resources Board
(AB 32 Scoping Plan Comments)
1 00 l I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Honorable Chair Nichols,
Contra
Costa
County
Catherine 0. Kutsuris
Director
James Kennedy
Deputy Director
Redevelopment Division
Thomas J. Huggett, SE
Interim Deputy Director
Building Inspection Division
Contra Costa County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Proposed Scoping
Plan (PSP). The comments below focus on comments previously submitted by the County on the Draft Scoping
Plan in August 2008 (see enclosure). This letter provides a more comprehensive explanation of those
comments 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 our comments refer to existing policy or authorization as an implementation
mechanism. This should make the State's efforts more feasible and effective. Relying on existing mechanisms
typically reqnires only administrative action or an increase in enforcement or oversight rather than regulatory or
legislative action for entirely new programs (requiring yet again new enforcement/oversight protocols). This
shonld speed and make less costly the fulfillment ofthe goals of AB 32.
In addition to the efficiency represented by using existing mechanisms, 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 more likely to perfom1 as the PSP expects if the State demonstrates that the desired ontcomes 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 from 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: II. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: A. The Role of State Government: Setting an Example
The PSP cites 1 standards and directs that new State facilities be constructed 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 of a buildings total greenhouse gas
1 Draft Scoping Plan Appendix C: Page C-169 (LEED-NC Silver or Higher).
76
Chair Nichols
November 26, 2008
Page 2 of5
contribution2 . The LEED standards apply to a broad array of topics. In examining this broad
array, the criteria that address the (much larger) impact oftransportation to and fi'om a facility
are very simple.
The State should place a higher priority on compliance 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-46-0 I 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 armual reduction in the
number of commute trips be State employees. The Final Scoping Plan should direct the State
Goverrnnent Operation Subgroup to establish performance standards for complying with these
directives and require annual reports to monitor the progress of the 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
Scoping 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 relieffrom 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 storage/conveyance 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,
development pressures and travel behavior, all which, in tum, have an influence on greenhouse
gas emrsswns.
Consistent with the comments submitted by the Land Use Subgroup of the Climate Action Team
(LUSCAT), the Final Scoping Plan should include the following (and direct the State
Government Operations Subgroup to address):
an evaluation offacility siting standards for activities undertaken/regulated by the State
(schools4, 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).
2 Approximately 55% according to the draft Contra Costa County Municipal Climate Action Plan,
3 Chapter 1 016 -Statues of 2002,
4 Revision to the Government Code Section 65302 to include sites for school facilities as a required component of
the land use element of General Plans.
77
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 discussion 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 Environmental 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 rumual
budget the Governor must include information relating proposed expenditures to the
achievement of State planning priorities. The last EGPR prepared in 2003 recommended
formation of an Interagency Working Group to implement the EGPR, however, the Governor
never adopted the EGPR. The Final Scoping Plru1 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 existing 5 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 runong employers and advise cities and counties on conditions they should impose
on new development to expand the application of this statute on employers6
. 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 strategy also includes siting considerations.
Buildings that are sited close to public transportation or near mixed-use areas can work in
tandem with transportation related strategies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions that result
from that sector." 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 cettification (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.
5 AB 2109, KATZ-2002
6 For example, 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.
78
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 of the 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 would he required to meet the Collaborative
for High Performance Schools (CHPS) 2009 criteria" in the Draft Scoping Plan with the more
permissive phrase '"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 retum to the
stronger language or demonstrate how this lost opportunity is justified.
Altematively, without having to refer to the Collaborative for High Performance 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 compliance with the applicable sustainable communities
strategy; the State should reinstate the language which was in the Draft 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 the 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 suitable 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 Govemor has issued an Executive Order on climate change.
The State should be aware that Contra Costa County has, in its Delta Water Platfonn, actions that
support the goals of AB 32 and the Executive Order, both directly and indirectly. These actions
include:
79
Chair Nichols
November 26, 2008
Page 5 of 5
Support addressing the impacts of climate change in any proposed studies and
strategies, or in planning, engineering and constructing projects envisioned for the
Delta.
A key component is a concept entitled Regional Self-Sufficiency, where all regions
are required to implement a variety oflocal water supply options and institute
conservation and reuse programs to reduce reliance on exports from the Delta.
The State may 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 pumping 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 Subgroup 7 to work
with State agencies to create a statewide approach to meet the Scoping Plan's commitment to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum of30 percent by 2020 below the State's
estimated business-as-usual emissions. However, the description of the emission reduction
strategies in Appendix C contains no reference to the State Government 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
Government 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 govermnent 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 Curmingham of this office if you have any questions on these comments.
Sincerely
-h rs n· , o teven Goetz, !rector
Transportation Planning Section
c: J. Cunningham,
D. Dingman DCD
0:\Tram;portation\GHG\Final A.B32PSP Comments.doc
Enclosure
7 The PSP references to the State Government Subgroup and the State Operations Subgroup are interpreted to mean
the same subgroup.
80
General Comment
DRAFT SCOPING PLAN
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
August 1, 2008 (via ARB Website)
The web page for collecting comments on the Scoping Plan is difficult to use. The
organization of the web page does not appear to be consistent with the organization of the
document. It also makes it difficult to be a participant in this review if the State only
encourages submittal of comments electronically. Public outreach for the Scoping Plan
should be broader.
Transportation
The Sector Overview and Emission Reduction Strategies for Transportation include an
evaluation of rail strategies. This evaluation is limited to High Speed Rail, which is
contingent on voter approval of a state bond. The Scoping Plan should also evaluate the
cun·ent state intercity rail program as a rail strategy. Implementation and expansion of
intercity rail is not contingent on voter approval, but can be achieved thwugh better
coordination of existing state, regional and local transportation revenue available for this
purpose. 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 Regional Targets should be supported by the State Environmental Goals
and Policy Report (EGPR) and the 5-year infrastructure plan required by State law,
Chapter I 016 -Statutes of 2002. This coordination is mentioned in Appendix C, but
apparently such coordination is not acknowledged at this point as appropriate for
incorporation into the Scoping Plan. The recommendations of Appendix C regarding
development and maintenance of the EGPR and a 5-year infrastructure plan for the State
should be pulled into the Scoping Plan. Such coordination of plruming efforts was also
listed in the report of the Land Use Subgroup of the Climate Action Team (LUSCAT) as
an essential principle to the long-term vision for land use planning in Califomia.
The Scoping Plan on page 32 indicates that local governments have the ability to directly
influence both the siting and design of new residential and commercial developments in a
way that reduces greenhouse 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 independent of cities and counties under state law.
These independent entities construct facilities that create major destinations for a
community and can significantly affect green house gasses associated with energy, water..
waste, ru1d vehicle travel. The State can assist local government in meeting regional
tru·gets by ensuring that laws and regulations that support these special districts are
coordinated with the actions of local govemment.
Page 1 of 4
81
Substantial experience with development of school facilities under existing State law and
related regulations/programs warrants consideration the following changes, in
consultation with affected stakeholders:
• Revision to the Government Code Section 65302 to include sites for school facilities
as a required component of the land use element of General Plans.
• Evaluation of state school facility siting standards and regulations to ensme siting of
facilities in a GHG efficient mmmer (e.g. protect greenfields, minimize transportation
requirements, and preserve habitat and natural resources).
• Adoption of siting criteria by the State Allocation Board as a prerequisite for grant
funding or adoption of the criteria as a state requirement for any facility funding.
Please refer to the comments provided under the "State Government" sector for relevant
State actions. These State actions will help provide the state leadership and funding to
support the local government actions recommended by the Scoping Plan.
Green Buildings
The strategies for green building focus solely on the direct impact of structures on GHG
emissions. There should be some acknowledgement of the indirect impact on GHG
emissions by the provision of suppmi facilities such as parking and their function in the
community as a destination that generates vehicle trips. The Green Buildings sector of
the Scoping Plan can refer to specific strategies in the "Land Use and Local Government"
and "State Government" sectors of the Scoping 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 lm1d owner, the State should look at its standards for
lm1dscaping on its property and the ability to support urban forestry through the planting
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 standards, good movement measures, and the
low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Appendix C refers to a strategy for locating State facilities based on the State's pla1111ing
priorities as embodied in Chapter 1 016, Statues of 2002. Construction 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 on the land use policies, development pressures m1d travel behavior
at the local level. This law requires each Governor's Budget to include a 5-year
infi·astructure plat1. The Governor is also required to prepare m1d maintain the State
Environmental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR).
Page 2 of 4
82
The public outreach and educational component of the Scoping Plm1 needs to make these
documents more visible so the public can understand the sound environmental plam1ing
behind the capital facilities supported by each State budget. Has a greenhouse emission
reduction goal been included in the EGPR? Is the State measuring and tracking
compliance with this statute? Has preparation and maintenance of these documents been
acknowledged in applicable State administrative manuals? Should development of the
EGPR and the infrastructure plan be coordinated with the activities of the Governor's
Strategic Growth Council? Can a copy of the most recent infrastructure plan and EGPR
be made available for review by the public and local jurisdictions and other interested
stakeholders?
Future GHG reduction effmis for State facilities should be expm1ded to include a review
of the management of parking spaces owned or leased by the State. The Contra costa
County Climate Action Team is evaluating the feasibility of establishing a user fee for
parking spaces owned or leased by the County and allocating any surplus revenue to
incentives for use of commute alternatives. User fees would eliminate m1y subsidy that
may exist for motorists who do not pay for the cost ofthe parking they use. Any revenue
in excess of the cost to provide the parking could be used to provide improvements to
transit service or made available to employees to help pay for their commuting costs.
This strategy should be coordinated with potential future effmis listed under "employee
practices'' on page C-178, and other relevant state regulations such as Executive Order D-
73-8 which requires State agencies to implement a trm1spmiation management progrmn
designed to result in an annual reduction in the number of commute trips by State
employees.
The description of proposed measures to address "the State's Carbon Shadow", which
begins on C-179 needs more detail in the following areas:
• The State's stm1dards for the design of school and medical facilities currently
emphasize requirements for buildings and support facilities. Equal emphasis is
needed on requirements for site selection and the siting of these facilities in the
community to ensure convenient access by trm1sit, walking or bicycling. The criteria
used by the State for awarding funding for facility construction should place greater
weighting of facility siting in the community m1d transportation criteria. Some of
these recommendations were in the LUSCA T repmi 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 community design. The current requirements for fire
access roads are based on operation of a standard multi-purpose fire/pm·amedic
vehicle. These standards should encourage flexibility to allow the use of smaller
vehicles that are compatible with more pedestrian-oriented street construction.
• The Air Resources Board (ARB) needs to improve its administration of the parking
cash out program, Chapter 554, Statutes of 1992. This law requires ce1iain employers
who provide subsidized parking for their employees to offer a cash allowance in lieu
of a parking space. Parking cashout offers the oppmiunity to reduce GHG emissions
by reducing commute trips. The ARB is the agency authorized by the Legislature to
Page 3 of 4
83
interpret and administer the parking cash-out law. Their administrative efforts have
been limited to preparation of an infonnational guide to help employers determine
whether they are subject to the requirements of the law. This "self-implementing"
approach by the ARB has resulted in few employers offering a parking cash-out
program to their employees. As the appropriate regulatory authority, the ARB
should, in consultation with affected stakeholders. revise its administrative efforts to
increase pmiicipation among employers and advise cities and counties on conditions
they cm1 impose on new development to expa11d the application of this statute on
employers (e.g. require project sponsors to prepare CC&Rs 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)
g:\transportation\ghg\enclosure.doc
Page 4 of 4
84
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.
85
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.
86
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
87
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, I'' District
Candace Andersen, 2"d District
Mary N. Piepho, 3n1 District
Karen Mitchoff, 4'h District
Federal D. Glover, Sd' District
April22, 2014
The Honorable Marc Levine
1oth Assembly District
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2137
Sacramento, CA 94249-0010
Contra
Costa
County
Subject: Assembly Bill2398 (Levine) Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Dear Assembly Member Levine:
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports your bill AB 2398 which would
increase penalties for drivers who violate rules of the road, including violations involving
pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Board has a strong interest in improving safety throughout the transportation system, in
particular with regard to pedestrian and bicycle access to K-12 schools. Attached please find the
County's draft white paper, the School Siting and Safety Initiative that we are using to advocate
for improved school siting and design policies with the state. In addition to broader positive
impacts on safety, your bill would also specifically improve safety at and around school sites as
described in the attached paper.
We respectfully request that you consider supporting two other pieces of legislation which, taken
together with your bill, could be seen as an effective road safety/vulnerable road user legislative
program:
Senate Bill1151 (Cannella) Vehicles: School Zone Fines: This bill would increase fines for
specific vehicle code violations if the violation occurred in the vicinity of a school
building/grounds. The County has gone on record as supporting the bill and has requested an
amendment to increase the effectiveness of the proposal. The requested amendment is that 1) the
prescriptive school zone dimensions in the current code should be increased to 1320' [from
500'/1000'] and, 2) local agencies should be given the discretion to further expand the zone
based on local knowledge of attendance boundaries, travel patterns, etc. as established in a traffic
study.
Assembly Bill1532 (Gatto) Vehicle Accidents: This bill that would increase penalties for
drivers that leave the scene of an accident.
88
If you, or your staff, have any questions about our support position please contact me or John
Cunningham, Principal Planner, (925)674-7833 or atjohn.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us.
Sincerely,
Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District IV
C: Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation
Kevin Romick, Chair, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Amy Worth, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
L. DeLaney, Interim Senior Deputy County Administrator, CAO
Mark Watts-Smith, Watts, Martinez
Attachment:
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative-Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/14)
g :\transpm1ation \cunningham\memo-lettet Jettet ,2 0! 4\apr22ndlegislation \cccounty-positionab2398-vehicles-peds-b'kes20 14 .doc 89
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative – Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/14)
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. Related to this issue is the well-
known, often cited decline in K-12 walk/bike to school rates. 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 limited or no 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 comply those policies in their school siting and design decisions.
By statute, cities and counties have land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties cannot influence the selection
and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from this local 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 Dept of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & 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.”
90
Contact: 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 restrictions related to the extension of
municipal services 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 in this paper]
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] of facility development, 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 funds should be directed to modernization programs than to new construction7.
Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive, systematic effort to
reverse the well-known decline in K-12 walking/bike rates which would include the following:
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 areas9. 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 legislation10.
Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet
Common Core 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. Bike/ped safety awareness with driver training should also be included.
SR2S11 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.
The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on auto speeds: In an effort to understand the decline in K-12
walk/bike rates, this study would 1) document the change in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to
improvements in vehicle technology, and 2) document how that change in speed has impacted other road users.
The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes; they do not necessarily reflect adopted policy positions.
8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.
9 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.
10 801.608 “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
11 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.
91
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room I 06
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1" District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3m District
Karen Mitchoff, 41h District
Federal D. Glover, S'h District
April 22 , 2014
The Honorable Michael Gatto
43rd Assembly District
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0043
Subject: Assembly Bill1532: Vehicle Accidents
Dear Assembly Member Gatto:
Contra
Costa
County
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports your bill, SB 1532 that would increase
penalties for drivers that leave the scene of an accident.
The Board has a strong interest in improving safety throughout the transportation system, in
particular with regard to pedestrian and bicycle access to K-12 schools. Attached please find the
County's draft white paper, the School Siting and Safety Initiative, which we are using to
advocate for improved school siting and design policies with the state. In addition to broader
positive impacts on safety, your bill would also indirectly help to improve safety at and around
school sites as described in the attached paper.
We respectfully request that you consider supporting two other pieces of legislation which, taken
together with your bill, could be seen as an effective road safety/vulnerable road user legislative
program:
Senate Bill1151 (Cannella) Vehicles: School Zone Fines: This bill would increase fines for
specific vehicle code violations ifthe violation occurred in the vicinity of a school
building/ grounds. The County has gone on record as supporting the bill and has requested an
amendment to increase the effectiveness of the proposal. The requested amendment is that 1) the
prescriptive school zone dimensions in the current code should be increased to 1320' [from
500'/1000'] and, 2) local agencies should be given the discretion to further expand the zone
based on local knowledge of attendance boundaries, travel patterns, etc. as established in a traffic
study.
Assembly Bill2398 (Levine) Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: a bill that would provide
for increased penalties for drivers who violate rules of the road, including violations involving
pedestrians and bicyclists.
92
Thank you for authoring this important legislation. If you, or your staff, have any questions about
our support position or our proposed amendment please contact me or John Cunningham,
Principal Planner, (925)674-7833 or at john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us.
Sincerely,
Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District IV
C: Contm Costa County State Legislative Delegation
Kevin Romick, Chair, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Amy Worth, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
L. DeLaney, Interim Senior Deputy County Administrator, CAO
Mark Watts -Smith, Watts, Martinez
Attachment:
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative-Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/14)
g:\transportation \cunningham\memo-letter ,Jette:· ,20: 4\apr22m'legislation \cccounty-positionab 15 32vehicle accidents.doc 93
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative – Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/14)
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. Related to this issue is the well-
known, often cited decline in K-12 walk/bike to school rates. 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 limited or no 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 comply those policies in their school siting and design decisions.
By statute, cities and counties have land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties cannot influence the selection
and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from this local 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 Dept of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & 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.”
94
Contact: 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 restrictions related to the extension of
municipal services 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 in this paper]
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] of facility development, 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 funds should be directed to modernization programs than to new construction7.
Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive, systematic effort to
reverse the well-known decline in K-12 walking/bike rates which would include the following:
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 areas9. 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 legislation10.
Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet
Common Core 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. Bike/ped safety awareness with driver training should also be included.
SR2S11 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.
The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on auto speeds: In an effort to understand the decline in K-12
walk/bike rates, this study would 1) document the change in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to
improvements in vehicle technology, and 2) document how that change in speed has impacted other road users.
The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes; they do not necessarily reflect adopted policy positions.
8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.
9 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.
10 801.608 “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
11 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.
95
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Builaing
651 Pine Street, Room 1 06
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 181 District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3n1 District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5~1 District
April22, 2014
The Honorable Joan Buchanan
16th Assembly District
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0016
Contra
Costa
County
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
Subject: School Siting Reform & Assembly Bill2235 the Kindergarten-University Public
Educatipn Facilities Bond Act of 2014
Dear Assembly Member Buchanan:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is writing to make you aware of our concerns
regarding State school siting policies. In short, the County has witnessed a gap between
school siting and design practices and local/state goals related to safe routes to school, public
health, land development, and greenhouse gas reduction. We are aware that you have
authored Assembly Bill2235 the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of
2014, and we hope that this bill will be an opportunity to address this gap. We have attached
prior communication with Tom Torlakson, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction,
which goes into greater detail regarding our concerns on ·this issue.
The County is encouraged by Superintendent Torlakson' s acknowledgement of these issues
in his recent reports and also by the California Department of Education's commitment to
work with the California State Assocj.ation of Counties in identifying new policy solutio~.
96
The Honorable Joan Buchanan
April22, 2014
Page2 o£2
We look forward to discussing how schooJ. siting issues can be addressed in AB 2235. It is
our understanding that staff is now working to set up a meeting. Please find attached the
County's draft white paper that we have been using in our outreach efforts, the California
School Siting and Safety Initiative which contains a discussion of potential policy changes.
If you, or your staff, have any questions about this inatter please contact me or John
Cunningham, Principal Planner, (925)674-7833 or at john.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us.
Sincerely,
Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District III
C:
Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation
Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
John Gioia, President-California State Association of Counties c/o Kiana Buss
Amy Worth, Chair-Metropolitan Transportation Commission c/o Rebecca Long
Mark Watts-Smith, Watts, Martinez
Attachments:
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative -Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/14)
5/8/12 Letter from Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to Superintendent Tom Torlakson
97
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative – Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/14)
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. Related to this issue is the well-
known, often cited decline in K-12 walk/bike to school rates. 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 limited or no 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 comply those policies in their school siting and design decisions.
By statute, cities and counties have land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties cannot influence the selection
and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from this local 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 Dept of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & 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.”
98
Contact: 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 restrictions related to the extension of
municipal services 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 in this paper]
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] of facility development, 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 funds should be directed to modernization programs than to new construction7.
Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive, systematic effort to
reverse the well-known decline in K-12 walking/bike rates which would include the following:
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 areas9. 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 legislation10.
Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet
Common Core 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. Bike/ped safety awareness with driver training should also be included.
SR2S11 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.
The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on auto speeds: In an effort to understand the decline in K-12
walk/bike rates, this study would 1) document the change in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to
improvements in vehicle technology, and 2) document how that change in speed has impacted other road users.
The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes; they do not necessarily reflect adopted policy positions.
8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.
9 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.
10 801.608 “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
11 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.
99
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
65 I Pine Street, Room I 06
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, Jm District
Gayle B. Uilkema, 2"'1 Di strict
Mary N. Piepho , 3'<~ District
Karen l\1itchoff, 41h District
Federal D. Glover, 51h District
May 8, 2012
Tom Torlakson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Schools of the Future Report
Dear Superi ~n:
Contra
Costa
County
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
On behalf of the entire Board of Supervisors I am writing to congratulate you on the release
of the Schools of the Future Report last year. The Board of Supervisors is particularly
pleased with the recommendations regarding the development of more effective of school
siting practices. The Report echoes a number of the County's comments and concerns over
the years regarding the conflict between the State's school siting policies and safe routes to
school programs, SB 375 requirements, the Strategic Growth Council's Health in All Policies
initiative, complete streets initiatives, and state and local planning policies.
As you may be aware, Contra Costa County has experienced conflicts between local land use
authorities and school districts as both entities grapple with the rapid growth in demand for
school capacity, safe transportation facilities and adequate housing . The Report includes a
number of encouraging recommendations that will hopefully mark the beginning of a change
in the manner in which schools, which potentially act as the anchor of great communities, are
developed.
The County understands that a dialog to discuss the implementation of the recommendations in the
Report will begin this summer. Considering our experience and interest in this issue, we look
forward to participating in these forums. In the interest of having a complete dialog and productive
outcome we are hopeful that participation by a broad range of affected parties is fostered.
We close with an encouraging goal from the California Strategic Growth Council's Health in
All Policies initiative, Every California resident has the option to safely walk, bicycle, or
take public transit to school, work, and essential destinations.
100
Schools of the Future Report Letter
May 8, 2012
Page 2 of2
Again, congratulations on your Schools of the Future Report, we look forward to working
with you on implementation efforts in the near future.
"epho, Chair
ontra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District III
C: Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation
Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Chair, CA State Senate Education Cmte.
Hon. Julia Brownley, Chair, CA State Assembly Cmte. on Education
Dr. Wendel Brunner, MD, Director of Public Health, Contra Costa County
Catherine Kutsuris , Director, CC Cnty. Dept. of Conservation & Development
Julie Bueren, Director, CC Cnty. Public Works Dept.
s:'.cunni nghm n bos may2012cd~?·tt -s chcr o l s iting .cl oc
Don Tatzin, Chair, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Mark Luce, President, Association of Bay Area Govenunents
Jolm Gioia, Chair, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
R. Chapman, MD, Director, CA Depat1ment of Public Health
Heather Fargo, SGC, Health in All Policies Task Force
DeAnn Baker, CA State Association of Counties
101
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1" District
Candace Andersen, 2"d District
Mary N. Piepho, 3n1 District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5'h District
April22, 2014
The Honorable Anthony Cannella
12th Senate District
State Capitol, Room 3048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contra
Costa
County
Subject: Senate Bill1151: Vehicles: School Zone Fines
Dear Senator Cannella:
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports your bill, SB 1151 which increases
fines for specific vehicle code violations ifthe violation occurred in the vicinity of a school
building or grounds. The Board is also requesting that you consider amending the bill to increase
the effectiveness of SB 1151.
Currently, the vehicle code limits the ability of local jurisdictions to define the school zone (and
thus the proposed increased fine zone) to just 500' and 1000'. These limits are not reflective of
typical pedestrian & bicycle access patterns at K-12 schools. The attendance boundaries and
access patterns for these facilities typically span a much greater distance than the 500'/1000'
which is afforded protection under current statute.
The Board of Supervisors is respectfully requesting that your bill be amended such that 1) the
prescriptive figures in the current code be increased to 1320' and 2) local agencies are provided
discretion to further expand the school zone based on local knowledge of attendance boundaries,
travel patterns, etc., as established in a traffic study.
The Board has a strong interest in improving safety throughout the transportation system, in
particular with regard to pedestrian and bicycle access to K-12 schools. Attached please find the
County's draft white paper, the School Siting and Safety Initiative, that we are using to advocate
for improved school siting and design policies with the state. In addition to broader positive
impacts on safety, your bill would also specifically improve safety at and around school sites as
described in the attached paper.
We respectfully request that you consider supporting two other pieces of legislation which, taken
together with your bill, could be seen as an effective road safety/vulnerable road user legislative
program:
102
Assembly Bill1532 (Gatto) Vehicle Accidents: This bill that would increase penalties for
drivers that leave the scene of an accident.
Assembly Bill2398 (Levine) Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists: a bill that would provide
for increased penalties for drivers who violate rules of the road, including violations involving
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Thank you for authoring this important legislation and for your consideration of our suggested
amendment. If you, or your staff, have any questions about our support positian or our proposed
amendment please contact me or John Cunningham, Principal Planner, (925)674-7833 or at
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us.
Sincerely,
Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District IV
C: Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation
Kevin Romick, Chair, Contra Costa Transportation Authonty
Amy Worth, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
L. DeLaney, Interim Senior Deputy County Administrator, CAO
Mark Watts-Smith, Watts, Martinez
Attachment
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative -Contra Costa County (rev: 417/14)
g:\transportation\cunningham\memo-lettet ,letter\20 14\apr22ndlegislation\cccounty-positionsb 1151-schoolzonefines.doc 103
DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative – Contra Costa County (rev: 4/7/14)
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. Related to this issue is the well-
known, often cited decline in K-12 walk/bike to school rates. 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 limited or no 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 comply those policies in their school siting and design decisions.
By statute, cities and counties have land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties cannot influence the selection
and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from this local 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 Dept of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & 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.”
104
Contact: 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 restrictions related to the extension of
municipal services 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 in this paper]
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] of facility development, 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 funds should be directed to modernization programs than to new construction7.
Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive, systematic effort to
reverse the well-known decline in K-12 walking/bike rates which would include the following:
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 areas9. 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 legislation10.
Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet
Common Core 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. Bike/ped safety awareness with driver training should also be included.
SR2S11 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.
The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on auto speeds: In an effort to understand the decline in K-12
walk/bike rates, this study would 1) document the change in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to
improvements in vehicle technology, and 2) document how that change in speed has impacted other road users.
The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes; they do not necessarily reflect adopted policy positions.
8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.
9 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.
10 801.608 “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
11 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.
105
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
The GROW AMERICA Act
Transportation is a critical engine of the Nation’s economy. Investments in the national transportation
network over the country’s history, and especially the last half-century, have been instrumental in
developing the world’s largest economy and most mobile society. However, before the end of this
summer the Highway Trust Fund – which funds a significant portion of the of the construction and repair
of our surface transportation system – will be insolvent and just a few weeks later the authorities that
establish our surface transportation programs will expire. Without action, many States and
communities may be forced to slow or stop work on critical transportation projects that our Nation
depends upon to move people, energy, and freight every day, putting jobs at risk and slowing
investment in our future.
The Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding
of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America Act, or GROW AMERICA Act, is a $302 billion,
four year transportation reauthorization proposal that provides increased and stable funding for our
Nation’s highways, bridges, transit, and rail systems. The Administration’s proposal is funded by
supplementing current revenues with $150 billion in one-time transition revenue from pro-growth
business tax reform. This will prevent Trust Fund insolvency for four years and increase investments to
meet national economic goals.
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide States and local governments with the certainty needed to
effectively plan and start construction on projects that will support millions of good paying jobs over the
next several years. It will also enable more transformative transportation projects that will improve the
Nation’s global competitiveness and mobility in communities across the country.
The GROW AMERICA Act will increase transportation investment to support the needs of our Nation’s
communities. The GROW AMERICA Act will provide critical investments to fix our decaying roads and
crumbling bridges and ensure the safety of our transportation systems. Sixty five percent of America’s
major roads are rated in less than good condition, while one in four bridges require significant repair or
cannot handle today’s traffic and 45 percent of Americans do not have access to transit. These
programs will help communities keep pace with our expanding economy, our growing population, and
the traveling needs of the public.
Specifically, the GROW AMERICA Act will provide –
• $199 billion to invest in our nation’s highway system and road safety. The proposal will increase the
amount of highway funds by an average of about 22 percent above FY 2014 enacted levels,
emphasizing “Fix-it-First” policies and reforms that prioritize investments for much needed repairs
and improvements to the safety of our roads and transit services, with particular attention to
106
investments in rural and tribal areas. The proposal would also provide more than $7 billion for the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to
improve safety for all users of our highways and roads, providing a benefit of $21 for every Federal
dollar used for infrastructure-related safety investments.
• $72 billion to invest in transit systems and expand transportation options. The proposal increases
average transit spending by nearly 70 percent above FY 2014 enacted levels, which will enable the
expansion of new projects that improve connectivity (e.g., light rail, street cars, bus rapid transit,
etc.) in suburbs, fast-growing cities, small towns, and rural communities, while still maintaining
existing transit systems. The GROW AMERICA Act proposes a powerful, $5.1 billion increase in
investments to address public transit’s maintenance backlog to reduce bus and rail system
breakdowns; create more reliable service; and stop delays that make it harder for all commuters to
get to work. The proposal also includes the innovative Rapid Growth Area Transit Program, which
would provide $2 billion over four years to fast growing communities for bus rapid transit and other
multimodal solutions to get ahead of the challenges caused by rapid growth.
• Tools and resources to encourage regional coordination and local decision making. The proposal
includes policy reforms to incentivize improved regional coordination by Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), which are local communities’ main voice in transportation planning. The
GROW AMERICA Act also strengthens local decision making in allocating Federal funding so that
local communities can better realize their vision for improved mobility. High-performing large MPOs
will be granted control of a larger portion of funds under two federal transportation programs – the
Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) – and
these MPOs will also receive funds through a set aside under the new Fixing and Accelerating
Surface Transportation (FAST) program.
The GROW AMERICA Act will expand economic growth, and create jobs and new opportunities for
Americans. The President is dedicated to enhancing opportunity for all Americans and US businesses by
investing in transportation projects that better connect communities to centers of employment,
education, and other critical services. The GROW AMERICA Act will –
• Support ladders of opportunity to the middle class. Today, 45 percent of Americans lack access to
public transportation, limiting the options of many Americans to jobs, education and other
necessities. The GROW AMERICA Act will provide improved access to safer and less expensive
transportation options for millions of Americans in part by investing $72 billion in public
transportation and expanding transportation options for millions of Americans. This proposal
includes $2 billion for an innovative Rapid Growth Area Transit Program to provide new bus rapid
transit and other multimodal solutions for rapidly growing regions. The GROW AMERICA Act
includes $245 million for workforce development to enhance the size, diversity, and skills of our
Nation’s construction and transportation workforce through collaborative partnerships with the U.S.
Department of Labor, States, and non-governmental organizations.
• Provide $10 billion for a multi-modal freight program that strengthens America’s exports and
trade. The U.S. transportation system moves more than 52 million tons worth nearly $46 billion
107
each day, or almost 40 tons of freight per person per year, and freight tonnage is expected to
increase 62 percent by 2040. The GROW AMERICA Act will help improve the operation of our
transportation system to move freight while making critical investments to accommodate this future
growth in part through providing $10 billion over four year to establish a new multimodal freight
grant program to fund innovative rail, highway, and port projects that will improve the efficient
movement of goods across the country. The GROW AMERICA Act will also give shippers and
transportation providers a real seat at the table for making investment decisions and incentivizes
States to collaborate and establish long term freight strategic plans.
• Provide $19 billion in dedicated funding for rail programs. The proposal also includes nearly $5 of
billion annually for high performance and passenger rail programs with a focus on improving the
connections between key regional city pairs and high traffic corridors throughout the country.
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide more bang-for-the-buck through innovative project finance and
delivery improvements. In a time of tight fiscal and budgetary constraints, the President’s proposal
includes a number of measures to ensure that the American public is getting most out of Federal
transportation infrastructure investments that lead to better outcomes for all Americans.
The GROW AMERICA Act will -
• Utilize competitive funding to spur innovation. The proposal will provide $5 billion over four years -
an increase of more than 100 percent - for the highly successfully TIGER competitive grant program
and $4 billion embedded in the highway and transit requests for a competitive grant program called
Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transportation (or "FAST"). Modeled after the Department of
Education’s Race to the Top program, FAST will award States, Tribes, and MPOs that adopt bold,
innovative strategies and best practices in transportation that would have long-term impact on all
projects across the transportation programs.
• Improve project delivery and the Federal permitting and regulatory review process. The GROW
AMERICA Act will build on recent efforts to expedite project approval timelines while delivering
better outcomes for communities and the environment. The proposal expands on a series of
successful efforts by the Administration to expedite high priority projects and identify best practices
to guide future efforts without undermining bedrock environmental laws or public engagement.
Not only will important projects break ground faster, but the increased level of transparency and
accountability will lead to delivering better environmental outcomes, as the proposal will improve
interagency coordination by advancing concurrent, rather than sequential, project reviews and will
improve transparency of project reviews and timelines through online “dashboards.” It will also
increase flexibility for recipients to use Federal transportation funds to support environmental
reviews, and help to integrate overlapping requirements.
• Incentivize cost effective investments. The proposal will strengthen the performance incentives to
maintain safety and conditions of good repair, and expand research and technology activities in
order to improve the productivity of our transportation systems, thereby increasing taxpayer return
on investment.
108
• Provide $4 billion to attract private investment in transportation infrastructure. The Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program leverages Federal dollars by facilitating
private participation in transportation projects and encouraging innovative financing mechanisms
that help advance projects more quickly. The GROW AMERICA Act calls for $4 billion in funding
over four years, which is estimated to support $40 billion in loans. The GROW America Act will
strengthen the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) financing Program by
reducing the cost of obtaining a loan, making RRIF more accessible to short line and regional
railroads. The proposal will raise the cap of Private Activity Bonds (PABs) to $19 billion, making room
for more projects considering a public-private partnership approach to be able to take advantage of
this cost-saving tool.
The Administration proposes to fund the GROW AMERICA Act through a pro-growth, business tax
reform, without adding to the deficit. The President’s Budget outlined a proposal to dedicate $150
billion in one-time transition revenue from pro-growth business tax reform to address the funding crisis
facing surface transportation programs and increase infrastructure investment. This amount is sufficient
to not only fill the current funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund, but increase surface transportation
investment over current authorized levels by nearly $90 billion over the next four years. When taking
into account existing funding for surface transportation, this plan will result in a total of $302 billion
being invested over four years putting people back to work modernizing our transportation
infrastructure. The Administration believes that a comprehensive approach to reforming our business
taxes can help create jobs and spur investment, while ensuring a fairer and more equitable tax system
that eliminates current loopholes that reward companies for moving profits overseas and allow them to
avoid paying their fair share. The Administration is putting forward this pro-growth financing plan to
encourage bipartisan efforts to support a visionary infrastructure plan, but is open to all ideas for how to
achieve this important objective, and will work closely with Members of Congress of both parties on a
solution that will invest in more job creating transportation projects.
109
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Supporting a Healthy Environment
The GROW AMERICA Act protects the environment, helps cut carbon pollution by increasing the
efficiency of the transportation system and building a 21st Century transportation sector, and
encourages transportation choices that eases congestion on the Nation’s highways and improves the
quality of life for communities.
• Transportation is responsible for more than 70 percent of petroleum consumption in the U.S.
• An estimated 142.2 million Americans live in places where the levels of one or more air pollutants
exceed national air quality standards, threatening public health.
• While progress has been made in providing transportation options in a wider array of communities,
including rural communities, 55 percent of Americans still have no access to any form of public
transportation.
To address these critical issues, the GROW AMERICA Act will:
• Increase transit funding by 70 percent, to expand systems, mitigate congestion, and improve air
quality while enabling more Americans to save hard-earned dollars that would otherwise be spent
on gas. A family that uses public transit instead of driving lowers their carbon emission footprint by
30 percent on average.
• Invest $19 billion over four years to improve rail
infrastructure, including enhancing the nation’s
intercity rail network, which will improve air
quality and reduce congestion between
megaregions by getting cars off the road.
• Establish a $1 billion Fixing and Accelerating
Surface Transportation (FAST) grants program that
will incentivize jurisdictions to adopt bold,
innovative strategies and best practices in
transportation, including measures that better align transportation, land-use and economic
decisions, and those that reduce energy use, improve air and water quality, and reduce carbon
pollution.
• Make $1.25 billion a year available for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery (TIGER) competitive grant program to support game-changing investments across multiple
modes of transportation. TIGER can support a range of projects that support a more efficient
transportation system, reduce carbon pollution, and benefit the environment.
• Support development of future efficiency standards for cars and trucks – including the next round of
standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, which the President has directed DOT and EPA to
complete by 2016.
110
• Help communities meet and maintain air quality standards through improvements to the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program by aggressively targeting fine-particle
air pollution and smog-forming emissions that can have the greatest health impacts.
• Create a new program to support construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of large, nationally
significant transportation infrastructure within or accessing federal or tribal lands, including national
parks and forests.
• Support increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road by 2015 by easing installation of
electric charging stations along America's highway rest areas and making it easier for government
agencies to offer electric vehicle charging services for employees.
• Require state and regional long range transportation plans take into account the need to reduce
risks from extreme weather events and create more resilient infrastructure.
• Expand eligibility for certain Federal Highway Administration funds to include activities that support
green stormwater infrastructure activities – including a range of systems that help intercept and
store stormwater to improve water quality, enhance road safety, and reduce water treatment
energy use. The GROW AMERICA Act will also add consideration of stormwater issues in statewide
and metropolitan planning.
The GROW America Act is consistent with the President’s Climate Action Plan and builds on the
Administration’s previous efforts to address climate change and support clean energy innovation,
including historic investments in advanced vehicle and fuel technologies, public transit, and rail under
the Recovery Act, as well as the ambitious new fuel economy standards put into place for cars and
trucks, which the Administration has worked to develop since 2009 in collaboration with industry. The
Administration finalized the first-ever fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for
model years 2014-18, which will save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs
and save a projected 530 million barrels of oil, and put in place standards for cars and light duty vehicles
through 2025, which are already saving vehicle owners at the gas pump and will roughly double fuel
economy by the end of the program.
111
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Promoting Innovative
Infrastructure Financing
The GROW AMERICA Act will expand and improve financing mechanisms to increase funding for
game-changing projects, thereby creating jobs, improving the economy and improving the quality of life
for community residents. The Act will establish new discretionary grant programs to carry out critical
reforms and strengthen DOT’s ability to partner with state, local and private partners to invest in
nationally- and regionally-significant transportation projects.
The GROW AMERICA Act will enhance credit programs. The GROW AMERICA Act will support existing
financing tools that leverage funds for infrastructure projects:
• Expanding Financing Options Under TIFIA. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA) program leverages federal dollars by facilitating private participation in transportation
projects and encouraging innovative financing mechanisms that help advance projects more quickly.
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide $4 billion over four years that could support $40 billion in
loans. The bill also makes it easier for smaller projects to use TIFIA.
• Strengthen the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. RRIF lends to
public and private entities that own or operate railroads. The GROW AMERICA Act will strengthen
RRIF by reducing the cost of obtaining a loan, making RRIF more accessible, a vital tool for short line
and regional railroads.
• Increasing the Availability of Private Activity Bonds (PABs). PABs allow private entities to issue tax-
exempt bonds for certain highway and freight projects, thereby helping put private sector
developers on a level playing field with the public sector developers for certain activities. PABs’
popularity with private sector developers is putting increased pressure on PABs’ current nationwide
$15 billion cap. The GROW AMERICA Act will raise the cap to $19 billion, making room for new
projects currently considering a public-private partnership approach to be able to take advantage of
this cost-saving tool.
The GROW AMERICA Act will cut red tape. The GROW AMERICA Act will implement measures to
reduce the amount of time it takes to break ground on a transportation project. The GROW AMERICA
Act will bolster efforts to expedite review timelines by increasing transparency and accountability
measures and improving interagency coordination through concurrent review of projects while
improving outcomes for our communities and protecting the integrity of the environment. A new
interagency infrastructure permitting improvement center established by the GROW AMERICA Act will
further advance and institutionalize these reforms to project delivery.
The GROW AMERICA Act will keep TIGER roaring. The
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
(TIGER) grant program, has allowed DOT to support critical
road, rail, transit, port, and multimodal projects. Since 2009,
the Department has awarded more than $3.5 billion to help
112
fund projects that address regional or national transportation needs. The Grow America Act will
provide $5 billion over four years for TIGER grants. The TIGER program has been successful in leveraging
private dollars. The competitive nature of the program encourages collaboration in search of matching
funds. Every dollar invested by the TIGER program has been matched by almost two dollars in state,
local or private funding. Broad eligibilities allow the program to fund complex multimodal and
multijurisdictional projects that are difficult to fund using traditional formula funds. TIGER funding can
also be used as the credit subsidy to support a TIFIA loan. Over the past five rounds, $150 million in
TIGER funding has supported seven TIFIA loans totaling over $2 billion in value, resulting in more than
$7.3 billion in total infrastructure investment.
The GROW AMERICA Act incentivizes innovation. The GROW AMERICA Act includes a new four-year,
$4 billion competitive grant program, Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transportation (FAST). Modeled
after the Department of Education’s Race to the Top program, this program would award states, tribes,
and MPOs that adopt bold, innovative strategies and best practices in transportation that would have
long-term impact on all projects across the transportation programs.
Innovative Financing in Practice
The Department is committed to working with State and local partners to employ innovative finance
where appropriate. Under TIFIA, for example, many surface transportation projects - highway, transit,
railroad, intermodal freight, and port access - are eligible for assistance. Each dollar of Federal funds can
provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit assistance - and leverage $30 in transportation infrastructure
investment. One example of an innovative partnership involved DOT’s work with the Denver Regional
Transportation District’s FasTracks initiative.
The Eagle Public Private Partnership Project is part of Denver Regional Transportation District’s FasTracks initiative, a voter-approved program
to expand rail and bus transit throughout the Denver metropolitan region that leverage a $280 million TIFIA loan with Private Activity Bonds,
FTA New Starts funding and combinations of local revenue and proceeds to break ground.
113
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Investing in our Freight System
to Grow the American Economy
The GROW AMERICA Act will make critical investments to help improve the safe and efficient
movement of freight across all modes of transportation - highway, rail, port, and pipeline. The
nation’s 117 million households and 7.4 million businesses are part of an enormous economy that
demands the efficient movement of freight for their livelihoods. Without new investment, supply chains
degrade, hindering job growth and harming retailers, manufacturers, and the millions of American
consumers who need their goods to be transported efficiently and affordably.
• The U.S. transportation system moves more than 52 million tons of goods worth nearly $46 billion
each day, or almost 40 tons of freight per person per year. Freight tonnage is expected to increase
by 62 percent by 2040, requiring additional capacity to our highways, railroads, ports, and pipelines
and improvements to multi-modal connections that move freight efficiently and keep our economy
growing.
• By 2040, it is estimated that the nation’s system will be required to haul an additional 12 billion tons
of freight around the country.
• Freight transportation is an important part of our economy, with over 44 million jobs directly
dependent on freight transportation.
114
The GROW AMERICA Act provides $10 billion over four years for targeted investments in the nation’s
transportation system that will improve the movement of freight. This $10 billion will be limited to
transportation projects that clearly contribute to improving freight transportation.
• Despite its importance to the economy, freight investments are disadvantaged in the current
transportation planning process. These projects face competition from non-freight projects for
public funds and community support, a lack of coordination among various government entities and
private sector stakeholders, and limited availability of public funds to address the key freight
chokepoints where those actors individually have less of an incentive to invest.
The GROW AMERICA Act will give shippers, transportation providers, and freight workers a real seat
at the table for making investment decisions. The $10 billion grant program will be awarded for
projects identified by states, communities, and ports working in collaboration with shippers, truckers,
maritime providers, railroads, and other transportation stakeholders to identify infrastructure projects
that serve a public and immediate need to improve the safe and efficient movement of freight.
The GROW AMERICA Act will better align planning among the Federal government, states, ports, and
local communities to improve decision-making. The GROW AMERICA Act incentivizes States to
collaborate and establish long term freight strategic plans that will help inform a National Freight
Strategic Plan by the U.S. Department of Transportation that will serve as the basis for how the
Department can best support the needs of shippers, consumers, ports, communities, states, and
transportation providers.
• States that pursue comprehensive and sound planning involving multimodal stakeholders to
improve freight mobility will be rewarded with direct formula funding to support game-changing
freight investments. States that go the next step and coordinate with their neighboring States to
improve critical multistate freight corridors will be rewarded with additional funds to support those
investments. Funds not apportioned directly to States through this process will be used for
multimodal discretionary competitions to support projects that hold the greatest promise to
eliminate freight bottlenecks and improve critical freight movements.
• Failing to make these investments could imperil future growth. One study estimates that roadway
congestion delays cost shippers approximately $10 billion per year.
• The American Society of Civil Engineers found that the economy could lose almost $1 trillion in
business sales and lose 3.5 million jobs annually beginning in 2020 if we fail to build our
infrastructure to keep pace with this growth.
“The increasing congestion within the freight transportation system poses a threat to the efficient
flow of the nation’s goods and has strained the system in some locations. Moreover, recent growth in
international trade has placed even greater pressures on ports, border crossings, and distribution
hubs—key links in the freight transportation system. Congestion delays that significantly constrain
freight mobility in these areas could result in serious economic implications for the nation.”
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, Freight Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve
Freight Mobility; GAO-08-287, p. 1
The GROW AMERICA Act will help improve the U.S.’s long-term competitiveness by taking steps to
achieve President Obama’s call to reduce the time it takes to break ground on a new transportation
project. In many cases, it can take years to break ground on planned projects that improve
infrastructure critical to advancing our nation’s competitive edge. These projects are essential to
sustaining a lasting economy built in part by having fast and reliable movements of freight.
115
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Making Critical Investments
in Highway and Bridge Infrastructure
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide a larger, more reliable funding stream for highways and bridges,
recognizing the essential role that such infrastructure plays in providing access and linking our
communities. The nation’s 4 million miles of public roadways carry approximately 3 trillion vehicle miles
of travel each year. As the U.S. population grows, so too does the strain on our existing highway and
bridge infrastructure. Highways and bridges face an $808.2 billion backlog of investment needs,
including $479.1 billion in critical repair work. And while our nation’s bridges are safe, 11 percent of
them are classified as structurally deficient and another 14 percent are not designed for the traffic they
currently carry.
In order to address these challenges, states and
localities need to be able to depend on long-term,
dedicated, and reliable federal funding. The
GROW AMERICA Act will provide a strong
investment in aging highways and bridges across
the nation, to ensure that they are safe, reliable
and well maintained. Specifically, the Act will:
• Provide states and localities with four years of
reliable, dedicated funding, including $199
billion over four years for the Federal-aid highway program –
$9 billion more per year than under current law; and
• Support nearly 2.6 million job years of employment.
The GROW AMERICA Act will direct significant resources to the
National Highway System (NHS). While the 220,000-mile-long
NHS constitutes just 5.5 percent of the nation’s road mileage, it
carries 55 percent of all vehicle traffic and 97 percent of truck-borne freight. Today we are not keeping
pace with the need for investment on NHS highway and bridges. Therefore, the Act will:
• Provide $92.1 billion over four years in funding for the National Highway Performance Program to
repair and reduce traffic congestion on the NHS; and
• Provide $13.4 billion of investment through a new element of the President’s Fix-it-First initiative:
the Critical Immediate Investments Program. Half of these funds will be used to improve the
pavement condition of NHS routes, and a quarter will be directed to improve structurally deficient
Interstate bridges.
Together, these programs will dramatically reduce the existing NHS bridge backlog, enable upgrades to
increasingly overburdened highway surfaces, and allow states to add roadway capacity to help alleviate
traffic congestion on this critical highway network.
116
The GROW AMERICA Act will direct significant resources to improving roadway safety on all public
roads, including locally owned public roads and roads on tribal land. In 2012, 34,080 people died on the
nation’s highways, a five percent increase over 2011, representing a serious public health problem.
Furthermore, the financial burden associated with highway crashes is estimated to be at least $230
billion per year. In response, the Act will:
• Provide $10.1 billion over four years for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). This level
of HSIP funding will make lasting safety improvements over the next decade, saving lives and
reducing roadway fatalities and injuries for years to come; and
• Provide a benefit of $21 for every federal dollar used for infrastructure-related safety investments.
The GROW AMERICA Act will build on the recent efforts to cut red tape and implement measures to
reduce the amount of time it takes to break ground on a transportation project. The GROW AMERICA
Act will bolster efforts to expedite review timelines by increasing transparency and accountability
measures and improving interagency coordination through concurrent review of projects, while
improving outcomes for communities and the environment. Among a range of other factors, the
environmental, historic review and permitting processes can at times delay the completion of a surface
transportation project. Specifically, the Act will:
• Improve transparency and accountability (and institutionalize best practices from Administration
successes) by establishing an online system to report the status of environmental reviews and a new
interagency center to spearhead the federal government’s efforts at permitting reform;
• Increase flexibility for recipients to help speed environmental reviews by using their federal
transportation dollars to fund liaisons at other agencies;
• Promote early and substantive engagement among agencies during the review process; and
• Eliminate duplicative and unnecessary requirements, such as the different and overlapping historical
preservation processes under the National Historic Preservation Act and the preservation of historic
sites known as, “Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act”. Similarly, by eliminating a
layer of review for certain historic sites, buildings, and bridges that are subject to review under
other mechanisms, the Act will allow agencies to avoid spending resources to reach the same
conclusion multiple times for the same projects.
117
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Building Ladders of Opportunity
to the Middle Class
The GROW AMERICA Act will build ladders of opportunity to help Americans get to the middle class by
providing transportation options that are more affordable and reliable and by improving their quality of
life through greater access to education and new job opportunities, including jobs in the transportation
industry.
Transportation and economic opportunity and mobility are deeply interconnected:
• Transportation costs. Transportation is second to housing as the largest expense for American
households, costing more than food, clothing, and health care.
• Transportation Options. Households with annual incomes of less than $25,000 are seven times less
likely to have a car compared to higher income households.
• Job accessibility. Unreliable, infrequent bus service and streets with unsafe sidewalks or crosswalks
interfere with reaching jobs and other destinations.
To address these issues, the GROW AMERICA Act will provide millions of Americans with access to
safer and less expensive transportation options. Forty-five percent of Americans don’t have access to
118
public transportation. The GROW AMERICA Act will invest $72 billion in public transportation programs
and expand transportation options:
• Provides $2.2 billion to help rapidly-growing communities invest in new bus rapid transit lines;
• Supports $11 billion for Capital Investment Grants for new and expanded public transportation
service; and
• Offers $5 billion per year in additional funds to fix aging bus and rail infrastructure for better and
more reliable transit service.
The GROW AMERICA Act will help focus transportation planning on providing jobs and economic
opportunity. Ten communities will take part in a $70 million pilot program to develop better practices
to connect neighborhoods to jobs, education, and other opportunities. DOT will use the lessons learned
from this pilot program and share these best practices across the country to encourage transportation
investments that improve community connectivity.
The GROW AMERICA Act will allow more Americans to join and prosper in the transportation and
infrastructure workforce. The bill will provide $245 million over four years for workforce development
to support and enhance the size, diversity, and skills of our nation’s construction and transportation
workforce through collaborative partnerships with the U.S. Department of Labor, States, and non-
governmental organizations. It also creates an incentive grant program for States that utilize their
federal on-the-job training funds effectively.
• Transportation accounts for 11 million jobs nationwide, and transportation-related employment
accounts for about 8.7 percent of civilian workers in the United States.
• Every $1 billion in public infrastructure spending creates 13,000 jobs.
The GROW AMERICA Act will enhance communities and improve safety by:
• Providing $5 billion over four years for the TIGER Grant program. This program has allowed the
Department to support innovative multimodal, port, rail, safety and streetscape projects that have
been difficult to address through traditional funding programs. The TIGER program empowers local
decision makers to direct safety investments that make sense for their communities.
• The bill will incentivize Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) - the regional agencies that help
plan infrastructure investments - to become more effective, rewarding high performing MPOs with
control of a higher portion of funds under three federal transportation programs, the Surface
Transportation Program, the Transportation Alternatives Program, and a new Metropolitan Mobility
Program, a portion of the Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transportation (FAST) Program.
• Requiring state planners to consider the needs and safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists
and transit users when planning highways; low-income workers are more dependent on these
methods to reach their jobs. The bill will also require states that have high numbers of pedestrian
and bicycle fatalities to spend more of their safety funds to address safety for these groups.
• Giving priority to veterans in transportation research, commercial truck driver training, and
workforce development programs.
119
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Providing Critical Growth
for Surface Transportation in America
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide critical investment to fix our decaying roads and crumbling
bridges. Currently we are not keeping pace with our growing economy, our growing population, and the
traveling needs of the public.
• 65 percent of America’s major roads are not in good condition. One in four bridges need significant
repair or cannot handle today’s traffic. 45
percent of Americans do not have access to
transit.
• By 2020, the Highway Trust Fund’s
purchasing power will have dropped by
nearly half since 1990, at a time when the
country’s population will have increased 30
percent.
• Bringing existing transit assets up to a state
of good repair will require an annualized
investment level of $18.5 billion through the
year 2030.
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide needed investment to keep pace with our growing population
and needs. Modern surface transportation reauthorization laws have grown the program by
approximately 40 percent compared to the prior law in order to keep pace with the growing needs of
120
the transportation network. The GROW AMERICA Act will provide $302 billion over four years, an
increase of approximately 37 percent over the last transportation reauthorization law.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NEED CERTAINTY
The certainty of multi-year funding is critical for major State and local projects, and the GROW
AMERICA Act will provide the commitment to a better quality of life and job growth. Short-term
funding undermines the ability of State and local leaders to move forward with sizeable and meaningful
projects to improve communities. State and local leaders will only commit to major transportation
projects if there is a commitment to long term funds due to the time and cost involved in deploying such
projects. Shorter –term bills only encourage States to tackle maintenance projects. While fixing
potholes is critical, our economy will fall behind if we do not invest in fixing our major transportation
assets and building new projects.
“State DOTs rely on the predictability of federal funding to produce long-range
transportation plans and to plan for major projects. Surface transportation
reauthorization that only provide funding for one or two years and short-term fixes
for the HTF prevent State DOTs from being able to properly plan for transportation
projects that span multiple years. These types of projects often have a significant
impact on the efficient movement of freight.”
– Mark Gottlieb, Secretary, Wisconsin DOT, appearing before the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee – February 27, 2014
THE U.S. NEEDS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT KEEPS PACE WITH OUR ECONOMY
“Governments that fail to maintain and invest sufficiently in new infrastructure undermine
their economic bases and potential growth, in our view. It is also our opinion that deferral of
capital needs poses credit risk in the long-term, similar to the way increasing pension
liabilities become a credit weakness if an entity defers pension contributions or the pension
actuarial liability funded status is significantly underfunded.”
– Standard and Poor’s, U.S. Public Finance: Short-Term Savings on Infrastructure Spending Could Prove to
be Short Sighted, September 2013
A PLAN THAT’S PAID FOR
The GROW AMERICA Act will provide much needed investments without adding a penny to the
deficit. The GROW AMERICA Act will dedicate $150 billion in one-time transitional revenue from pro-
growth business tax reform to pay for these critical transportation improvements. This amount is
sufficient to not only fill the current funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund, but increase surface
transportation trust fund investment over current projected levels by $87 billion over the next four
years. This plan will result in a total of $302 billion being invested over four years putting people back to
work and modernizing our transportation infrastructure.
The GROW AMERICA Act will help grow the economy. If Congress fails to address the current crisis, the
economy could lose almost $1 trillion in business sales, resulting in a loss of 3.5 million jobs annually
beginning in 2020, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. If current trends are not
reversed, the cumulative cost to the U.S. economy from 2012–2020 will be more than $3.1 trillion in
GDP and $1.1 trillion in total trade, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.
121
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Empowering
Local Decision Makers
The GROW AMERICA Act will empower regional and local communities to make transportation
investments that support their vital role in America’s economy and quality of life.
• Three-quarters of U.S. gross domestic product is generated from within metropolitan areas, 65
percent of the population calls these areas home, and 95 percent of all public transportation
passenger miles traveled take place in metropolitan areas.
Yet mayors and other local leaders struggle to assemble the funding to achieve their visions for the
transportation investments to help them grow their economies and improve residents’ quality of life.
Just eight percent of our federal highway dollars are now controlled by regional and local interests, and,
while States certainly provide funding for local projects, additional authority over resources at the local
level would help officials make the transportation investments central to their success.
“Our metropolitan areas rank high among world economies, but they are saddled with bus and rail
systems at capacity and aging roads and bridges that will undermine their ability to meet the nation’s
future economic output. Given these factors, metropolitan areas should be at the center of federal
transportation infrastructure investment. They are the drivers of the 21st Century United States
economy." -US Conference of Mayors CEO Tom Cochran
The GROW AMERICA Act will reward effective and representative Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPOs) with additional funding.
High-Performing large MPOs will be granted control of a larger portion of funds under two federal
transportation programs – the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Transportation
Alternatives Program (TAP) – and these MPOs will also receive funds through a set aside under the new
Fixing and Accelerating Surface
Transportation (FAST) program.
The Grow America Act defines
High-Performing MPOs as those
that coordinate well with other
MPOs in the region, consider
performance goals as part of their
planning, have equitable
approaches to decision making,
and demonstrate high technical
capacity.
The GROW AMERICA Act will
provide $5 billion in funding over
four years for the Transportation
Investment Generating Economic
Recovery (TIGER) grant program.
122
The TIGER grant program will be available for another four years, extending a proven track record of
helping metropolitan regions to coordinate innovative, multi-modal transportation projects that serve
the diverse travel and goods movement needs of their residents and businesses in the 21st Century.
The GROW AMERICA Act will also empower local communities by:
• Ensuring the public and interested parties can participate early in the development of transportation
plans and alternative development scenarios;
• Creating a pilot program to help MPOs determine how to better connect neighborhoods to jobs,
education, and other opportunities;
• Requiring the adoption of performance-based decision-making to ensure that regional priorities
drive investment decisions; and
• Implementing measures to greatly reduce the amount of time it takes to break ground on a
transportation project.
Building on Success
Effective MPOs have succeeded in leading their many member jurisdictions to
consensus in truly visionary transportation plans. For example, Nashville’s MPO
responded to local residents’ desire for more transportation options with an
innovative 25-year plan that incorporates new considerations into the project
selection processes, with 60 percent of selection criteria related to health, safety,
congestion reduction, and active transportation, resulting in 70 percent of funded
roadway projects including facilities for sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or shared-use lanes
(up from 2 percent). In 2012 the plan won a FHWA Transportation Planning Excellence
Award.
123
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Delivering Transportation Projects
More Efficiently And Quickly
The GROW AMERICA Act builds on the recent efforts to implement the President’s stated
commitment to reduce project review and approval timelines for major infrastructure projects while
delivering better outcomes for communities and the environment. The Act builds on a series of
successful efforts by the Administration to expedite high priority projects and identify best practices to
guide future efforts without undermining bedrock environmental laws or public engagement.
A range of factors can contribute to delays in infrastructure projects – most often lack of funding,
project complexity or a lack of community support. Through the Administration’s infrastructure
permitting work, we’ve also identified a number of best practices that can help deliver projects in a
more timely manner by improving the federal permitting process. These include:
• Concurrent, rather than sequential, agency review processes to reduce delays;
• Avoiding duplicative processes that include unnecessary steps to help eliminate costly paperwork
exercises; and
• Early collaboration between permitting agencies and the project applicant about the project’s scope
to avoid repetition of review steps;
The various Federal, state, tribal, and local permitting and review processes can also be confusing for
the general public and elected officials who want to know how a project is progressing.
The President has challenged us to “to significantly reduce the aggregate time required by the Federal
Government to make decisions in the review and permitting of infrastructure projects, while improving
environmental and community outcomes.” –May 17, 2013
The GROW AMERICA Act provides solutions to expedite Federal permits and reviews and deliver
projects more quickly and put Americans back to work building our nation’s critical transportation
infrastructure, all without undermining the critical protections provided to our nation’s important
environmental and historic resources. The Act:
• Improves transparency and accountability and institutionalizes best practices from Administration
successes. The Act directs the establishment of an online reporting system to show the progress of
environmental reviews and permitting on transportation projects under environmental review. This
project “Dashboard” reporting system has already been used successfully to provide daily clarity to
the public on the status and schedule for each project’s review and which agency is responsible in
each step along the way. The Act will establish a new interagency center to spearhead the federal
government’s permitting reform efforts by further developing and institutionalizing these process
efficiency efforts in each agency’s everyday business practices.
• Increases flexibility to support reviews. Many state transportation agencies use federal highway
funds to support liaisons at other agencies to help speed environmental reviews. The Act will
extend this authority to the rest of DOT’s programs. Agencies that are large funding recipients, such
124
as the Los Angeles Metro, or the Chicago Transit Authority, will be able to enlist dedicated staff at
Federal resource agencies, ensuring efficient and high-quality environmental reviews that lead to
speedier decisions.
• Promotes early and substantive engagement among agencies during the review process. Complex
infrastructure projects can involve many different Federal agencies, each with their own statutory
responsibilities. Through on-the-ground experience, we’ve learned that early interagency
collaboration can maximize permitting efficiencies and avoid delays by spotting issues early and
incentivizing concurrent agency reviews.
The GROW AMERICA Act promotes transparent
and clear permitting and eliminates duplicative
and unnecessary requirements:
• Providing transparency. The GROW
AMERICA Act provides for greater
transparency in the deliberations on permits
and other Federal reviews for transportation
infrastructure. It requires an on-line
platform to make publically available the
status and progress with respect to
compliance with applicable requirements.
This builds on efforts underway to expand the use of the Federal dashboard displaying the status
and progress in expediting the Federal decisions necessary to advance major infrastructure projects.
• Providing clarity to the permitting process. The GROW AMERICA Act provides for greater clarity in
the deliberations on bridge permits between U.S. DOT and the U.S. Coast Guard. It requires the
Coast Guard to consider land-based transportation needs and the full costs of a bridge replacement
when recommending alternatives to avoid unreasonable obstruction of the waterway. This improves
the predictability of the bridge permitting process and provides a more comprehensive accounting
of a proposed bridge project’s impacts and benefits. This reform builds on earlier agreements
between the Coast Guard and the U.S. DOT to improve cooperation and ensure that bridge permit
reviews are concurrent, rather than sequential.
• The National Historic Preservation Act and the preservation of historic sites known as “Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act” include two different, often overlapping historical
preservation processes. By eliminating the overlapping review for certain sites, buildings, and
bridges that are subject to review under other mechanisms, the GROW AMERICA Act will allow
agencies to avoid spending resources to reach the same conclusion multiple times for the same
projects, all while maintaining necessary protections of historic sites.
These duplicative requirements meant that in Chicago, for instance, agencies planning to reconstruct
the 100-year old Wilson Station along the elevated Red Line to allow for transfers, accommodate
passengers with disabilities, and include modern amenities, had to conduct an extensively documented
evaluation of whether a feasible alternative to renovation existed – something that would otherwise
never have been considered.
Building 21st Century infrastructure rapidly and affordably while safeguarding our communities and
the environment is an important component of President Obama’s effort to strengthen our nation’s
economy, create new jobs, and improve U.S. competitiveness in the global market. These provisions of
the GROW AMERICA Act help achieve that vision.
PROJECT DELIVERY SUCCESS
The Tappan Zee Bridge, a critical Hudson River
crossing north of New York City, carries
approximately 138,000 vehicles per day between
Westchester and Rockland counties north of New
York City. Replacement of this 60-year-old Bridge
will improve mobility and make travel safer on
one of the east coast’s busiest routes. Through
early engagement and aligning processes, both
strategies encouraged in the GROW AMERICA
Act, Federal agencies completed the permitting
and review in 1.5 years for a process that
normally takes 3-5 years.
125
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Investing in Rural America
The GROW AMERICA Act will strengthen America’s rural communities, expand access to markets and
improve the safety of rural roadways to ensure that rural families and businesses continue to fuel the
nation’s economy. America’s rural communities are the critical linkage in the nation’s multimodal
transportation network. From manufacturing to farming, freight logistics to energy production and
more, rural America is home to many of the nation’s most critical infrastructure assets including 444,000
bridges, 2.98 million miles of roadways, 30,500 miles of interstate highways. In 2012, roadway users
recorded 976.6 billion vehicle miles travelled on rural roads.
SAFETY ON RURAL ROADS
The GROW AMERICA Act will prioritize project dollars to improve safety on high risk rural corridors.
Maintaining the safest transportation system for all users has been, and remains the Department of
Transportation’s top priority. Safety is an especially
critical focus on the nation’s rural roadways where 18,170
fatalities occurred just in 2012 alone, representing 54.3
percent of total traffic fatalities nationwide despite
handling 32.7 percent of vehicle miles travelled.
• While strong efforts to address safety challenges on
rural roadways has brought about significant
reductions in the number of rural fatalities, from
25,735 in 2002, there remains much work to do in
reducing today’s still unacceptably high number of
lives lost.
FIX-IT-FIRST
The GROW AMERICA Act includes policies and reforms to prioritize investments for much needed
repairs and to improve the safety of highways, bridges and bus services, with particular attention to
improving roads and bridges in rural and tribal areas.
• Unless these needs are addressed, the public will experience more rural roadways filled with pot
holes; growing freight inefficiencies blocking farms and manufacturing in rural communities from
their markets; increased safety risks; and more structurally deficient bridges unable to shoulder
heavier trucks or passenger vehicles.
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT
The GROW AMERICA Act will increase deployment of broadband in rural areas by providing states
adhering to best practices with the flexibility to use funding from the National Highway Performance
Program and the Surface Transportation Program for the installation of broadband corridors on Federal-
aid highway projects in unserved or underserved areas of the country. The GROW AMERICA Act will
126
also foster better coordination between stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels to expand the
use of highway rights-of-way to accommodate broadband infrastructure.
• Broadband access is essential to the Nation's global competitiveness. Today, many communities
across the country still lack adequate access to broadband while others require facility upgrades to
accommodate growing traffic volumes.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR RURAL AREAS
The GROW AMERICA Act includes a $245 million in workforce development grants over four years to
support and enhance the size, diversity, and skills of our nation’s transportation workforce. The
GROW AMERICA Act develops a pathway to help returning veterans and other workers in rural areas
acquire the skills they need to pursue available jobs and careers by:
• Requiring state DOTs to develop transportation workforce plans that identify immediate and
anticipated demographic and workforce gaps;
• Strengthening collaboration between transportation agencies, employers, and workforce programs
to ensure effective workforce development;
• Promoting the use of registered apprenticeship and job training programs;
• Strengthening accountability for states to ensure that skilled workers have access to long-term
employment opportunities;
• Creating an incentive grant program for states that effectively use their on-the-job training funds;
and
• Providing grants to universities to support cross-modal transportation education, research,
and technology transfer.
FEDERAL LANDS AND TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
The GROW AMERICA Act will improve the Federal Lands Transportation Program to achieve a
strategic, high-use transportation system on roads that directly access federal lands. The GROW
AMERICA Act will establish a Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects program to provide
needed funds for the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of large transportation
infrastructure within or accessing federal or tribal lands. Reforms included within the GROW AMERICA
Act will help overcome the current challenge where the high cost of these major projects cannot be
accommodated within the existing Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs.
FREIGHT NETWORK INVESTMENTS
The GROW AMERICA Act provides $10 billion over four years for targeted investments in the Nation’s
transportation system that will improve the movement of freight. This $10 billion will only be made
available for transportation projects that clearly contribute to improving freight transportation.
Despite its importance to the economy, freight investments are disadvantaged in the current
transportation planning system. These challenges include competition from non-freight projects for
public funds and community support, lack of coordination among various government entities and
127
private sector stakeholders, and limited availability of public funds available for freight-specific projects.
Transportation projects in rural areas are likely recipients for these funds given the critical freight
corridors, both truck and rail, that traverse and connect rural communities.
TIGER GRANT PROGRAM
The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant program
will be expanded in the GROW AMERICA Act to include $5 billion in funding for TIGER grants over four
years, and requires at least 20 percent of grant funds be awarded to projects in rural areas.
The GROW AMERICA Act makes this competitive grant program permanent, building on past successes
that have allowed the Department to support innovative multimodal projects that have been difficult to
address through traditional funding programs.
• The TIGER program often funds rural projects that would otherwise not receive funding. In the first
five rounds of the TIGER program, DOT has awarded nearly $650 million of TIGER grants for 100
projects in rural communities across nearly every State. For example, in the first five years of its
existence, the TIGER program has funded:
• Prichard Intermodal Facility, West Virginia: The West Virginia Ports Authority is using TIGER funds
to construct a new intermodal terminal—from the Port of Hampton Roads to Columbus, Ohio--
along Norfolk Southern’s Heartland Corridor near Prichard, WV. Moving this container traffic to and
from the Port is critical as the closest intermodal facility to the project site is currently over 120
miles away. Ultimately, the project will expand transportation options for shippers in central
Appalachia, reducing costs for transporting goods in this rural community. Fewer long-haul truck
trips may also result from completion of the new terminal, which improves environmental and
safety conditions.
• Highway 92 Roadway Improvement and Bridge Replacement, Arkansas:-TIGER funds will also be
used to resurface a section of Highway 92 and replace two weight-restricted bridges along a section
in north central Arkansas covering Conway, Van Buren, and Cleburne Counties. Traffic along the
project corridor has increased significantly over the last few years. Improving this corridor and
removing the restrictions for use will increase future economic efficiency, growth, and stability in
the region. Returning this route to its original condition will reduce associated long-term operations
and maintenance costs as these improvements will provide a reliable and efficient transportation
system for the natural gas, timber, and agricultural industries in the region.
• Martin Memorial Bridge Replacement, Maine: TIGER funds are being used to replace the
structurally deficient Martin Memorial Bridge running over the Androscoggin River on route 232 in
Richmond, Maine. The current bridge, built in 1955, has a capacity of 26 tons, well below the state
requirement of 45 tons. This prevents large trucks from using it, requiring a detour of 10-12 miles to
cross the river. The area is an important trade link for lumber and paper, and the bridge is essential
for the economic vitality of the region.
128
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Making Critical Investments
in Public Transportation
The GROW AMERICA Act will prioritize public transit, recognizing its leading role in providing access to
jobs and opportunity for millions of Americans, spurring economic development in communities across
the country and reducing carbon emissions while making the air we breathe cleaner. Public
transportation carried more than 10.5 billion passengers in 2013. Every day, transit takes people to
work, school, medical appointments, grocery shopping, and to countless special events—providing a
lifeline to those who do not want or cannot afford a car. Public transit offers a valuable alternative for
those seeking to reduce demands on their family budget – or to reduce time lost sitting in congestion.
As the nation’s population and transit ridership continue to rise, so too does the strain on our public
transportation infrastructure. The GROW AMERICA Act will provide a strong investment in our public
transportation network – not just in our cities and suburbs, but in rural communities too – to ensure
that it is safe, reliable, and accessible.
The GROW AMERICA Act will commit more than $72 billion over four years to address the urgent
transit challenges facing urban, suburban and rural communities. The GROW America Act represents a
nearly 70 percent increase in authorized funding over the prior transportation law, MAP-21. This bold
vision is needed to keep America’s economy growing and creating jobs, to help us remain competitive
with the rest of the world, and to create a brighter future for generations to come.
129
“We have a very old system, some of which has operated far beyond its useful life. We have an extensive
list of needs and many projects ready to begin, but cannot proceed with the work without adequate
funding.”
– Joe Casey, General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
The GROW AMERICA Act proposes a powerful, $5.1 billion increase in Fix-it-First investments to
address public transit’s maintenance backlog. Unless these needs are addressed, the transit riding
public could experience more bus and rail system breakdowns; less reliable service; increased safety
risks; and delays making it harder for all commuters to get to work.
• Public transit faces an $86 billion backlog in critical infrastructure maintenance and repair needs – a
backlog that increases by an estimated $2.5 billion each year as bus and rail infrastructure continues
to age.
As the U.S. population continues growing, both highway congestion and air quality in rapidly growing
regions are at risk of getting worse. By the year 2050, the U.S. population is expected to grow by more
than 100 million people, further straining public transportation infrastructure and putting pressure on
the fastest-growing communities ill-equipped to accommodate such growth.
• The Grow America Act proposes the Rapid Growth Area Transit Program, an innovative, four-year
$2 billion investment that would help fast growing communities invest in bus rapid transit and other
multimodal solutions to get ahead of the challenges caused by rapid growth.
Public transportation supports nearly two million jobs across the country. The transit industry is an
economic engine that keeps Americans at work and domestic manufacturing buzzing.
• An estimated 13,000 jobs are supported by every $1 billion invested in public infrastructure.
• In 2012, U.S. transit systems operated approximately 120,000 transit vehicles and 12,438 miles of
track and served 3,175 stations – with the fingerprint of the American workforce on almost all of it
because of stringent domestic manufacturing requirements.
• Transformational transportation projects attract economic development in rural and urban
communities. For example, the Dallas region is home to more miles of light rail than any other city
in North America and has attracted more than $7 billion in economic activity. In the Phoenix area,
transit has spurred more than $7 billion in economic activity, while the first rural bus rapid transit
line in the U.S. - the VelociRFTA in Colorado’s Roaring Fork Valley – has accelerated the development
of new hotel and office space.
• According to a study by the National Association of Realtors and the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA), during the last recession, residential property values performed nearly 42
percent better on average when located near high-frequency public transportation.
“I believe that mass transit is a necessary investment and a core function of federal, state and local
governments. Managed properly, mass transit investment is a very wise use of public money as it will
reduce the need for expensive roads and highways, increase mobility, promote economic growth and
commerce and improve air quality and the quality of life in communities that adopt transit systems.”
– Greg Hughes, Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Utah Transit Authority; House Republican
Majority Whip, Utah House of Representatives, appearing before the U.S. House of Representatives,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - December 11, 2013
130
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Improving Transportation Safety
The GROW AMERICA Act will take critical steps to safeguard the traveling public. The GROW AMERICA
Act addresses unacceptable safety vulnerabilities on our transportation network – vulnerabilities that
pose a potential threat to the health and welfare of all American workers and families.
• In 2012, vehicle crashes killed 33,561 Americans and injured more than 2.3 million people. Motor
vehicle crashes remain one of the leading causes of death in the U.S.
• In addition to the toll on victims’ family and friends, a 2005 analysis found that crash deaths resulted
in $41 billion in medical and work loss costs.
• Automobile defects generate hundreds of investigations each year, but delay in disclosing defects
and initiating recalls have cost lives.
• Pedestrian and bicycle deaths have risen in recent years and accounted for 16 percent of the total
fatalities on U.S. roadways in 2012.
• While public transit remains one of the safest modes of
travel in the U.S, high-profile rail transit fatalities over the
last several years, including in Washington, D.C., Chicago,
and Boston, indicate a need to focus on transit safety.
The GROW AMERICA Act will expand authority to protect the
public from automobile defects. The GROW AMERICA Act will
strengthen safety regulators’ ability to hold automobile
manufacturers accountable for defects that can cost lives.
Specifically, the Act:
• Establishes harsher penalties for manufacturers that refuse to address defective and dangerous
parts that endanger the public;
• Provides the authority to require manufacturers to expeditiously remove automobiles from the
market when a defect is first discovered; and
• Provides the authority to require rental car companies to participate in recalls of defective and
unsafe vehicles.
The GROW AMERICA Act will improve safety on our nation’s roads, rails, and transit systems: The Act
provides more than $7 billion over four years for the Department’s highway safety modes to improve
safety for all system users, and additional funding through the Federal Highway Administration to make
capital improvements to advance safety. The Act:
• Sets funding for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) at $10.1 billion over 4 years. This
program helps engineers identify hazards and prevent the next crash, and this level of HSIP funding
“Once every 15 minutes, a person is
killed in a motor vehicle crash. In 2012
more than 33,000 people died and
over two million more were injured on
our roads. Motor vehicle crashes
remain the leading cause of death for
youth and young adults between the
ages of five and 24. We can and must
do more.”
-Georges Benjamin, American
Public Health Association
131
will make lasting safety improvements over the next decade, saving lives of drivers and other road
users for years to come;
• Encourages states to enact laws that promote greater use of motorcycle helmets;
• Provides $3.6 billion to improve safety on local rural roads with too many deadly crashes;
• Improves laws intended to prevent drunk driving, including ignition interlock and open container
laws;
• Promotes graduated licensing requirements to help new teen drivers adjust to being on the road;
• Authorizes the Department to close unsafe bridges when state or tribal officials fail to do so;
• Strengthens the Department’s safety authority by increasing civil and criminal penalties and
establishing emergency authority to restrict or prohibit an unsafe condition or practice on transit
systems;
• Provides $2.35 billion to assist with the implementation of Positive Train Control on commuter rail
to prevent collisions. The Act also strengthen its authority to regulate hours of service to prevent
fatigue among rail employees; and
• Includes “Fix-it-First” policies and reforms to prioritize investments for much needed repairs and to
improve the safety of highways and bridges, subways and bus services, with particular attention to
improving roads and bridges in rural and tribal areas.
The GROW AMERICA Act will improve truck and bus safety. Truck- and bus-related crashes are on the
rise, killing 3,921 truck and car drivers and passengers in 2012. The GROW AMERICA Act will take steps
to improve truck and bus safety by:
• Streamlining the federal truck- and bus-safety grant programs to provide more flexibility for States
to take fast action to address regional and evolving truck- and bus-safety issues; and
• Improving safety through stricter standards for vehicle operators and more rigorous inspections.
The GROW AMERICA Act will improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public-transit users.
Walking and bicycling are essential components of the transportation network, especially to reach public
transportation connections. The GROW AMERICA Act will help make walking and bicycling a safer part
of the trip by:
• Requiring states to consider the needs and safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and
transit users when planning transportation projects;
• Broadening federal support and funding for many non-motorized transportation projects by
increasing the eligibility and local control of the Transportation Alternatives Program; and
• Targeting state transportation dollars on investments that improve safety on roads with high
numbers of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities.
132
INVEST IN AMERICA ◊ COMMIT TO THE FUTURE
GROW AMERICA Act:
Creating a Pathway to
Transportation Careers
The GROW AMERICA Act will create jobs and take significant steps to strengthen our nation’s
transportation workforce by preparing the next generation of transportation workers. Our nation’s
transportation system depends on a skilled and qualified workforce equipped with a broader range of
skills than in the past.
• Transportation accounts for 11 million jobs, and transportation-related employment accounts for
about 8.7 percent of civilian workers in the United States.
• Every $1 billion in public infrastructure spending creates 13,000 jobs.
• Studies indicate that 50 percent of the transportation workforce will be eligible to retire in the next
10 years— double the retirement rate of the nation’s entire workforce.
• Currently, women and minorities are underrepresented in transportation construction employment.
In 2008, African Americans comprised only 6 percent of the industry, and women comprised only 3
percent.
• Currently, 6 percent of the 21.3 million veterans in this country are unemployed, compared to 6.7
percent of nonveterans, often with experience and training that could help them transition into
good paying transportation jobs.
The GROW AMERICA Act includes $245
million in workforce development grants over
four years to support and enhance the size,
diversity, and skills of our nation’s
transportation workforce. The GROW
AMERICA Act develops a pathway to help
disadvantaged workers acquire the skills they
need to pursue available jobs and careers by:
• Strengthening collaboration between
transportation agencies, employers, and
workforce programs to ensure effective workforce development;
• Promoting the use of registered apprenticeship and job training programs;
• Creating an incentive grant program for states that effectively use their on-the-job training funds;
• Having state DOTs develop transportation workforce plans that identify immediate and anticipated
demographic and workforce gaps to ensure that future training helps create a diverse workforce
with the right mix of skills;
133
• Providing grants to universities to support cross-modal transportation education, research,
and technology transfer; and
• Giving priority to veterans in transportation research, commercial truck driver training, and
workforce development programs.
Presently, the U.S. Department of Transportation provides over
$51 billion in surface transportation construction funding each
year to build our nation’s highways, bridges, and public
transportation systems. Communities across the country have
long sought the ability to leverage those funds into local jobs and
economic growth.
The GROW AMERICA Act directly supports communities by:
• Providing new opportunities for contractors to hire residents from communities, right where we are
investing in our transportation infrastructure;
• Establishing standards under which a contract for construction may be advertised that
contains local hiring requirements; and
• Strengthening Buy America rules and reinforcing fair wage provisions on transportation
related projects.
134
Agenda Item 4a (Revised)
TO: Legislation Committee DATE: May 9, 2014
FR: Executive Director W. I. 1131
RE: GROW AMERICA Act: Obama Administration Surface Transportation Proposal
This memo provides further detail on the Obama Administration’s four-year surface
transportation authorization bill, the GROW AMERICA Act — Generating Renewal,
Opportunity, and Work (GROW) with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of
Infrastructure and Communities throughout America (AMERICA). Other than breaking ground
with yet another unwieldy acronym, this four-year surface transportation authorization proposal
provides $302 billion for highways, transit, rail, and freight infrastructure, an increase of 37
percent over current annual funding levels. Of the total, $150 billion would be derived by
General Fund transfers of revenue resulting from proposed federal income tax reform designed
to limit off-shore corporate tax loopholes.
This summary will first address five of the more significant policy changes in the Administration
proposal, then will cover the “meat and potatoes” of the various funding programs being
proposed.
POLICY CHANGES
High Performing Metropolitan Planning Organizations
The bill creates a new “high performing MPO” designation that would enable the MPO to
qualify for suballocation of certain funds, including Surface Transportation Program (STP),
Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) and Metropolitan Mobility funds. The biggest benefit
of the designation would be a 50 percent increase in STP and TAP funding for the region
served by the high performing MPO. The designation remains in effect for 10 years.
Designation as a high performer would be determined by the Secretary at the request of an MPO
on the basis of specified criteria, including:
• Whether the agency has an “equitable and performance-based approach to decision
making”
• The extent to which the MPO has incorporated the performance targets required by
federal law into its planning process
• The technical capacity of the organization
Given that MTC would perform well on each of these criteria, we could seek to qualify for this
significant boost in STP and TAP funds.
135
Metropolitan Mobility Program
The bill establishes a stand-alone $1 billion Metropolitan Mobility Program, a formula program
that apportions $250 million of the funds each year to urbanized areas with a population greater
than 200,000 on the basis of their share of urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000.
When distributed nationwide, however, the program would not provide a significant amount of
funding; it includes a $1 million minimum and a $3 million maximum amount for each area.
Transportation Planning: Vulnerability and Resilience Assessments Required
The bill would require metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and states to undertake an
infrastructure vulnerability and resilience assessment for regional transportation plans and state
long-range plans respectively. The bill would also formally include public ports within the scope
of metropolitan and state long-range planning. The bill proposes adding a new national
connectivity goal, and potentially a new performance measure, related to connecting
communities, particularly low-income communities, to economic opportunities, such as jobs and
school. The bill proposes a pilot study with up to 10 MPOs to conduct inventories of the degree
of connectivity provided via automobile, public transit and non-motorized modes that would
inform DOT’s decision on whether or not to propose a connectivity performance measure.
Finally, the bill proposes to directly link performance measures to investment decisions by
requiring that transportation improvement program (TIP) project selection show a ranking of
projects on the basis of how they help achieve specific performance targets.
National Freight Infrastructure Funding
The bill delivers on MTC’s goal of establishing a National Freight Program, providing $10
billion over four years in both a competitive and a formula-based program. Each receives $500
million in FY 2015, and grows by $500 million per year to $2 billion by FY 2018. The formula
program, named the Multimodal Freight Incentive Program, has two tiers. Tier I receives 40
percent of funds, while Tier II receives the remaining 60 percent. Both funding pots are only
eligible to states that have an approved freight plan and an established freight advisory
committee and have completed various needs analysis, while eligibility for Tier II requires
completion of a multistate analysis of freight needs and a regional freight investment plan.
Project eligibility for both pots of funding is broad and multimodal.
The formula takes into account a number of factors, including each state’s share of:
• Ports
• Rail track miles used for freight
• Cargo-handling airports
• Interstate miles
• Tonnage of rail, waterborne, highway, airport and pipeline freight moved
• Value of rail, waterborne, highway, airport and pipeline freight moved
Notably, the last two factors comprise 75 percent of the formula.
Calculating how much funding California would receive from this formula will take some work,
and no state-by-state breakdowns have been provided by the Administration as of now.
A vast amount of freight is moved by America’s inland waterways, which handle 62% of all
grain shipments. According to the most recent studies we have found from 2000, the nation’s
freight system moved 14 billion tons of domestic freight valued at $11 trillion over 4.5 trillion
ton-miles. Trucks moved 78 percent of the nation’s domestic freight tonnage, generated 60
percent of ton-mileage, and accounted for 88 percent of its dollar value, the highest percentage
136
in each category. Rail moved only 16 percent of total domestic freight tonnage. Rail routes are
longer and therefore accounted for a proportionately higher share (28 percent) of ton-miles.
Transport by rail also tends to involve lower-value commodities and thus a proportionately
lower share (6 percent) of total domestic freight value. Water (e.g., river barges, and coastal and
lake steamers) moved six percent of tonnage, 15 percent of ton-miles, and one percent of value.
These figures cover only domestic waterborne tonnage. Air represented a negligible share of
tonnage and ton-miles, but a disproportionately high share of value at five percent. Air freight
tends to be very light and valuable.
The discretionary program, named the National Freight Infrastructure Program, includes both
surface and air infrastructure. Numerous criteria for awarding the funds are listed, including the
degree to which the project would accommodate increased exports and leverage local funds,
both of which are themes addressed in our adopted Principles for a National Freight Program.
Freight Policy Changes
The bill would also revise a number of freight planning provisions established in MAP 21,
including expanding the definition of the national freight network to include rail, water and
airport-related infrastructure, a positive step that is consistent with MTC’s advocacy principles.
The bill would make adoption of a state freight plan and establishment of a state freight advisory
committee mandatory. It would also require states to expand their freight rail plan to add an
investment plan component that lists projects in order of priority for eligibility for the
competitive freight program.
The bill also proposes to expand the scope of what is currently known as the “National
Network,” a system established in 1982 to protect interstate commerce by prohibiting trucks of
certain size and dimensions on a national network of roads. The bill proposes to broaden the
National Network to incorporate all roadways on the National Freight Network as well as those
on the National Highway System. This would be done via regulation and would take three years
before going into effect.
Tolling Provisions
The bill proposes to allow states to toll the interstate system for reconstruction, expanding an
allowance that was previously given to non-interstate highways. It also allows state and public
agencies to impose tolls on highways or bridges for congestion management, subject to approval
of the Secretary and requires that any express lane facility must use electronic toll collection.
With respect to the use of express lane revenue, the bill makes eligible transit operating and
capital improvements for projects within the transportation corridor on which the express lane
facility is located or transit enhancements that would improve the operations of the toll facility or
the highway on which it is located (i.e. in close proximity to, but not on the facility itself). The
trucking industry already has declared its opposition to changing this long-standing element of
federal highway policy.
TRANSIT FUNDING
Transit Formula Funding
The bill provides a 6 percent increase in the most flexible transit formula funding, Section 5307,
Urbanized Area Funds from $4.5 billion in FY 2014 to an annual average of $4.7 billion. The
largest formula increase is in the State of Good Repair grants, which would grow from $2.1
billion in FY 2014 to an average of $5.8 billion.
137
Capital Investment Grants
The bill proposes to increase the Capital Investment Grant program by $500 million per year,
from $2 billion in FY 2014 to $2.5 billion in FY 2015, reaching $2.9 billion by FY 2018. This
category includes the discretionary New and Small Starts programs in which the Bay Area has
been an active participant since the 1980’s.
Bus & Bus Facility Program
The bill would boost this program four-fold from $428 million in FY 2014 to an average of $1.9
billion. It would create a separate competitive program that would receive 30 percent of the
funds. The bill would provide that “mobility management” and preventive maintenance are not
eligible for this program.
Rapid Growth Area Transit Program
The bill establishes a new competitive program starting at $500 million in FY 2015, growing to
$600 million by FY 2018, to provide grants to local governments and states for bus rapid transit
projects serving existing transit systems. Eligible recipients would be transit systems serving
urbanized areas that have experienced “moderate to significant” population growth between
2000 and 2010, and that have experienced moderate to significant increases in ridership. The bill
does include a definition for “moderate to significant growth” in the case of population or
ridership. Depending on those definitions, the distributional impact of this new program could
penalize dense urban regions like the Bay Area that already boast large bases of transit ridership.
Eligible projects would include transit capital and acquisition of right of way or land for
purposes of future public transportation enhancements in a corridor. Recipients must
demonstrate the ability to cover existing and future operating expenses of an expanded system.
The program can cover up to 50 percent of a project’s cost, while up to 30 percent may be
covered by Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) or Surface Transportation Program
(STP) funds.
Big Boost for Rail Funding
The bill proposes to significantly boost federal investment in rail, from $1.4 billion in FY 2014
to $4.7 billion in FY 2015 and thereafter. Operating funding for current Amtrak passenger rail
service would grow from $1.4 billion to $2.4 billion while a new Rail Service Improvement
Program would receive $2.3 billion for development of new passenger rail corridors and
improvements to existing passenger rail and freight rail corridors. A portion of this program
would fund positive trail control on commuter railroads. Notably, there is no separate category
for high-speed rail.
The bill also authorizes the DOT Secretary, in consultation with state governors, to establish
Regional Rail Development Authorities to facilitate development of multi-state high-
performance rail services and to coordinate these investments with other rail, transit, highway
and aviation system services.
HIGHWAY PROGRAM
Critical Immediate Investment Program
The bill establishes a new $13 billion Critical Immediate Investment Program (CIIP) focused on
improving the condition of the national highway system. Funds would be distributed to states on
138
the basis of the formula by which they receive National Highway Performance Program funds.
The program has three key components, as shown below:
• Interstate Bridge Revitalization Initiative (aimed at reducing the number of structurally
deficient bridges on the Interstate System)
• Systemic Safety Initiative (focused on safety improvements on non-state-owned roads)
• State of Good Repair Initiative (focused on achieving a state of good repair on the
National Highway System)
The program is structured to provide the largest infusion of funding up front with $4.8 billion in
FY 2015, dropping to $1.8 billion by FY 2018. States would have the flexibility to shift funds
between these programs if the Secretary determines it will help the state achieve its safety or
NHS performance targets.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
The bill proposes to prioritize projects that would reduce PM 2.5 emissions in PM 2.5
nonattainment or maintenance areas. Likewise, projects that would reduce ozone precursor
emissions are proposed to be given priority in ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
In a nod to greening the fleet, the bill would allow electric vehicle charging stations and anti-
idling commercial facilities to be added to rest areas along the Interstate system and authorizes a
fee to be assessed for such purposes.
Project Streamlining Provisions
The bill includes a number of provisions designed to speed up environmental review.
Specifically, the bill:
• Establishes an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center to reduce
project delivery timelines
• Exempts certain concrete and steel bridges and culverts and rail track improvements from
the National Historic Preservation Act review (known as “4f review”) other than
consultation, allowing for improvements to, maintenance or operation of rail lines
without rail operators having to demonstrate no feasible alternative.
• Requires development of a public online reporting system that will provide information
about the progress and status of an environmental document.
MULTIMODAL DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS
TIGER
The bill doubles the competitive, discretionary TIGER program from $600 million in FY 2014 to
$1.2 billion per year for another four years, reserving at least 20 percent of the funds for “rural”
areas, defined as non-urbanized. Based on the 2010 Census, 19.3 percent of the U.S. population
currently resides in non-urbanized areas, just slightly less than the 20 percent minimum.
Notable TIGER provisions include:
• No more than 25 percent may be awarded to a single state. (California comprises 12
percent of the nation’s population, based on most recent census estimate.)
139
• Up to 10 percent of funds would be available for planning purposes, including project-
specific planning.
• The bill removes the minimum or maximum project size for TIGER grants, which under
the current framework is a minimum of $10 (except for rural areas, where it is $1 million)
with a $200 million.
• Provides a federal share of up to 80 percent except for rural areas, which may receive 100
percent.
• Projects requesting a smaller federal share will be given priority
FAST Grant Program
The bill establishes a new $1 billion/year multimodal competitive Fixing and Accelerating
Surface Transportation (FAST) grant program to be administered by the Secretary with the goal
of improving the way transportation investment decisions are made and implemented in order to
achieve national objectives and improve transportation outcomes. The bill states that evaluation
of applications, which may include multiple projects, will be partly based on the extent to which
the applicant has adopted seven best practices including:
• Commitment to sustainable and non-federal sources of funding, including value capture
and authority for local governments to raise funding for transportation
• Use of benefit cost analysis, innovations in design, procurement and purchasing to
expedite project delivery and reduce costs
• Use of operating practices and deployment of technologies that increase the efficient use
of the transportation system
• Adoption of laws, rules and regulations to reduce transportation-related fatalities and
injuries
• Integration of transportation planning and investment decisions with land use and
economic development decisions, to focus transportation investments near existing
infrastructure
• Adoption of laws and practices demonstrated to reduce energy use, improve air and water
quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Improvements to regional governance that increase MPO capacity and strengthen local
and stakeholder input
Project eligibility is very broad and includes all projects eligible for TIGER, plus domestic short
sea shipping projects. Eligible applicants for funding include states, U.S. territories, tribal
governments and MPOs, provided they include as partners in their application, the applicable
state, local partners or transit agencies required to carry out the best practices.
FUNDING
The bill replaces the Highway Trust Fund with a new Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) that
would receive existing gas tax and other user fees currently deposited in the HTF, along with
General Fund transfers equal to the 10-year revenue raised from the proposed corporate tax
reform through 2020. The bill reestablishes the Mass Transit Account and the Highway Account
within the TTF, which receive the same proportionate share of revenue as currently provided.
The bill also establishes a new Rail Account and a Multimodal Account within the TTF, both of
which would be 100 percent reliant upon the General Fund.
140
141
REAUTHORIZATION OF MAP-21
REQUESTED ACTION: Enhance revenues for investment in our national transportation infrastructure. Without
immediate action by Congress, the Highway Trust Fund will continue to face insolvency and existing federal
revenues will continue to fall short of meeting the funding needs to bring our nation’s surface
transportation infrastructure into the next century. In California, counties and cities are facing an $82
billion funding shortfall over the next ten years for the maintenance and preservation of the local system.
On average, pavement conditions are “at risk” and without a surge of new revenue, 25 percent of
California’s local roads will be in failed condition by 2022. Additional specific actions include the following:
Restore the Highway Bridge Program
Provide dedicated revenue for on-system highway bridge projects, either by creating a set-aside similar to
the off-system highway bridge set-aside or restoring the Highway Bridge Program.
Increase dedicated funding for preventative maintenance on, and replacement of, bridges. An estimated
8,000 bridges nationally are structurally deficient or fracture critical; in California, 950 bridges need
replacement and over 1,800 are in need of rehabilitation.
Focus on Safety
Increase funding for safety infrastructure projects on the existing transportation system.
Programs/projects must be aimed at reducing the greatest number of fatalities.
Ensure the rural road system, where fatality rates are the highest, has a dedicated funding source.
Promote and increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and programs.
Fix-it-First
Provide increased funding for maintenance and preservation of the existing system. Reinvesting in the
system now prevents exponentially higher costs down the road.
Improve Environmental Stewardship & Address Climate Change
Provide financial incentives to States that adopt greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets.
Provide incentives in current programs and/or provide new funding sources for climate change neutral or
friendly transportation projects and programs.
Provide financial incentives for rural sustainability.
Provide financial support for regional and countywide transportation planning processes that integrate
transportation with local land use planning for the mutual benefit of GHG emissions reduction.
Provide funding for retrofitting equipment and for alternate fuel infrastructure.
Streamlining Project Delivery & Environmental Review
Approve a state-federal environmental reciprocity pilot program.
Support streamlining of federal laws and regulations to facilitate more expeditious project delivery.
Ensure that federal project oversight is commensurate to the amount of federal funding.
Increase Flexibility to Meet State, Regional, and Local Needs
Maximize the use and flexibility of federal funds by not requiring minimum federal matches.
Eliminate the need to program multiple phases for small projects.
Eliminate need for TIP programming for air quality neutral projects.
Assistance for Data Collection
Provide funding, training, tools, and uniform standards for the collection of roadway and traffic data
specifically for the local and rural roadways.
Provide assistance for data collection, and determining and quantifying GHG emissions, and other
important data for addressing climate change through the analysis of various transportation alternatives
in long-range transportation plans done in coordination with local land use plans.
Contacts: Joe Krahn/Hasan Sarsour, Waterman & Associates, (202) 898-1444
Kiana Buss/Chris Lee, CSAC, (916) 327-7500, Ext. 566/Ext. 521 142
May 6, 2014
The Honorable Barbara Boxer The Honorable David Vitter
Chairwoman Ranking Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee on Environment and Public Works
410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 456 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter:
On behalf of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), I am writing to renew our request that
you prioritize funding for locally-owned bridges in the next surface transportation bill. In particular, we
urge you to restore the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) as a core formula program. In the event that
the HBP is not reinstated, we urge you to provide a funding set-aside for local on-system bridges and to
maintain the current set-aside for off-system bridges.
As you know, bridges are a unique component of our nation’s transportation system. Unlike a variety
of road and pavement projects, however, many bridge projects entail complex design processes,
necessitate long-term planning and procurement, and present unique construction challenges.
Moreover, there is little room for error when it comes to bridge safety, as they must remain structurally
sound in order to ensure that vehicles and motorists are secure.
In California, over 28 percent of local bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,
meaning these structures are in poor condition due to deterioration and damage or were built to
standards that are not used today. Furthermore, in some counties, the percentage of county and city-
owned bridges that are in need of rehabilitation or replacement exceeds 50 percent. While the State of
California and its local governments have placed an emphasis on financing bridge projects, conditions
remain poor and projected repair and replacement costs stretch into the hundreds of millions of
dollars.
Under MAP-21, local bridges are eligible for federal funding under the Surface Transportation Program
(STP). While the Act requires states to set-aside a portion of STP dollars for off-system bridges, it does
not provide a guaranteed funding source for local on-system bridges. As a result, on-system bridges -
which comprise over half of California's local bridge inventory - must compete with numerous other
state and local projects for limited STP funds.
Attached to this letter is a legislative proposal developed by CSAC that would create a much-needed
set-aside for on-system bridges. The proposal also would maintain the current 15 percent set-aside for
off-system bridges, as required by current law. We urge you to incorporate this language into your
highway reauthorization bill.
On a related matter, and as you know, funding for Federal-aid highways and bridges was consolidated
under MAP-21; accordingly, road and bridge projects are now primarily funded through two core
programs - the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and STP. Notably, NHPP funds may
only be used for projects on or associated with the NHS, which accounts for 23 percent of the nation's
bridges and 22 percent of Federal-aid highways. The balance of projects on the nation's bridges and
143
highway miles - 77 percent and 78 percent, respectively - are not eligible for NHPP funding and must
rely primarily on STP financing.
Although facilities on the NHS represent a relatively small percentage of the country's total Federal-aid
highway system, the NHPP receives a funding allocation that is more than double that of STP. All told,
the NHPP is funded at $21.8 billion annually while STP receives only $10 billion. In order to provide
more equitable support for NHS/non-NHS projects, we recommend that the amount of funds that are
apportioned for the NHPP and STP be changed to 46.5 percent (instead of the current 63.7 percent
NHPP/29.3 percent STP split). Likewise, we urge you to revise STP sub-allocation levels to ensure that
local areas receive 62.5 percent of funding (consistent with pre-MAP-21 levels), instead of the current
50 percent. These proposed modifications would help counties more adequately address the
significant and growing transportation financing needs at the local level.
Thank you for your consideration of these important requests. CSAC looks forward to continuing to
work with you on this and other important issues as Congress considers options for a new
transportation reauthorization bill. If you have any questions or if you need any additional information,
please feel free to contact Joe Krahn, CSAC Federal Representative, Waterman and Associates at (202)
898-1444, or Kiana Buss, CSAC Legislative Representative at (916) 327-7500 ext. 566.
Sincerely,
Matt Cate
CSAC Executive Director
cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein
enclosure
144
Senate Advances MAP-21 Reauthorization Act
by Jacquelyn Alamia on 5/16/2014 4:32 PM
Category: Featured Post; Transportation
On May 12, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, which has jurisdiction over the
highway title of the surface transportation authorization bill in the Senate, released and unanimously
approved legislation that would reauthorize the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21stCentury Act (MAP-
21). The MAP-21 Reauthorization Act (S. 2322) would authorize federal highway programs for six years at
current funding levels, plus inflation.
Counties should be aware of several provisions in the bill. Specifically, the bill would:
Fully-fund highway programs for six years at current funding levels plus inflation, providing a
modest increase for programs that counties benefit from, including the Surface Transportation
Program (STP)
Continue core highway program structure from MAP-21, which includes the STP program,
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP),
and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program
Provide $400 million annually for the Projects of National or Regional Significance Program, a
discretionary program similar to the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant
program – to support a variety of projects, including projects sponsored by local governments aimed
at improving: 1) roadways that are vital to national energy security, 2) the movement of freight, 3)
transportation safety, and 4) rural connectivity and metropolitan accessibility
Establish a new formula-based National Freight Program, which would provide funding in fiscal
years 2016-2020 to invest in infrastructure and operational improvements that will strengthen the
nation’s movement of freight, including investments on locally owned infrastructure (rural and
urban) that play a key role in the nation’s domestic energy and agriculture production, and overall
movement of freight
Maintain funding for off-system bridges, continuing the set-aside under the Surface Transportation
Program at 15 percent of a State’s FY 2009 Highway Bridge Program apportionment;
Make additional funding available for locally owned bridges, by allowing states to spend up to 15
percent of their NHPP dollars for the replacement, rehabilitation, preservation and protection of
bridges on Federal-aid highways (“on-system bridges”) that are not a part of the National Highway
System (NHS);
Increase the suballocation of Transportation Alternatives funding, increasing the amount of
Transportation Alternatives program funding that is suballocated to eligible entities in local areas
(including local governments) from 50 percent to 66.67 percent;
Make changes to the special rule for High Risk Rural Roads, by targeting states with the highest
rural road fatality rates and focusing on the need to “decrease” rural road fatality rates rather than
“not increase” (this will result in more states having to spend safety dollars on rural roads);
Add new eligible activities under STP, including emergency evacuation plans and transportation
research activities as eligible activities under STP;
Support the bundling of bridge projects, by offering states and local governments the flexibility to
use federal dollars to bundle projects and allowing for an increased federal share (up to 100 percent)
for bundled bridge projects;
Increase the federal share payable (up to 100 percent) for other projects, including pedestrian
hybrid beacons, control signalization, and innovative project engineering and design practices;
145
Allow the Secretary of Transportation to provide regulatory relief and flexibility for rural road
and bridge projects, that meet all of the following criteria:
o are located in a county or parish that has: 1) a population density of 20 or fewer persons per
square mile of land area, or 2) the lowest population density of all counties or parishes its
state
o are located within the operational right-of-way of an existing road or bridge
o receive less than $5 million in Federal funds or have a total estimated cost not more than $30
million
Provide states the ability to pursue classification changes to rural and urban principal
arterials, to address the principal arterials that had been added to the NHS under MAP-21, including
county-owned arterials that were affected by expansion of the NHS;
Establish a competitive grant program called the “American Transportation Awards,”for the
purpose of rewarding states, metropolitan planning organizations and tribal organizations for best
practices in transportation;
Seek increased transparency on the obligation of Highway Trust Fund dollars, by requiring the
Secretary of Transportation to collect and report a variety of information, including data to reflect the
ownership (state, county, city, etc.) of the roads and bridges receiving federal highway dollars within
each states and information that highlights the average cost and time associated with preparing
environmental review documents required for projects that receive federal highway dollars, including
documentation that require a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement;
Make several reforms aimed a further accelerating project delivery, including indexing the
categorical exclusion for projects of limited federal assistance to the National Highway Construction
Cost Index; and
Make changes to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
program, including efforts to better support rural infrastructure projects and allow credit assistance
for the capitalization, or deposit into, state infrastructure banks.
The committees that have jurisdiction over the rail, safety and transit titles in the Senate are expected to
follow the efforts of the EPW Committee soon, but the major work will fall to the Senate Finance
Committee, which has to find a way to fix the Highway Trust Fund in order to pay for the authorized
programs. The House is still planning to meet its goal of having a bill to the floor by the August recess.
To view a copy of NACo’s priorities for MAP-21 reauthorization, click here.
To view state by state funding available for locally-owned bridges and Federal-aid highways, click here.
To view NACo’s report, “The Road Ahead: County Transportation Funding and Financing,” click here.
Contact: Jessica Monahan at jmonahan@naco.org or 202.942.4217
146
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:06/05/2014
Subject:Kinder Morgan's Integrity Management Program
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: Carrie Ricci Contact: Carrie Ricci,
925-313-2235
Referral History:
In February 2014 TWIC received a report regarding Kinder Morgan’s Integrity Management
Program (IMP) and recommended forwarding a letter to the BOS to approve sending a letter to
the State Fire Marshal requesting a review of Kinder Morgan’s IMP.
Referral Update:
The BOS approved sending the letter at the March 11, 2014 BOS meeting and staff will give an
update at this meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Receive letter from the Office of the State Fire Marshal
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None
Attachments
OSFM response
OSFM memo
147
148
149
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:06/05/2014
Subject:Report on the implementation plan for the Appian Way Alternatives
Analysis and Complete Streets Study
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: ACCEPT report on the implementation plan for the Appian Way
Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study, as requested by the Board
of Supervisors at the December 3, 2013 meeting.
Presenter: Nancy Wein, (925) 313-2275 Contact: Nancy Wein, (925)
313-2275
Referral History:
In June 2011, the Board of Supervisors (Board) approved the Downtown El Sobrante General
Plan Amendment, to revise the Land Use and Transportation-Circulation elements in the Contra
Costa County General Plan to revitalize the commercial core and downtown areas. The
amendment included a proposal to remove all references to an ultimate 4-lane roadway
configuration for Appian Way extending from San Pablo Dam Road to the Pinole city limits near
Interstate 80, and, instead, retain the existing 2-lane roadway configuration as the planned
roadway for Appian Way. The City of Pinole had different plans for the ultimate design of this
section of Appian Way (Pinole wanted Appian Way widened to 4-lanes in the future, while the
County wanted to maintain the existing 2-lanes plus center left turn pocket). In response, the
Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment included a policy that directed the County to
perform a feasibility study of the ultimate 4-lane road configuration for this segment of Appian
Way to compare it against retaining the current 2-lane roadway (plus center left-turn pocket)
configuration.
As a result, the County and the City of Pinole participated in a study conducted by the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to develop a consistent approach to the ultimate design
of the roadway. The City of Richmond was invited to participate due to the proximity of Valley
View Road to the study area. Refer to the attached study for more detail.
The study evaluated several alternatives described below.
• Alternative A: A standard five-lane cross section along the entire corridor (consistent with
existing County General Plan policy).
150
• Alternative B: Widening Appian Way from three to five lanes between Michael Drive and
Fulton Way only, in order to improve traffic flow through roadway corridor and maintain
minimum level of service.
• Alternative C or "Complete Streets Alternative”: Pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements
as well as intersection improvements with an emphasis on enhancing the quality of the
multi-modal environment. The current vehicle lane cross-section remains (i.e., no vehicle lane
widening).
• Appian Way/Valley View Road Intersection Alternative: The basic geometrics of two
intersection improvement options were evaluated – a T-intersection and roundabout design – to
maintain adequate traffic performance and enhance the bicycle and pedestrian environment at the
intersection. Both options will require additional traffic and operational analysis before either can
be considered for implementation.
The Study recommended "Alternative C," or the complete streets alternative, concluding that it
leverages the greatest number of community benefits at a cost comparable to or less than that of
widening Appian Way to five-lanes. The Department of Conservation and Development (DCD)
agreed with the study recommendation as it was consistent with several goals of the adopted
Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment, which includes: a) Implementing the
recommendations from the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council for Downtown El Sobrante;
b) Supporting the Board of Supervisors’ recent directives to promote a “healthy” built
environment in the unincorporated areas of the County, which encourages infill development
(compact and mixed use) and other changes to the built environment that provide healthy lifestyle
choices for residents; and, c) Implementing the principles of “Complete Streets," which is
consistent with County General Plan policies adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2008.
Complete Streets policies recognize that streets serve many users (i.e., bicyclists, pedestrians) not
just vehicles, and that the development of the local roadway system needs to accommodate
multiple modes of travel.
In December 2013, the Board approved a follow-up General Plan Amendment for the El Sobrante
area to reaffirm modifications to the Roadway Network Map, to change Appian Way from a
4-lane roadway to a 2-lane configuration with a middle turn lane from Valley View Road to the
Pinole city limits. At the same meeting, the Board approved the "Complete Streets Alternative,"
and requested staff to report back within 6 months with a plan for its implementation. The study is
attached for reference.
Referral Update:
As requested by the Board, staff has developed a plan to implement the complete streets
alternative for the section of Appian Way from the Pinole city limits near Interstate 80 to Valley
View Road in the unincorporated area. In addition to the portion of Appian Way included in the
study, staff recommends that the steps below are also completed for the section of Appian Way
from Valley View to San Pablo Dam Road to provide a comprehensive design for the entire
length of Appian Way in the unincorporated area.
A meeting was recently held with Supervisor Gioia to discuss the overall plan. Supervisor Gioia
151
A meeting was recently held with Supervisor Gioia to discuss the overall plan. Supervisor Gioia
is in general agreement with the proposal and has requested the Public Works Department to work
closely with DCD and the community to also help develop an overall strategy for San Pablo Dam
Road from Valley View Road to El Portal Drive, building on the work and efforts done to date for
the “San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project.” This will help to ensure that any area
improvements are consistent and complementary in the El Sobrante area.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
It is proposed to further develop the complete streets alternative for Appian Way by performing
the steps below, with the goal of developing the most cost-effective, environmentally sensitive,
community-based design. The timeline indicated under each step is approximate.
1. Partner with the City of Pinole (July/August 2014): A portion of Appian Way evaluated in the
above study is within the City of Pinole. Staff will meet with city staff to discuss the project and
develop ways to collaboratively move the project forward within the city limits in conjunction
with the portion in the unincorporated area.
2. Preliminary Engineering (May-December 2014): This work will take the concept developed in
the study to the next level with the end product being a set of preliminary plans.
The work will include field visits to determine current site conditions (topography, existing
improvements, visible utilities, drainage considerations etc…), and engineering to develop a set
of preliminary plans. The plans will detail the number of lanes and widths, horizontal alignment,
geometric design of sidewalk, curb and gutter, bicycle lanes, storm water treatment areas and
ADA compliant curb ramp improvements.
The plans will also identify existing and proposed right of way and concept areas for landscaping
with associated maintenance costs, in addition to locations for street furniture such as benches and
bus shelters. The recent themes for landscaping and street furniture developed as part of the San
Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project will be considered and included where appropriate.
3. Appian Way/Valley View Road intersection: Two options will be investigated (May -
September 2014).
A. Modification of existing signalized intersection - An intersection layout will be developed
identifying the number of lanes and lane widths for existing and future year traffic volumes based
on the proposed layout in the study.
B. A roundabout operational analysis and concept design will be prepared of the intersection for
existing and design year traffic volumes to determine roundabout lane configurations.
4. Community outreach (September/October 2014): An open house will be held with residents,
property owners and businesses along and adjacent to Appian Way to present the first version of
the preliminary plans and seek input on the proposed improvements, as well as alternatives at the
Appian Way intersection with Valley View Road.
In addition, staff will attend meetings with the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council in the
same time frame.
5. Based on community input, the preliminary plans will be refined and cost estimates prepared of
152
5. Based on community input, the preliminary plans will be refined and cost estimates prepared of
the proposed improvements, with the goal to develop the most cost-effective, environmentally
sensitive, community-based design. Staff will evaluate ways to phase the project. Additional
community outreach is anticipated to occur at this stage (Fall/Winter 2014).
6. Funding (2015 plus): Staff will seek opportunities for funding the next phases of the project
using a likely combination of County Roadway Funds, CCTA measure J Program Funds and
other regional and state transportation funding grants.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Initial planning efforts will be funded with County Road Funds. Implementation of the Appian
Way improvements will eventually be funded through a likely combination of County Roadway
Funds, CCTA Measure J Program Funds, and other regional and state transportation funding
grants.
Attachments
Appian Way Study
153
11-14 ftSLOEFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRA P P IA N W A Y MICHAEL DRDALESIDRA VIWEAVFUTNWAYRANCHORDMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN WAY
APPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN W
A
YPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyRLLSLOEFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRA P P IA N W A Y MICHAEL DRDALESIDRA VIWEAVFUTNWAYRANCHORDMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN WAY
APPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN WA
YPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyRLLExisting R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions
Existing R.O.W. dimension and
location unclear; conict between
parcel data and built conditions5-12 ft11-14 ft10-20 ft11-12 ft15-17 ft13-14 ft7-10 ft5-11 ft13 ft11-14 ft10-20 ft11-12 ft5-8 ft5-7 ftNo change to roadway conguration; new signal at Rancho RdSB84’ R.O.W.68’ Curb-to-Curb14’ 11’ 5’8’8’11’SB11’5’Bike Bike Side-walkSide-walk Turn NB 11’NB
A BBCD
B C D
See Figure 11
A
Pkg SB
84’ R.O.W.
64’ Curb-to-Curb
14’ 12’ 5’8’8’10’10’12’5’
Bike Bike Pkg Side-
walk
Side-
walk
Turn NB
SB
68’ R.O.W.
48’Curb-to-Curb
14’ 12’ 5’10’10’12’5’
Bike Bike Side-
walk
Turn NBSide-
walk
SB
64’ R.O.W. (70’ at Post Office)
44’ Curb-to-Curb (48’ at Post Office)
12’ 11’ 5’10’10’11’5’
Bike Bike Side-
walk
Turn NBSide-
walk
No construction
required;
re-striping only
SB
78’ R.O.W.
58’ Curb-to-Curb
14’ 12’ 6’
10’
8’ 10’12’6’
Bike Bike Pkg Side-
walk
Side-
walk
Turn NB
6’
Appian Way/Valley View Rd intersection remains as isNo construction required; re-striping only Existing asphalt curb and sidewalk replaced with concrete curb and 5’-6” wide sidewalk
400200100
FEET
0
400200100
FEET
0
Alternative B: Requirements Under CCTALOS Methodology
Alternative C: Complete Street (Under HCM-2000 Methodology)
Edge of Proposed R.O.W.
Building Footprint
Parcel Line (source: Contra
Costa County Mapping
Information Center)
Edge of Proposed R.O.W.
Building Footprint
Parcel Line (source: Contra
Costa County Mapping
Information Center)
Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements.
Note: All dimensions are
approximate, based on satellite
imagery and eld measurements.
R.O.W. passes through existing structure
New Trac Signal
Existing Trac Signal
New Trac Signal
Bus shelter
Existing Trac Signal
Requires signicant grading
Requires signicant
grading
Acquisition requiredX ftAcquisition requiredX ftPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyAPPIANWAYFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESSIDRFULTONWAYRANCHORDMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWRDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN WAYAPPIAN WAYALLVIEWAVE R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions
FILAPPIAN WAY
FITZGERALDDRMICHAEL DRAPPIANAYSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESIDRALIEAVERANCHORDWYMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWRAPPIAN W
A
Y SOBRANTE AVEW
SFUTONADLVWPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyExisting R.O.W. dimension and
location unclear; conict between
parcel data and built conditions
17-22 ft12-16 ft20-24 ft20-22 ft26 ft18 ft12-14 ft11-15 ft15-16 ft11-16 ft12-19 ft5-6 ft5-8 ft5-8 ft45’ Curb-to-Curb12’ 12’4’12’4’NBACSSB Turn 5’ACS4’-6”Bike Bike60’ R.O.W.ACS 55’ Curb-to-Curb12’ 12’6’20’4’NBSB Turn 7’CCS5’Bike Bike87’ R.O.W.75’ Curb-to-Curb93’ R.O.W.SB11’-6” 17’-6”5’13’19’NBCCSSB Median/Turn14’NBCCS5’80’ R.O.W.63’ Curb-to-CurbBike/Parking 12’-6” 11’-6”6’-5”12’13’-6”NBCCSSB Turn 13’CCSTravel5’SB 95’ R.O.W.74’ Curb-to-Curb*16’ 12’5’5’-6”5’12’12’5’Bike BikeSidewalkUtilityEasement SidewalkUtilityEasementMedian/Turn NB NBSB12’5’-6”5’No construction required;
re-striping only
Appian Way/Valley View Rd
intersection
remains as is
4 Travel Lanes+ Turning Lane/Median Transition Transition2 Travel Lanes+ Turning Lane & Bike Lanes Concrete Curb & Sidewalk (CCS)Asphalt Curb& Sidewalk (ACS)Bike LaneOn-street ParkingCrosswalkCurb CutBus StopIntersection analyzedfor existing and futuretrac operationsRetaining WallSteep SlopeTrac SignalBuilding Footprint 400200100FEET0
400200100
FEET
0
Existing Conditions
Alternative A: 5 Lanes
Edge of Proposed R.O.W.
Requires signicant
grading
R.O.W. passes through
existing structure
Acquisition required
Building Footprint
Parcel Line (source: Contra
Costa County Mapping
Information Center)
Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements.Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements.X ft*All asphalt curbs to be replaced with concrete curbs, and the majority of existing concrete curb to be replaced with new concrete curbs. Details illustrated in CAD le accompanying report.
Appian Way
Alternatives Analysis and
Complete Streets Study
Final Report
June 2013
A P P I A N W
A
Y
Illustrative diagram only; feasibility to be evaluated upon further analysis. Lane reductions along Valley View Road to be considered.
Reduced right-of-way
better channelizes
motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians and provides
an opportunity for a
widened sidewalk and/or
an architectural statement
at the intersection
Oset crosswalk
provides a two-stage
crossing for improved
pedestrian accessibility
Skip striping guides
cyclists and highlights
conicts for motorists,
enhancing bicycle safety
New mixed-use
development
V A L L E Y V I E W R D A P P I A N W A Y804020
FEET
0
154
155
In association with
Prepared by
Appian Way
Alternatives Analysis and
Complete Streets Study
Kittelson and Associates
Final Report
June 2013
Contra Costa County
City of Pinole
156
157
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
iTABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1
Project Purpose .................................................................................1
Conditions and Policies .....................................................................2
Conclusions .......................................................................................3
Organization .....................................................................................4
2 POLICY CONTEXT .............................................................................5
Countywide Transportation Plan .....................................................5
West County Action Plan Update of 2009 .......................................7
City of Pinole .....................................................................................7
Contra Costa County ........................................................................8
3 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR ............................9
Methodology ....................................................................................9
General Conditions ..........................................................................9
Conditions along Specific Segments .............................................10
4 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ........................................................12
Forecast Approach ..........................................................................12
Analysis Methodologies .................................................................12
Findings and Recommendations ....................................................13
5 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................16
Overview .......................................................................................16
Alternative A – Five Lanes ..............................................................16
Alternative B – Requirements under CCTALOS Methodology ......17
Alternative C – Complete Street Using HCM-2000 Methodology 17
Comparison of Alternatives with Conclusions ...............................20
Appian Way/Valley View Road Intersection ..................................22
Conclusions .....................................................................................25
APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ..................26
158
ii
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables
Table 1: Intersection Level of Service
(Year 2012 Existing Conditions) ....................................13
Table 2: Intersection Level of Service
(Year 2030 Future Scenario using CCTALOS
and HCM-2000 Methodology) ......................................14
Table 3: Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................21
Figures
Figure 1: Location Map ...................................................................1
Figure 2: Location Map and Existing Configuration ....................2
Figure 3: Existing Land Uses ...........................................................6
Figure 4: General Plan Land Uses City of Pinole and
Contra Costa County .......................................................6
Figure 5: Existing and Future Traffic Volume and Lane Geometries
(Volumes: AM (PM)) ......................................................13
Figure 6: Existing Conditions/Opportunities and Constraints ...18
Figure 7: Alternative A–Five Lanes ..............................................18
Figure 8: Alternative B–Requirements under
CCTALOS Methodology .................................................19
Figure 9: Alternative C–Complete Street Using
HCM-2000 Methodology ..............................................19
Figure 10: Appian Way/Valley View – Existing Intersection .........23
Figure 11: Appian Way/Valley View – Intersection
Improvement Options ..................................................24
159
1
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1 Introduction
PROJECT PURPOSE
The Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study evalu-
ates options and recommends a future design for the one-mile long segment
of Appian Way from Fitzgerald Drive (just south of Interstate 80) to the Valley
View “Triangle Area.” The study, which is funded by Contra Costa Transpor-
tation Authority (CCTA or “Authority”), is intended to help the City of Pinole
and the Contra Costa County (CCC) develop a consistent and complementary
approach for the design of the roadway, one that supports the needs of the sur-
rounding communities and serves all potential users.
The purpose of this study is to help Contra Costa County and the City of Pinole
develop a common vision for the part of Appian Way that is within the planning
area, as design options that would inform development of a shared vision have
not been explored.
Within the City of Pinole, Appian Way has been improved to five lanes around
Interstate 80 to a point just south of Fitzgerald. The five-lane cross section
includes two through lanes in each direction with a center turn lane or median.
S
A
N
P
A
BL
OAVEAPPIANWAYbrante
Com
St
S
A
MARKET
A
V
E CHURCH LNAPPIA
N
WY SAN P
ABL
O
AVE
PI
NOLEVALLE
Y
R
D
C A S T R O R ANC H R D
S Y C AMORE AV E
S A N P A B L O D A M R DSANPABLOAVE
EL PORTA L D RR.MI L L ER D R HILLTOP DR BLUMED R
R I C H MONDPKWY APPIANWAYRIC H M O N D PKW YRUMRILLBLV D
T ARAH I LLS
DR
WILLOW AV E
SA
NPAB
L
O
D
A
M
RDVAL
L
E
YVI
EWR
D
Pinole
Richmond
Richmond
San
Pablo
Hercules
Richmond
El Sobrante
May
Valley
Hilltop
Mall
Rollingwood
Hilltop
Green
Tiffany
Ridge
Tara
Hills
Marsten
RanchBayview
Montalvin
Point
Pinole
Regional
Park
Hasford
Heights
El Sobrante
Hills
Carriage
Hills
Birds
Greenbriar
Parchester
Village
Hilltop
Village
Foxboro
Downs
FITZGER A L D D R
San Pablo Bay
Complete
Streets
Study
Area
10
MILES
231/2
80
80
S
A
N
PA
BL
OAVEAPPIANWAYbrante
Com
St
S
A
MARKET
A
V
E CHURCH LNAPPIAN WY SAN P
ABL
O
AVE
PI
NOLEVALLE
Y
R
D
C A S T R O R ANC H R D
S Y C AMORE AV E
S A N P A B L O D A M R DSANPABLOAVE
EL PORTA L D RR.MI L L E R D R HILLTOP DR BLUMED R
R I C H M ONDPKWY APPIANWAYRIC H M O N D PKW YRUMRILLBLV D
T A RA H I LLS
DR
WILLOW AV E
SA
NPAB
L
O
D
A
M
RDVAL
L
E
YVI
EWR
D
Pinole
Richmond
Richmond
San
Pablo
Hercules
Richmond
El Sobrante
May
Valley
Hilltop
Mall
Rollingwood
Hilltop
Green
Tiffany
Ridge
Tara
Hills
Marsten
RanchBayview
Montalvin
Point
Pinole
Regional
Park
Hasford
Heights
El Sobrante
Hills
Carriage
Hills
Birds
Greenbriar
Parchester
Village
Hilltop
Village
Foxboro
Downs
FITZGER A L D D R
San Pablo Bay
Complete
Streets
Study
Area
10
MILES
231/2
80
80
Figure 1: Location Map
160
2
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
South of the five-lane segment, Appian Way narrows to three lanes, which would
be widened under Pinole’s General Plan and Three Corridors Specific Plan.
Contra Costa County’s General Plan has also called for widening Appian Way
from three to five lanes, south of Pinole to Valley View Road. The Downtown El
Sobrante General Plan Amendment, however, concluded that the community’s
interests would be better served by not widening the roadway, because that wid-
ening would require a significant purchase of private property. Instead, a three-
lane roadway accompanied by significant pedestrian and bicycle improvements
would be more cost effective and support the community’s livability goals.
Contra Costa County, the City of Pinole and CCTA are jointly examining
whether there is a need for widening all or part of Appian Way from three lanes
(one lane in each direction with a center turn lane) to five lanes (two lanes in
each direction with a center turn lane). Because of frequent driveways, the turn
lane would run continuously and a continuous bicycle lane is assumed.
To inform decisions regarding Appian Way’s ultimate character, this study
presents designs for five-lane and three-lane roadway options. It also considers
“[a]dditional modifications [that] may include improved pedestrian and bicycle
access through installation of pedestrian crosswalks, traffic calming measures,
and streetscape improvements,” as called for by the West County Action Plan.1
Options are evaluated from the standpoint of transportation performance,
community benefits and project cost.
The Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study is the result
of a collaborative effort led by and funded by CCTA, with the direct participa-
tion of the County and the City of Pinole, and with support from the consultant
team of Dyett & Bhatia and Kittelson Associates.
CONDITIONS AND POLICIES
General Context
Appian Way serves as a major arterial that extends from San Pablo Avenue to
the north, through Pinole and the unincorporated community of El Sobrante,
and to San Pablo Dam Road to the southwest. The entire length of Appian Way
within the study area is designated on the I-80 Bikeway, which extend from El
Cerrito to Rodeo. This study examines the part of Appian Way between Fitzger-
ald Drive and Valley View Road.
On the preceding page, Figure 1 shows the regional context, while Figure 2 shows
how Appian Way is configured in the study area and the local streets that inter-
sect with it. On the northern end, Fitzgerald Drive extends west, and Sarah Drive
1 CCTA, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32.
east. Other local streets along Appian Way include Dalessi Drive, Allview Ave-
nue, Rancho Road, Manor Road, Kister Circle and Argyle Road. At the southern
end, Appian Way connects to Valley View Road at the Appian Way/Valley View
Triangle. Valley View is a five-lane arterial serving DeAnza High School and
subdivisions in the City of Richmond.
The City of Pinole and Contra Costa County have jurisdiction over separate seg-
ments of Appian Way. Within this project’s planning area, Pinole has jurisdic-
tion over the northern third and Contra Costa County has jurisdiction over the
southern two-thirds.
City of Pinole
Pinole’s segment of the planning area includes a five-lane roadway around
Fitzgerald, a small portion of three-lane roadway around the city limit line,
and a transition from five to three lanes in between. The City of Pinole Gen-
eral Plan’s “Major Roadways” map defines Appian Way as an “Arterial Route of
Regional Significance.”2 Pinole’s General Plan also emphasizes growth along its
primary transit corridors, including Appian Way to support increased develop-
ment intensity within the City.3 Pinole also proposes to maintain a Class II bicy-
cle facility (bike lanes) along the full length of Appian within its city limits.4 In
addition, Pinole’s Three Corridors Specific Plan calls for a five-lane cross sec-
tion with two travel lanes in each direction plus bicycles lanes, sidewalks and
medians or turning lanes.5 Five lanes were also assumed by Pinole’s 2010 General
Plan’s EIR analysis of future conditions.6
Contra Costa County
At present and in those portions of the planning area in unincorporated Contra
Costa County, Appian Way is three-lanes, except for a short segment at Valley
View Road where it briefly becomes five lanes. In June 2011, Contra Costa Coun-
ty’s Board of Supervisors adopted the Downtown El Sobrante Amendment to
the County General Plan.7 This amendment removed all references to a planned
five-lane arterial for Appian Way from Valley View Road at the Appian Triangle
to the Pinole city limits, and instead retained the existing three-lane roadway
configuration as the planned roadway. Prior to that amendment, the Roadway
Network Map in the County’s Circulation Element depicted Appian Way as ulti-
mately becoming five lanes.8
2 City of Pinole, General Plan, 2010, page 7.0-11.
3 Ibid, page 7.0-19.
4 Ibid, page 7.0-9.
5 City of Pinole, Three Corridors Specific Plan, 2010, page 5.0-37.
6 City of Pinole, General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2010, page 4.4-27.
7 Contra Costa County, Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment, 2011, http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/
index.aspx?NID=2460.
8 Contra Costa County, General Plan, January 2005, “Roadway Network Plan.”
Figure 2: Location Map and Existing Configuration
80
800400200
FEET
0
MICHAEL DR
DALESSI DR
ALLVI E W A V E
F U L T O N WAYF I T ZGERALD DR
APPIAN VILLAGE DRCity of
P i nol e
El Sobrante
(Unincorporated
Contra Costa
County)Richm PinoLi
m
i
t
s City
ond le City
APPIAN WAYLimits
4 Travel Lanes
+ Turning
Lane/Median
Transition
Transition
2 Travel Lanes
+ Turning Lane
& Bike Lanes
Planning Area
161
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
3CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
At the request of the City of Pinole and in consultation with CCTA, the Board of Super-
visors deferred a decision on the portion of Appian Way between Valley View and the
Pinole city limits until the results of this study were available. Additionally, Policy 3-186
of the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment says that: “the County will
evaluate the feasibility of the planned or ultimate four lane [plus turn lane] roadway
configuration … compared to retention of the current three lane configuration.”9
The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment also emphasizes the creation of
more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environments in the Triangle Area, and calls for
a study of the “feasibility of the planned or ultimate four lane roadway configuration for
this segment of Appian Way compared to retention of the current three lane configura-
tion.” The study would also “examine whether improvements for this roadway segment
are needed for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit and whether such improve-
ments can be provided within the existing public right-of-way.” 10
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC)
To carry out its responsibilities for a cooperative planning process, CCTA works with
four Regional Transportation Planning Committees, or RTPCs. These RTPCs, of which
the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) is one, are
made up of elected and appointed representatives in each region; they are assisted by
a Technical Advisory Committee. Each RTPC oversees one Action Plan for Routes of
Regional Significance, such as Appian Way.
The West County Action Plan (WCAP) requires findings for future performance to be
made prior to funding “of any vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements.”11 Under
the Action Plan, Appian Way is designated as a Route of Regional Significance. 12 The
Action Plan, which helps carry out the requirements of the Measure J Growth Man-
agement Program (GMP), was prepared collaboratively by the member agencies of
the WCCTAC. The WCAP establishes Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives
(MTSOs) and actions for achieving them; for Appian Way, the MTSO is to maintain
Level of Service (LOS) D or better at all signalized intersections.13
CONCLUSIONS
Three design alternatives were developed for evaluation. Principal distinctions among
these include the number of lanes, the quality of the pedestrian environment, and the
presence of on-street parking. Every alternative provides continuous bicycle lanes,
pedestrian crosswalks, and maintains existing bus stop locations.
9 Contra Costa County, General Plan, 2010, page 3-66.
10 Contra Costa County, General Plan, 2011, page 3-66.
11 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32.
12 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, pages 6-7.
13 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32.
Alternative A: Five Lanes
Alternative A shows the County’s standard five-lane cross-section along the entire corri-
dor. This alternative reflects the City of Pinole’s adopted plans and the County’s previous
General Plan policies.
More specifically, it illustrates improvements needed to apply a uniform 95-foot right-
of-way under County Public Works standards and accommodates sidewalks, bike lanes,
four through lanes and a median/turn lane. It would require land acquisition for the
planned right-of-way.
Alternative B: Requirements under CCTA Methodology
Alternative B represents improvements that would be required to maintain LOS D or
better at all signalized intersections, consistent with the West County Action Plan which
also specifies that traffic modeling use CCTA LOS software.14
Alternative B widens Appian Way from three to five lanes between Michael Drive and
Fulton Way–about 37 percent of the length of the corridor. The remaining three-lane
segment from Fulton Way to Valley View Road would remain unchanged except for the
addition of one intersection signal.
Alternative C: Complete Street
Alternative C represents the policy established by the Downtown El Sobrante General
Plan Amendment for Appian Way between San Pablo Dam Road and the Appian Way/
Valley View Triangle. Alternative C stresses the quality of pedestrian environments by
using distance and street trees to separate sidewalks from moving traffic. It also con-
siders ways to enhance the corridor from the standpoint of urban design, economic
development, and community identity. Alternative C also includes on-street parking
and sidewalk treatments that could encourage new street-facing commercial/mixed-use
development in the locations called for by City’s and County’s General Plans.
No part of Appian Way is widened from three lanes to five lanes under Alternative C,
as traffic modeling showed that LOS D can be maintained if the full effects of responses
allowed under the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM-2000) operations manual are
considered.15 For example, HCM-2000 allows signal timing benefits to be considered,
whereas the CCTALOS software does not.
Comparison and Recommendation
Three alternatives were evaluated for: relative traffic performance, enhancements to
pedestrian environments and community character, and construction and preliminary
land acquisition costs.
14 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32.
15 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
162
4
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Transportation Performance. For motor vehicles, the benchmark of performance is
conformance to the West County Action Plan’s MTSO to “maintain LOS D or better at
all signalized intersections on Appian Way.”16 All three alternatives meet this require-
ment. Alternatives A and B meet the requirement as measured by the CCTALOS meth-
odology prescribed by the Action Plan. Alternative C meets the MTSO requirement as
determined by the HCM-2000 methodology, which is not noted in the WCAP but is
accepted as an alternative method in CCTA’s Technical Procedures manual.17 All three
Alternatives depict bicycle lanes along the entire length of the corridor, and maintain bus
stops. With regard to pedestrians, however, Alternative C is superior in several respects:
continuous concrete sidewalks, curb extensions at some crosswalks, and separation of
pedestrians from moving vehicles by street trees and parked cars in some locations.
Community Character. Alternative C would create a more attractive walking environ-
ment than the other Alternatives. Alternative C would provide street trees, pedestrian-
scaled lighting, landscaping and opportunities for seating. Alternative C has the poten-
tial of transforming the character of the corridor and of making special recognizable
destinations where mixed-use development is encouraged by City and County policies.
Enhanced walking environments were assumed as part of Alternatives A or B. Alterna-
tive A examines the effects of applying the County’s standard five-lane cross section,
and Alternative B examines the extent to which improvements can be minimized if the
CCTALOS method of analysis is applied, as is called for by the West County Action
Plan.
Land Acquisition and Cost Implications. Cost estimating was conducted by Contra
Costa County’s Public Works Department. Alternative A is the most expensive (about
$17.7 million) because land and building acquisition costs are considerable and grading
and construction would be more extensive. Alternative B represents the lowest construc-
tion costs (about $9.5 million), as it makes no improvements to Appian Way south of
Fulton Way, except for a new light signal at Manor Road. Alternative C (about $13 mil-
lion) is less expensive than Alternative A but more expensive than Alternative B. While
Alternative C acquisition costs are similar to those under Alternative B, street trees,
landscaping, pedestrian-scaled lighting and curb extensions add significant costs–but
these improvements could accelerate redevelopment in commercial mixed-use areas and
enhance the image and land values in the larger area.
Recommendation. This report recommends Alternative C, Complete Street, because
public improvements provide numerous benefits relating to walkability and community
character at a cost comparable or less than if a five-lane roadway were built. Alternative
C delivers superior pedestrian environments and safety. It would have a transformative
effect on the area’s image and identity. Alternative C also has the best chance of encour-
16 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32.
17 CCTA, Technical Procedures Update, 2012, page 40.
aging new private investment to redevelop commercial areas into pedestrian-friendly
districts, thereby better leveraging public investments along the corridor. As designed,
Alternative C would also be most responsive to site-specific conditions along the corri-
dor and best support abutting land uses.
ORGANIZATION
The remaining chapters of this report provide a comprehensive analysis of conditions,
considerations, and design options, organized as follows:
• Policy Context. Established Contra Costa County, City of Pinole and CCTA policies
are summarized to highlight objectives for Appian Way improvements and its per-
formance as a transportation corridor and series of places. Existing County, City and
CCTA policies are summarized to ensure consistency between recommendations and
adopted plans.
• Physical Conditions along the Corridor. The corridor is comprised of different seg-
ments that are characteristically different and may call for varying design responses.
Factors assessed include: the number of traffic lanes, the frequency of curb cuts, the
character of abutting uses, the presence of steep slopes and retaining walls, and other
factors.
• Transportation Analysis. Technical analysis projects future year LOS within the
Appian Way planning area. Where future operations might be substandard, intersec-
tion configurations have been recommended and incorporated into the Study’s design
alternatives.
Two different analysis methodologies are used. The CCTALOS methodology is
required by the West County Action Plan to evaluate conformance to the MTSO
for Appian Way. A separate analysis was made using the HCM-2000 methodology,
which is recognized by CCTA’s Technical Procedures. The HCM-2000 methodology
accounts for additional factors affecting intersection performance, such as the full
effects of signal timing. The two methodologies result in different conclusions: the
CCTALOS methodology indicates that Appian Way should be widened from Michael
Drive to Fulton Way, while the HCM-2000 methodology indicates that no road wid-
ening is needed.
• Design Alternatives. Design alternatives were prepared to examine and evaluate the
three different options, as have been summarized above and are described later in this
document. The three alternatives have been evaluated for: relative traffic performance;
enhancements to pedestrian environments and community character; and construc-
tion and land acquisition costs.
163
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
5
2 Policy Context
The City of Pinole and Contra Costa County have jurisdiction over separate segments of
the portion of Appian Way that is subject of this study, and are responsible for helping
achieve the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) established in the
West County Action Plan.
Circulation policies for Pinole and Contra Costa County are summarized below. Some
policies are aligned, as they target congestion relief and encourage alternative modes.
Pinole and County land use and urban design policies are also similar as both juris-
dictions encourage new pedestrian-friendly development in commercially-designated
areas.
Land use policy highlights also appear in this section. To put these policies in context,
note that the existing pattern of land use includes commercial uses along the corridor’s
north end, near Fitzgerald Drive, and along its south end, near Valley View Road. (Fig-
ure 3: Existing Land Uses shows existing land uses in the corridor.) Residential uses line
the middle half of the corridor and generally consist of single-family lots. Exceptions
include less than half a dozen multi-family parcels, less than half a dozen churches and a
school. (For more detail on conditions, please see “Conditions along Specific Segments”
in Chapter 3.)
COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) calls for cooperative multi-jurisdictional
planning among CCTA and local jurisdictions in Contra Costa, such as this Study.
The CTP also lays out CCTA’s vision for Contra Costa’s future, goals and strategies for
attaining that vision, and transportation priorities. For the Authority, that Vision is:
Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promot-
ing a healthy environment and a strong economy to benefit the people and areas
of Contra Costa, sustained by 1) a balanced, safe and efficient transportation net-
work; 2) coopertive planning; and 3) growth management. The transportation
CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT
network should integrate all modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of
Contra Costa.18
CTP goals and strategies that are particularly relevant to the Appian Way study are those
that underscore the idea of increasing multi-modal mobility, making more efficient use
of the existing system, and promoting infill and redevelopment in existing areas. Spe-
cific to Appian Way, the CTP calls for the funding of “vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle
improvements, including widening of Appian Way and installation of pedestrian cross-
walks, traffic calming measures, and streetscape improvements.”19
The CTP also calls for the Authority to work with the County and local jurisdictions
to ensure that new transportation projects are environmentally sustainable through: “1)
supportive transportation‐land use relationships, 2) transit, 3) bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, 4) safe and efficiently managed highways and roads, and 5) new tech-
nologies.”
A key implementation strategy is to require local jurisdictions to incorporate policies
and standards that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new development
as well as promote development of multi-modal facilities–a central tenet of the “com-
plete streets” concept. For the existing arterial system, the emphasis is on completing
the “gaps” and enhancing operational capacity through both capital and operational
enhancements.
The CTP also seeks to ensure that projects respect each community’s character and
enhance the quality of life in Contra Costa communities.20 This goal is well aligned with
another central tenet of complete streets: to be context sensitive and responsive to the
unique needs of each setting.
A principal vehicle for implementing the CTP is CCTA’s administration of Measure J
funds. The CTP provides a framework for setting project and program priorities, which
are defined by Action Plans for subregions within the County. To receive Measure J
funds, projects and programs must be consistent with these Action Plans.
18 CCTA, Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2009, page v.
19 Ibid, page 93.
20 Ibid, page 37.
164
6
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT Thr
e
eCorri d o rsSpecificP lan
PinoleSphereofInfluencePinole City LimitsA P P IA N W A Y
FITZGERALDSARAH
DRMICHAEL DRDALESSI DRFULTO
N
WA
Y RANCHORDMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDVALLEYVIEWRDEVA ETNARBOSAPPIAN WA
Y
APPIAN WAY
ALLVIEWAVEAPPIAN WAY C OMPLE TE STREE TS STUDY
City of Pinole and Contra Costa CountyGeneral Plan Land Use
Commercial Open
Space
Light
Industrial
Vacant Multi-family
Residential
Single Family
Residential
Public/
Semi-public
Motel Oce
200
FEET
0080040100
Existing Land Use
Pinole City LimitsEl S obrante
P inole
PinoleSphereofInfluenceThr
e
eCorri d o rsSp ecific Plan
A P P IA N W A Y
FITZGERALDDRSARAH DRDALESSI DRFULT
O
N
WAYRANCHO RDMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDVALLEYVIEWRDEVA ETNARBOSAPPIAN WA
Y
APPIAN WAY
ALLVIEWAVEMICHAEL
D
R
Suburban Residential
1.1-10.0 du/ac
(City of Pinole GP)
Commercial Mixed Use
20.1-30.0 du/ac
(min 51% commercial, retail, and service use)(City of Pinole GP)
Multiple-Family Residential
Medium Density
12.0-20.9 du/ac(Contra Costa County GP)
Single Family Residential
High Density
5.0-7.2 du/ac(Contra Costa County GP)
Single Family Residential
Low Density
1.0-2.9 du/ac(Contra Costa County GP)
Multiple-Family Residential
Low Density7.3-11.9 du/ac
(Contra Costa County GP)
Commercial
0.1-1.0 FAR
(Contra Costa County GP)
M-12 Triangle Area Mixed-Use
up to 8 du/ac; 0.1-1.0 FAR
(Contra Costa County GP)
Residential Mixed Use
20.1-35.0 du/ac
(min 51% residential use)(City of Pinole Three Corridors
Specic Plan)
High Density Residential20.1-35.0 du/ac
(City of Pinole GP)
Rural
0.0-0.20 du/ac
(City of Pinole GP)
Pinole City Limits
Pinole Sphere of Inuence
Three Corridors Specic Plan
Building
Footprint
Figure 3: Existing Land Uses
Figure 4: General Plan Land Uses City of Pinole and Contra Costa County ThreeCorri d o rsSpecificP lan
PinoleSphereofInfluencePinole City LimitsA P P IA N W A YFITZGERALDSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESSI DRFULTONWAY RANCHORDMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDVALLEYVIEWRDEVA ETNARBOSAPPIAN WAYAPPIAN WAYALLVIEWAVE APPIAN WAY C OMPLE TE STREE TS STUDY
City of Pinole and Contra Costa CountyGeneral Plan Land Use
Commercial OpenSpace LightIndustrial Vacant Multi-familyResidential Single FamilyResidentialPublic/Semi-publicMotelOce
200
FEET
0080040 100
Existing Land Use
Pinole City LimitsEl S obrante
P inole
PinoleSphereofInfluenceThr
e
eCorri d o rsSp ecific Plan
A P P IA N W A Y
FITZGERALDDRSARAH
DRDALESSI DRFU
LT
O
N
WAYRANCHO RDMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDVALLEYVIEWRDEVA ETNARBOSAPPIAN W
A
Y
APPIAN WAY
ALLVIEWAVEMICHAEL
D
R
Suburban Residential1.1-10.0 du/ac
(City of Pinole GP)
Commercial Mixed Use20.1-30.0 du/ac
(min 51% commercial, retail, and service use)
(City of Pinole GP)
Multiple-Family ResidentialMedium Density
12.0-20.9 du/ac
(Contra Costa County GP)
Single Family ResidentialHigh Density
5.0-7.2 du/ac
(Contra Costa County GP)
Single Family ResidentialLow Density
1.0-2.9 du/ac
(Contra Costa County GP)
Multiple-Family Residential
Low Density
7.3-11.9 du/ac(Contra Costa County GP)
Commercial0.1-1.0 FAR
(Contra Costa County GP)
M-12 Triangle Area Mixed-Useup to 8 du/ac; 0.1-1.0 FAR
(Contra Costa County GP)
Residential Mixed Use20.1-35.0 du/ac
(min 51% residential use)
(City of Pinole Three CorridorsSpecic Plan)
High Density Residential
20.1-35.0 du/ac(City of Pinole GP)
Rural0.0-0.20 du/ac
(City of Pinole GP)
Pinole City Limits
Pinole Sphere of Inuence
Three Corridors Specic Plan
BuildingFootprint
165
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
7CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT
WEST COUNTY ACTION PLAN UPDATE OF 2009
For each CCTA Action Plan, a Regional Committee assesses the impacts of
future growth on the regional transportation system and identifies actions for
mitigating these impacts.21 The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee (WCCTAC) updated its West County Action Plan (WCAP) in 2009.
The WCAP addresses the cumulative impacts of regional growth on West Coun-
ty’s major transportation facilities.
The WCAP defines Appian Way as a Route of Regional Significance that con-
nects San Pablo Dam Road and Interstate 80. WCCTAC’s Multimodal Trans-
portation Service Objective (MTSO) for Appian Way is to “maintain LOS D or
better at all signalized intersections on Appian Way.”22
To attain the MTSO, the WCAP calls for WCCTAC, Contra Costa County and
City of Pinole to “work with CCTA and MTC to fund construction of any vehi-
cle, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements. Modifications may include widen-
ing Appian Way to four lanes from Valley View Road in unincorporated Contra
Costa County to Michael Drive in the City of Pinole. Additional modifications
may include improved pedestrian and bicycle access through installation of
pedestrian crosswalks, traffic calming measures and streetscape improvements.”
As is demonstrated by this study’s design alternatives, a potentially limiting fac-
tor in how the MTSO can be attained is the requirement that, for Appian Way,
LOS must be measured at intersections “using the CCTALOS software to ana-
lyze peak hour vehicular turning movement counts.” 23
Some methods such as accounting for the full effects of signal timing for improv-
ing LOS are not recognized by the CCTALOS software as is considered under
HCM-2000. However, CCTA’s Technical Procedures manual recognizes HCM-
2000 as an acceptable methodology. In the introduction to its chapter on Level-
of-Service Methodology for Intersections, the manual says:
Both the Authority’s LOS [CCTALOS] method which relies on volume-to-
capacity, and the HCM-2000 method, which reports intersection delay,
may be used for traffic analysis.24
21 Ibid, page 83.
22 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32.
23 Ibid.
24 CCTA, Technical Procedures Update, 2012, page 40.
CITY OF PINOLE
Land Use. Within the City of Pinole, the Three Corridors Specific Plan pro-
vides policy guidance. The Specific Plan promotes a combination of commercial
and residential development, which must have entrances and frontages oriented
toward Appian Way as a result of small maximum (or “build to”) setbacks and
street-oriented “building type” requirements. Vertical mixed use, where upper-
story residences are above street-level commercial, is encouraged,
In Pinole, significant land use intensification is allowed along Appian Way –
except on the single-family subdivision between Sarah Drive and Michael Drive.
Most parcels along the west side of Appian Way have a Commercial Mixed Use
(CMU) designation, which allows for a wide variety of commercial uses as well
as high-density multi-family residential up to 30 dwellings per acre (du/ac). Fig-
ure 4: General Plan Land Uses shows Pinole’s land use design.
Along the east side of Appian Way, the single-family subdivision to the north
will remain, while to the south, the Residential Mixed Use (RMU) designation
allows commercial uses and residential uses up to 35 du/ac. The southernmost
parcels on the west side of Appian Way have this same designation, except for
one High-Density Residential parcel, which also allows up to 35 dwellings per
acre.
Circulation. The Circulation Element of the Specific Plan reinforces Pinole’s
vision for a more pedestrian-oriented and bicycle-friendly Appian Way. Cir-
culation Policy 2 of the Specific Plan says: “all future roadway and intersection
improvements will consider pedestrian and traffic safety first and foremost.”25
Specific features for attaining this goal include narrowing travel lanes to regulate
speeds, using curb extensions to reduce crossing distances as crosswalks, and
planting street trees.26
The Specific Plan describes a preferred five-lane cross section for Appian Way
that includes sidewalks (separated from the curb by street trees) and bicycle
lanes.27 The five-lane street improvement subsequently made by the City does
not have street trees between sidewalk and curb, nor does it have bicycle lanes
– although sufficient room for a striped bicycle lane appears to be available (see
Chapter 5: Design Alternatives).
25 City of Pinole, Three Corridors Specific Plan, 2010, page 5.0-2.
26 Ibid, pages 5.0-47 through -48.
27 Ibid, page 5.0-37.
166
8
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Land Use. Much of the planning area within the County’s jurisdiction would
remain as Single-family Residential (SFR) with up to 7.2 du/ac except in two sub-
areas.28 The County’s General Plan designates the area near Pinole’s city limit on
the east side of Appian Way as Multi-family Residential (MFR), with up to 20.9
du/ac allowed. Around and near the “Triangle Area,” neighborhood-oriented
commercial uses with up to 1.0 FAR are allowed, along with modest amounts
of residential (up to 8 du/ac) on the parcels designated as M-12 Triangle Area
Mixed-Use.
The County’s vision for the southern “Triangle Area” is that it should “develop
into a unified, well-designed neighborhood, which at appropriate locations pro -
vides opportunities for mixed use development, rather than an incremental
accumulation of unrelated developments.”29 Most parcels at the south end are
designated as “Triangle Area Mixed Use,” which calls for a pedestrian-oriented
“main street” environment.
Building(s) should be located close to street frontage with windows and
entries facing the street. …The retail and/or commercial uses should be
located along ground floor street frontages although offices for professional
and business services may be located above retail use. …Surface parking
should be located behind commercial frontage.30
The County also supports the reuse of previously developed land.
Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. …In accommo-
dating new development, preferences shall generally be given to vacant or
under-used sites within urbanized area.31
Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment,
where appropriate.32
[And the Triangle Area Mixed-Use designation] strongly encourages the
consolidation of parcels so as to provide an improved development foot-
print and combined access and parking areas.33
Circulation. Policy 3-186 of the County’s General Plan gives specific guidance
for an Appian Way feasibility study that considers whether additional lanes need
to be added and how pedestrian and bicycle environments can be improved:
[T]he County will evaluate the feasibility of the planned four lane [plus
turn lane] roadway configuration … compared to retention of the current
28 Contra Costa County, General Plan, 2010, Land Use Map.
29 Ibid, page 3-73.
30 Ibid, page 3-25.
31 Ibid, page 3-34.
32 Ibid, page 3-35.
33 Ibid.
three lane configuration. This feasibility study will determine the footprint
of a four lane cross-section for this segment of Appian Way to be used in
estimating the right of way and construction costs for the planned road-
way configuration, as a four lane arterial roadway. The feasibility study
will then compare projected traffic volumes and levels of service for the
planned four lane arterial roadway versus the existing three lane cross sec-
tion (one lane in each direction plus a center two-way left turn lane) and
evaluate any differences between the two in terms of traffic operations and
safety. … Additionally, consistent with the principles of existing General
Plan policies related to “Complete Streets,” the feasibility study will exam-
ine whether improvements for this roadway segment are needed for pedes-
trians, bicyclists, and public transit and whether such improvements can
be provided within the existing public right-of-way. … The results of the
study will then be used as the basis for the County to determine whether to
amend the Transportation/Circulation Element, Roadway Network Map,
changing this segment of Appian Way from a planned four lane roadway
to retention of the existing three lane cross-section (one lane in each direc-
tion plus a center two-way left turn lane) as the planned roadway configu-
ration.34
The complete streets policies called for above embody the following principles,
as defined by the General Plan:
• Emphasize all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and
motorists, of all ages and abilities;
• Recognize the need for design flexibility as conditions and user needs vary by
street; and
• Require that complete streets solutions fit context of the local community.35
County General Plan policies also encourage efforts to develop and promote
“alternative forms of transportation … in order to provide basic accessibility to
those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile
congestion and air pollution.” 36 Additionally, the General Plan seeks to establish
“local transit service areas; areas where development densities will warrant the
provision of fixed-route transit service.”37
Of special relevance to the Triangle Mixed-Use area, County Policy 5-37 says,
“Pedestrian Districts should be created in areas of mixed or dense land use and
dense or potentially intense pedestrian activity. Landscaping and trees should
be used” and the design of street improvements should “encourage pedestrian
activity” where high usage is anticipated.38
34 Ibid, page 3-6
35 Ibid, page 5-9.
36 Ibid, page 5-16.
37 Ibid, page 5-14.
38 Ibid, page 5-22.
167
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
9CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR
3 Physical Conditions Along the Corridor
Constraints and opportunities have been evaluated across a range factors that
have design or construction cost implications. A graphic synthesis of most fac-
tors appears in Figure 6: Existing Conditions/Opportunities and Constraints,
which is included later on page 18, to enable easy review alongside proposed
design alternatives.
METHODOLOGY
CCTA’s consultant team mapped existing conditions using County parcel maps,
satellite imagery and field measurements. No “as built” drawings were available,
yet analysis and recommendations are represented with reasonable confidence,
with mapping believed to be accurate within a few feet.
Physical analyses of the corridor—and the design Alternatives that follow—are
depicted using diagrams that emphasize critical planning factors (Figures 6
to 9). The basis for these diagrams is detailed mapping and design work using
Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Development of CAD digital drawing files pro-
motes more accurate base mapping, design work, and analysis. The CAD files
might also provide a useful point of departure after a preferred design is selected
and design development is initiated.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Travel Lanes. Once a two-lane rural road, Appian Way has been improved
incrementally and in segments as Pinole and Contra Costa County have devel-
oped. As a consequence, physical conditions within the corridor could be quite
varied. The number of lanes changes from five-lanes at Michael Drive to three-
lanes from just north of Pinole’s City limit line through the rest of the corri-
dor–except where the roadway widens briefly to five lanes at its intersection with
Valley View Road. Lane widths and curb-to-curb dimensions vary considerably
as well.
Curbs and Sidewalks. Asphalt curbs and sidewalks are used in segments where
recent development has not occurred, while more permanent concrete curbs
and sidewalks are used in Pinole and in the unincorporated County with recent
development. Sidewalks (concrete and asphalt) line the full length of Appian
Way, except in the Triangle Area where continuous driveway access extends
along the west side of the street.
Pedestrian Crossings. Pedestrian crossings are delineated by single painted
lines at Fitzgerald Drive, Allview Avenue, Manor Road, and Valley View and by
a zebra crosswalk designation at Argyle Road. At some crossings, the intersec-
tion design results in a crossing that is quite long (e.g. Manor Road). No special
pavement or signage is provided.
Driveways and Setbacks. Most of the corridor has frequent curb cuts and drive-
ways that provide access to homes, businesses and institutions. Many residential
structures are set relatively close to the street. No driveways occur off of Appian
north of Michael Drive.
Bicycle Lanes. Striped bicycle lanes are continuously present, except where
Appian has five lanes in the northern part of the corridor.
Bus Service. AC Transit provides bus service along Appian Way. To the north,
bus route 70 links Appian Way with the Richmond Parkway Transit Center. To
the south, bus route 70 crosses San Pablo Avenue and connects to the Richmond
BART and Amtrak station. Bus stops are intermittent and are spaced about one-
third of a mile apart. Simple wood benches accompany some bus stops.
Hillside Slopes. Hillside slopes occur along significant portions of Appian Way.
To stay within available right-of-way, some slopes have been cut and retained by
walls with heights ranging from about three to fifteen feet.
168
10
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR
CONDITIONS ALONG SPECIFIC SEGMENTS
Conditions for characteristically different segments are described below, in an
order that moves from north to south. For a map of these segments, refer to Fig-
ure 2: Location Map and Existing Configuration or Figure 6: Existing Condi-
tions/Opportunities and Constraints.
Pinole: Fitzgerald Drive to Michael Drive (Five lanes)
Roadway Conditions. From Fitzgerald Drive to Michael Drive, Appian Way was
improved by the City of Pinole to be a five-lane roadway. This segment is accom-
panied by concrete curbs, concrete sidewalks, and landscaping. It lacks bicycle
lanes but there appears to be sufficient curb-to-curb dimension for their addition
(see Chapter 5: Design Alternatives).
Between Fitzgerald Drive and Michael Drive, there is no direct access to abut-
ting properties. Commercial property along the west edge gains access from
Fitzgerald Drive, and the east edge of Appian has rear yard fences associated
with a single-family subdivision.
Land Use Context. To the west, low-intensity commercial uses presently exist
but these lots could be candidates for infill or redevelopment. The Commercial
Mixed Use designation allows high-density housing in addition to commercial
uses. Single-family lots at the northeast corner of the planning area are likely to
remain given their good condition and low-density Suburban Residential desig-
nation.
Looking south toward Michael Drive Looking north toward Sarah Drive
Key Considerations. Except for restriping to provide bicycle lanes and the
potential for lighting and landscape improvements, this segment of Appian Way
might be considered to be fully improved for the foreseeable future.
Pinole: Michael Drive to Pinole City Limit (transitions from five to three
lanes)
Roadway Conditions. For about 500 feet from just south of Michael Drive to
north of the city limit line, Appian Way transitions from five-lanes to three-
lanes. On-street parking is available where the number of travel lanes has been
reduced but the curb-to-curb distance has not narrowed. This segment features
concrete curbs and sidewalks.
Land Use Context. The Commercial Mixed Use designation of the Three Corri-
dors Specific Plan allows the integration of commercial and office uses. The Res-
idential Mixed Use designation also allows housing. Under both designations,
new construction should place “commercial use at the ground floor on the street
front wherever possible.”39
Key Considerations. Mixed-use development that fronts onto the street would
be encouraged by enhancing pedestrian sidewalks with street trees and ameni-
ties, and by providing on-street parking.
39 City of Pinole, Three Corridors Specific Plan, 2010, pages 6.0-3 to 6.0-4.
Looking north from Public Storage Looking south toward Dalessi Drive
169
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
11CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR
Triangle Area Commercial Segment (three lanes transitioning to five lanes)
Roadway Conditions. Appian Way remains at three lanes except immediately
north of Valley View Road, where it transitions to five lanes. Along the east side
of Appian, concrete sidewalks accompany relatively new commercial develop-
ment. Appian Way’s west side is unimproved, as asphalt parking lots merge with
the roadway and there is no clear pedestrian path. At the Appian Way and Valley
View Road intersection, curbs and striping provide a perpendicular approach,
but with sweeping right turns also present. Considerable right-of-way remains
unused, while sidewalks are narrow.
Land Use Context. To date, commercial development has had a suburban con-
figuration with parking lots in front and building entrances set away from the
street. Triangle Area Mixed Use and commercial designations allow for a range
of local-serving commercial uses and housing is permissible on upper floors. A
maximum height of 35 feet and a maximum FAR of 1.0 are allowed.
Key Considerations. The Appian Way/Valley View Road intersection presents
opportunities and challenges. The roads’ rights-of-way intersect in a skewed
manner, which is reconciled by the existing roadway configuration made pos-
sible by large rights-of-way (Figure 11). At the same time, pedestrian sidewalks
are absent along the western edge of Appian Way. North of this intersection
Appian Way widens to as much as two hundred feet, and Valley View’s right-of-
way is over 130 feet at the intersection. Available right-of-way could be used for
sidewalks, planting strips, and on-street parking to support new street-oriented
businesses. Place-making features, such as a roundabout, might be considered as
well because roundabouts offer transportation benefits as well as lower mainte-
nance costs than the signalized intersections. Roadway improvements and pri-
vate development in this segment have the potential to create a distinctive pedes-
trian-oriented district. To encourage development, the County could increase
allowable height and floor area ratios (FARs) to allow larger buildings, and/or
make unused right-of-way available for sale.
Looking south from Rancho Road Looking south from the post office
Pinole City Limit to Triangle Area Commercial Area (three lanes)
Roadway Conditions. This three-lane segment has bicycle lanes of varying
width. Recent development has led to roadway widening, and construction of
concrete sidewalks and curbs. Where development has not occurred recently,
asphalt sidewalks and curbs remain. Steep slopes are present close to the right-
of-way.
Land Use Context. In unincorporated Contra Costa County, most of Appian
Way’s frontage is lined by property designated Single-Family Residential High
Density. This designation allows up to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac),
which makes redevelopment of existing lots unlikely. On the east side of Appian
Way and within 800 feet of the Pinole City Limit, properties have a Multi-Fam-
ily Residential Medium Density General Plan designation that allows up to 20.9
dwelling units per acre. Narrow parcels would need to be assembled for develop-
ers to take advantage of this density.
Key Considerations. From the standpoint of roadway design, residential uses
generally need only be accompanied by modest sidewalk widths (about five feet
in width). Where new sidewalks are being installed, street trees between curb
and sidewalk should be considered to make the walking environment and com-
munity more attractive. On-street parking adjacent to residential uses may not
be needed because sufficient amounts of on-site parking exist. Furthermore, on-
street parking would increase land acquisition and grading costs. Providing on-
street parking, where feasible, could support successful mixed-use developments
along Appian Way.
Looking north from Argyle Road Looking north from Valley View intersection
170
12
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
4 Transportation Analysis
As part of the technical evaluation, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (K&A) assessed
existing and future traffic operations at four intersections along Appian Way: 1)
Michael Drive, 2) Allview Avenue, 3) Rancho Road, and 4) Manor Road. The All-
view Avenue and the Manor Road intersections are currently signalized, while
the Michael Drive and the Rancho Road intersections are currently controlled
by stop signs on the minor street approaches. K&A’s analysis forecasts the future
year vehicle volumes using the CCTA Travel Demand Model.
This analysis compares future performance using two different methodologies:
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Level of Service (CCTALOS) meth-
odology, the method cited specifically in the West County Action Plan MTSO
for Appian Way, and the Highway Capacity Manual Operations methodology,
which is an accepted alternative under CCTA’s updated Technical Procedures.
The following section summarizes the forecast approach and the two different
methodologies, and presents the findings of the future year intersection level of
service (LOS) analysis. Where future operations would be substandard, inter-
section configurations are recommended and have been incorporated into the
design alternatives presented later in this report.
FORECAST APPROACH
Future year vehicle volume forecasts were estimated using the version of the
CCTA Countywide Model prepared for the Pinole General Plan, which incor-
porates the land use assumptions for the area, with adjustments to reflect the
Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment (GPA). County staff reviewed
and provided comments on the Downtown El Sobrante GPA and the number of
lanes and travel speeds on the roadway network in the project vicinity. Changes
were made in the model in response to these comments, and those changes are
part of the baseline for this analysis.
Traffic volume forecasts were prepared using the 2000 base and 2030 future
year volumes from the CCTA model and the 2012 traffic counts following the
process described in the CCTA Technical Procedures. 40 To be consistent with
the approach used in the Pinole General Plan Update and for a more conserva-
40 As an intermediate step, the 2012 intersection turning movement counts were compared to the available historical
counts from 2003/4 and 2006 at these locations. The comparison found that the 2012 counts were generally comparable
or higher, which indicates that traffic volumes appear to have recovered from the recent economic downturn.
tive analysis, the full 30-year growth increment (2000 to 2030) from the model
was used, and no adjustment was made to account for the actual growth that
occurred between 2000 and 2012, which was lower than anticipated. The existing
and future year volumes and lane geometry assumptions are shown in Figure 5:
Existing and Future Traffic Volume and Lane Geometries (Volumes: AM (PM)).
Projected increases in traffic only occur at significant levels north of Fulton Way,
with relatively little growth in volumes south of Fulton Way. In both the south-
bound direction in the AM peak hour and in the northbound direction in the
PM peak hour, this increase appears to be attributable to cut-through traffic due
to congestions on the I-80, on Fulton Way as it connects via Manor Road to Hill-
top Drive. This is reflected in the through volumes at the Michael Drive intersec-
tion and the Allview Avenue intersection.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
Contra Costa County’s level of service standard for signalized intersections in
an urban area is high LOS D with volume-to-capacity (V/C) between 0.85 and
0.89 assessed using CCTALOS methodology, which is consistent with the West
County Action Plan and CCTA’s Technical Procedures. While there is no explicit
County standard for unsignalized intersections, these locations were evaluated
using the methodology presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM),
which is an option recognized by CCTA’s updated Technical Procedures, but not
identified separately as an alternate methodology for analyzing conformance
with the MTSO for Appian Way. To provide the best planning information, K&A
used both the CCTALOS methodology and the HCM Operations methodology.
The HCM Operations methodology is a more robust analysis methodology for
the signalized intersections that accounts for factors not included in the capac-
ity-based CCTALOS method. The rationale for this is to show clearly the effects
of methods for intersection performance that are not captured by the CCTALOS
method, such as the full effects of signal timing.
This analysis first compares future performance using the Contra Costa Trans-
portation Authority Level of Service (CCTALOS) methodology and then applies
the HCM Operations methodology. Both the average vehicle delay for vehicles at
the intersection and the worst approach delay are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
171
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
13CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 1 presents the existing conditions, seconds of delay for unsignalized inter-
sections, Volume-to-Capacity ratios using the CCTALOS methodology for sig-
nalized intersections, and their corresponding level of service (LOS).
The top row of Figure 5 shows existing conditions, vehicle volumes, and lane
geometries for identified locations. The second and third rows show future con-
ditionsthe baseline and volumes with improvements. The first number is the AM
volume, while the second, in parenthesis, is the PM volume.
Table 2 presents the future year analysis results using the CCTALOS and HCM
methodologies. For three of the four locations where the LOS and volume/
capacity ratio (V/C) were studied, future conditions would not meet the County
standard of high LOS D with V/C between 0.85 and 0.89, unless recommended
improvements were implemented.
Using the CCTALOS methodology, additional through lanes will be needed
north of Fulton Way to meet the County’s LOS standard. While Fulton Way was
not analyzed, it is used by motorists as a shortcut from Manor Road to Appian
Way. Fulton Way is forecasted to carry more cut-through traffic in the future,
due to the congestion on the I-80 freeway. Under this scenario, the CCTALOS
methods point to the need to make Appian Way north of Fulton four lanes plus
median/turn lane. South of Fulton, Appian Way could remain two-lanes plus a
median/turn lane. The effects of potential improvements at the four locations
that were analyzed using the CCTALOS methodology are shown in Table 2.
Table 1 Intersection Level of Service (Year 2012 Existing Conditions)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
1 Appian Way and Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.5 A 1.8 A
Eastbound Approach 56.0 F 102.2 F
3 Appian Way and Rancho Road Minor Stop3 3.5 A 1.2 A
Westbound Approach 81.0 F 50.6 F
V/C2 LOS V/C2 LOS
2 Appian Way and Allview Avenue Signal 0.69 B 0.87 D
4 Appian Way and Manor Road Signal 0.82 D 0.78 C
1. The delay shown is based on the 2000 HCM unsignalized intersection methodology, which provides an
average delay in seconds for the overall intersection as well as the worst approach, shown on the second
line.
2. Volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) based on the CCTALOS methodology for signalized intersections.
3. For the stop-controlled intersections, the average delay and corresponding LOS are reported for the
overall intersection on the first line and for the stop-controlled side street approach on the second line.
Figure 5: Existing and Future Traffic Volume and Lane Geometries (Volumes: AM (PM))
Existing Conditions (2012)
Future Year–No Improvements (2030)
Future Year–With Improvements (2030)
172
14
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Using the HCM methodology, the results for future (2030) conditions (shown in
Table 2) indicate that the existing lane configurations at the two signalized inter-
sections would be able to accommodate future traffic volumes while meeting the
LOS D standard set as the MTSO for Appian Way in the West County Action
Plan. At the two unsignalized intersections, improvements, as discussed below,
would be required to improve the operations to acceptable standards.
Potential Improvements and the Alternatives. The modeling methods that are
employed relate to the design alternatives described in Chapter 5. Alternative A
and Alternative B are designed to meet the MTSO using the CCTALOS meth-
odology called for by the West County Action Plan – with Alternative A wid-
ened to five lanes throughout and Alternative B widened to five lanes between
Michael Drive and Fulton Way. Alternative C improvements are based on the
HCM methodology, which recognizes operational improvements that will allow
three lanes to remain where they now exist.
Appian Way and Michael Drive (1). This unsignalized intersection would have
overall LOS A during both AM and PM peak hours in the existing and future
years. However, vehicles at the minor street approaches would experience long
delays during both peak periods with LOS F conditions. In particular, left-turn-
ing and through movements from the minor streets would be most affected due
to the high volumes in both directions along the four-lane Appian Way.
Potential Improvement: To address future needs, through and left-turn move-
ments from Michael Drive and the opposing commercial center should be
restricted. To head south, residents and visitors from the residential subdivision
north of Michael Drive could be directed towards Sarah Drive and the signal at
the intersection of Appian Way with Sarah/Fitzgerald Drive; while patrons of
the commercial center may use the left-turn portion just south of the driveway
exit to make a U-turn to head north. Upon implementation of the measure, the
minor street operations would improve to LOS C. This mitigation is the same
under both the CCTALOS methodology and HCM-2000 methodology scenar-
ios.
Appian Way and Allview Avenue (2). This intersection currently operates at
LOS B and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. However,
when using the CCTALOS methodology, this intersection would function below
standard in the future year at LOS E and LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours,
respectively, due to increased volumes of high through traffic on Appian Way.
However, when using the HCM methodology, this intersection would operate
at LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours, and no improvements would be
needed.
Table 2 Intersection Level of Service (Year 2030 Future Scenario using CCTALOS and
HCM-2000 Methodology)
CCTA Methodology
Before Improvements
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
1 Appian Way and Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.9 A 2.7 A
Eastbound Approach 152.1 F 188.3 F
3 Appian Way and Rancho Road Minor Stop3 13.4 B 5.7 A
Westbound Approach 213.9 F 182.4 F
V/C2 LOS V/C2 LOS
2 Appian Way and Allview Avenue Signal 0.98 E 1.04 F
4 Appian Way and Manor Road Signal 0.81 D 0.82 D
After Improvements
Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
1 Appian Way and Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.1 A 0.3 A
Eastbound Approach 15.5 C 17.9 C
V/C2 LOS V/C2 LOS
2 Appian Way and Allview Avenue Signal 0.55 A 0.54 A
3 Appian Way and Rancho Road Signal 0.70 B 0.89 A
4 Appian Way and Manor Road Signal 0.81 D 0.82 D
HCM 2000 Methodology
Before Improvements
Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
1 Appian Way & Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.9 A 2.7 A
Eastbound Approach 152.1 F 188.3 F
2 Appian Way & Allview Avenue Signal 35.1 D 41.6 D
3 Appian Way & Rancho Road Minor Stop3 13.4 B 5.7 A
Westbound Approach 213.9 F 182.4 F
4 Appian Way & Manor Road Signal 25.6 C 16.9 B
After Improvements
Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
1 Appian Way and Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.1 A 0.3 A
Eastbound Approach 15.5 C 17.9 C
2 Appian Way and Allview Avenue Signal 35.1 D 41.6 D
3 Appian Way and Rancho Road Signal 0.70 B 0.89 A
4 Appian Way and Manor Road Signal 25.6 C 16.9 B
1. The delay shown is based on the 2000 HCM unsignalized intersection methodology, which provides an
average delay in seconds for the overall intersection as well as the worst approach, shown on the second
line.
2. Volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) based on the CCTALOS methodology for signalized intersections.
3. For the stop-controlled intersections, the average delay and corresponding LOS are reported for the
overall intersection on the first line and for the stop-controlled side street approach on the second line.
173
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
15CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Potential Improvement: Based on the results of the CCTALOS methodology,
an additional exclusive through lane on both the northbound and southbound
directions should be added to improve the service level to LOS A in both peak
hours. Based on the HCM methodology additional through lanes would not be
needed.
Appian Way and Rancho Road (3). This unsignalized intersection currently
operates at LOS A overall, but the minor street approach of Rancho Road oper-
ates at LOS F with significant delays. In the future, the intersection would oper-
ate at LOS B and LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. How-
ever, vehicles at the minor street approaches would experience long delays with
LOS F during both periods.
Potential Improvement: Peak hour signal warrant analysis performed based on
California MUTCD indicated that the intersection would satisfy signal warrant
during the AM peak hour. As such, installation of a traffic signal at this intersec-
tion may be considered. Further, an additional lane on the westbound approach
to provide separate right-turn and left-turn lanes is needed to improve the oper-
ations to acceptable level. Upon implementation of the measures, the intersec-
tion would have LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour.
This mitigation is the same under both the CCTALOS methodology and HCM-
2000 methodology scenarios.
Appian Way and Manor Road (4). This intersection would function within
standard in the future year with LOS D during both peak hours. No mitigation
measure would be needed.
Appian Way and Valley View Road. Although existing traffic counts for this
intersection were not available, the relatively insignificant northbound and
southbound traffic growth at Manor Road and the presence of two northbound
lanes and two southbound lanes suggest that the Appian-Valley View intersec-
tion will have more than adequate capacity to accommodate future traffic.
It should be noted, however, that the present configuration of the Appian-Val-
ley View intersection is not consistent with urban design goals for the Trian-
gle Area, nor does it promote the “complete streets” philosophy expressed in
the Countywide Transportation Plan, calling for support of transit, bicycle and
pedestrian access, and similar concepts in the County’s General Plan. Additional
analysis may show that alternative geometries could address transportation per-
formance, while also supporting more pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly
environments and the mixed-use street-facing development envisioned by the
County’s General Plan for the corridor.
The suggested intersection configurations are shown in the third row of Figure 5:
Existing and Future Traffic Volume and Lane Geometries.
Even under existing conditions, traffic on the stop-controlled minor streets
would experience unacceptable delays due to limited gaps in traffic on Appian
Way. With the growth in traffic from future development expected by 2030,
the delays to side street traffic will only increase with the increased volumes on
Appian Way. Based on the analysis using the CCTALOS methodology, the cur-
rent lane configuration at three of these four intersections along Appian Way
would not be sufficient to maintain acceptable LOS in the future. However,
based on the analysis using the HCM methodology, the existing lane configura-
tions would be sufficient to meet CCTA’s LOS D standard at the two existing sig-
nalized intersections. However, some improvements will be required at the two
unsignalized intersections, including signalization of one of them. Appian Way
and Manor Road intersections will not require any changes with either analysis
methodology. Some of these impacts, however, may be overstated due to the con-
servative approach to developing the future year volumes which assume the full
30-year increment of growth added to the 2012 volumes rather than an interpo-
lated 18-year growth.
In addition to the operations at the four intersections discussed above, imple-
mentation of a Complete Streets concept for this segment of Appian Way should
consider on-street parking as well as the opportunities to improve the configura-
tion of the intersection with Valley View at the south end.
• Future parking lanes will need to be provided for street-facing commercial
frontage. Assuming recommended improvements, the presence of on-street
parking spaces should not significantly alter the traffic operations of Appian
Way, particularly at these four intersections.
• The intersection of Appian Way and Valley View Road presents an opportu-
nity to create a gateway to this segment and reconfigure the stop-controlled
T-intersection. Although the traffic operations at this intersection were not
analyzed, this intersection should accommodate a transition from four-lanes
on Valley View Road to the proposed three-lane configuration on Appian
Way. As noted earlier, the present configuration is not consistent with urban
design goals for the Triangle Area and a “complete streets” philosophy. Alter-
native geometries such as a roundabout configuration could address transpor-
tation performance, while also supporting more pedestrian-friendly environ-
ments and the mixed-use street-facing development envisioned by the Coun-
ty’s General Plan. Looking ahead, it might make sense over the longer term
to extend the idea of using roundabouts to the intersection with Sobrante
Avenue and use the “complete streets” concept more broadly in the triangle
area. The feasibility of doing this was not part of this study, but may be worth
evaluating in the future.
174
16
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
5 Design Alternatives
OVERVIEW
Three design alternatives have been prepared to examine and evaluate the fol-
lowing options. These Alternatives have been prepared in CAD and are repre-
sented in this section in diagram form.
Bicycle lanes are a common feature among all three alternatives. Features that
vary include the number of through lanes and the extent of sidewalk improve-
ments and pedestrian amenities.
Alternative A: Five Lanes. Alternative A maintains a standard five-lane cross-
section along the entire corridor.
Alternative B: Requirements under CCTA Methodology. Alternative B rep-
resents improvements that would be required to maintain LOS D or better at
all signalized intersections, to be consistent with CCTA’s West County Action
Plan which requires the use of the CCTALOS software to evaluate traffic impacts
(although other methods may be used in addition to the CCTALOS software).
Alternative B widens Appian Way from three to five lanes between Michael
Drive and Fulton Way – about half way south along the corridor. The remain-
ing three-lane segment would remain unchanged except for one new signal at
Manor Road. Under the CCTALOS methodology, new light signals are recom-
mended in two locations: at Allview Avenue and at Rancho Road.
Alternative C: Complete Street Using HCM-2000 Methodology. Alternative C
stresses the quality of pedestrian environments, and considers ways to enhance
the corridor from the standpoint of urban design, economic development, and
community identity. No part of Appian Way is widened from three lanes to five
lanes under Alternative C, as traffic modeling showed that LOS D can be main-
tained if conclusions are reached using the HCM-2000 methodology. Under the
HCM-2000 methodology, a new light signal is recommended in one location: at
Rancho Road.
Comparison of Alternatives. Following descriptions of each alternative, this
section provides a comparative assessment of the three alternatives for:
• Relative traffic performance–all three alternatives address projected future
traffic needs;
• Relative costs–land acquisition as well as construction costs, including areas
where a steep grade would require significant re-grading, have been esti-
mated; and
• Enhancements to pedestrian environments and community character–the
alternatives support livability and aesthetic objectives in varying degrees.
ALTERNATIVE A – FIVE LANES
Alternative A describes a continuous five-lane configuration for the entire length
of the planning area. Prior to 2011, the County General Plan’s Roadway Network
Plan indicated that Appian Way would ultimately become five lanes, and this
configuration was assumed by the City of Pinole’s General Plan EIR published
in 2010. In July 2011, however, Contra Costa County’s Board of Supervisors
amended the County General Plan to retain the existing three-lane configura-
tion for Appian Way.
The five-lane alternative applies a standard Contra Costa County Public Works
Department cross section, with a uniform 95-foot right-of-way, including: five-
to six-foot sidewalks; five-foot bicycle lanes; four 12-foot through lanes, and a
16-foot median/turn lane. The right-of-way also includes a five-foot back-of-side-
walk unpaved area for utilities. The sidewalk width would allow regular street
tree plantings, but would not provide the generous walkway that is appropriate
for commercial areas and conducive to a pedestrian-friendly environment. This
175
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
17
alternative does not provide any on-street parking. The existing on street park-
ing, about 16 spaces, would be removed.
North of Michael Drive, this alternative would require only re-striping to pro-
vide bicycle lanes. Southbound travel lanes would be reduced to 12 feet with a
six-foot bicycle lane, and northbound travel lanes would be reduced to 11 feet
with a 50-foot bicycle lane.
As diagrammed in Figure 7, Alternative A would require significant grading and
land acquisition south of Michael Drive, including the acquisition and demoli-
tion of several houses. Overall, at least 1,650 linear feet of Appian Way frontage
would require grading and possibly the construction of new retaining walls or
the re-construction of existing retaining walls. Typically, the west side would
require fill and the east side would require cut. In addition, the majority of the
frontage along Appian Way would require some amount of land acquisition even
as much as 24 feet beyond the existing right-of-way in some locations. Lastly,
construction for this alternative would pass through or come within one to two
feet of at least eight existing structures.
ALTERNATIVE B – REQUIREMENTS UNDER CCTALOS
METHODOLOGY
Alternative B provides the minimum improvements needed to conform with
the WCAP, which requires that LOS D or better be maintained at all signal-
ized intersections and that the CCTALOS methodology be used to make this
determination. It does not preclude more complete streets improvements in the
future, but would not allow as full a realization of them as does Alternative C.
Keeping existing sidewalks, for example, saves money but could limit the ability
to make the street more pedestrian-friendly.
For the segment north of Michael Drive, this alternative is the same as Alterna-
tive A: it proposes only to re-stripe, narrowing the southbound travel lanes to
12 feet, the northbound travel lanes to 11 feet, and adding a six-foot southbound
and five-foot northbound bicycle lane.
Between Michael Drive and Fulton Way, the CCTALOS methodology deter-
mines that one through lane should be added in each direction. At Fulton Way,
one of the southbound lanes peels off, leaving only one through southbound
lane. In the northbound direction, the additional northbound through lane
begins at the north side of the Fulton Way intersection. South of Fulton Way,
only the addition of a traffic signal at Rancho Road is needed.
As diagrammed in Figure 8, the Alternative B would require some land acquisi-
tion and grading between Michael Drive and Fulton Way. Overall, about 350 lin-
ear feet of Appian Way frontage would require grading. Land acquisition would
be most significant on the west side of the Appian Way, with the most being
about 20 feet beyond the existing right-of-way. Construction of this alternative
would pass through or come within one or two feet of two existing structures.
ALTERNATIVE C – COMPLETE STREET USING HCM-2000
METHODOLOGY
Alternative C emphasizes the quality of pedestrian connections along and across
Appian Way, and suggests design features to enhance the community’s livability
and aesthetic character.
Alternative C also maintains a three-lane roadway configuration where it now
exists, while maintaining LOS D or better at signalized intersections – as deter-
mined by using the HCM-2000 modeling methodology. Consequently, Alterna-
tive C avoids property acquisitions and topographic grading to a large extent,
while also adding street trees and on-street parking to support the creation of
new street-oriented retail commercial mixed-use development is allowed. Curb
extensions are also proposed at crosswalks to enhance the safety of pedestrians.
For the segment north of Michael Drive, this alternative is the same as alterna-
tives A and B: it proposes only to re-stripe, narrowing the southbound travel
lanes to 12 feet, the northbound travel lanes to 11 feet, and adding a six-foot
southbound and five-foot northbound bicycle lane.
Just south of Michael Drive, Alternative C transitions to three lanes (two travel
lanes plus a turn lane) and remains three lanes until the approach to the Triangle
Area at the south end of the corridor. The turn lane is necessary given the fre-
quency of driveways along the length of the corridor.
Between Michael Drive and Allview Avenue, Alternative C provides on-street
parallel parking where street-oriented mixed-use is encouraged by City policy.
On-street parking gives developers a reason to have building entrances front
onto the street. It also creates a buffer between the pedestrian path of travel and
the roadway, and it has the effect of diminishing the perceived roadway width
for motorists, thereby reducing travel speeds. In these segments, the 10-foot side-
walk comfortably allows regularly spaced tree planters and grates. Crosswalks
that occur in locations with on-street parking would be accompanied by curb
extensions or “bump outs” to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and enhance
pedestrian safety.
CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES176
18
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 6: CHAPTER TITLE CHAPTER 5: CHAPTER TITLEPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyA P P IA N W A Y
FITZGERALDDRSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESSIDRFULTONWAYRANCHORDMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWRDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN WA
Y
APPIAN WAY
ALLVIEWAVER.O.W. dimension and location
unclear; conict between parcel
data and built conditions
FILAPPIAN WAY
FITZGERALDDRMICHAEL DRA P P IA N A Y
SARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESIDRALIEAVERANCHORDWYMANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWRAPPIAN WA
Y SOBRANTE AVEW
SFUTONADLVWPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyExisting R.O.W. dimension and
location unclear; conict between
parcel data and built conditions
17-22 ft12-16 ft20-24 ft20-22 ft26 ft18 ft12-14 ft11-15 ft15-16 ft11-16 ft12-19 ft5-6 ft5-8 ft5-8 ft45’ Curb-to-Curb
12’ 12’4’12’4’
NBACSSB Turn
5’
ACS
4’-6”
Bike Bike
60’ R.O.W.
ACS
55’ Curb-to-Curb
12’ 12’6’20’4’
NBSB Turn
7’
CCS
5’
Bike Bike
87’ R.O.W.
75’ Curb-to-Curb
93’ R.O.W.
SB
11’-6” 17’-6”5’13’19’
NBCCSSB Median/
Turn
14’
NB CCS
5’
80’ R.O.W.
63’ Curb-to-Curb
Bike/
Parking
12’-6” 11’-6”6’-5”12’13’-6”
NBCCSSB Turn
13’
CCSTravel
5’
SB
95’ R.O.W.
74’ Curb-to-Curb*
16’ 12’5’5’-6”5’12’12’5’
Bike BikeSidewalk
Utility
Easement
Sidewalk
Utility
Easement
Median/
Turn
NB NBSB
12’5’-6”5’
No construction
required;
re-striping only
Appian
Way/Valley
View Rd
intersection
remains as is
4 Travel Lanes
+ Turning
Lane/Median
Transition Transition
2 Travel Lanes
+ Turning Lane
& Bike Lanes
Concrete Curb
& Sidewalk (CCS)
Asphalt Curb
& Sidewalk (ACS)
Bike Lane
On-street Parking
Crosswalk
Curb Cut
Bus Stop
Intersection analyzed
for existing and future
trac operations
Retaining Wall
Steep Slope
Trac Signal
Building Footprint
400200100
FEET
0
400200100
FEET
0
Existing Conditions
Alternative A: 5 Lanes
Edge of Proposed R.O.W.
Requires signicant
grading
R.O.W. passes through
existing structure
Acquisition required
Building Footprint
Parcel Line (source: Contra
Costa County Mapping
Information Center)
Note: All dimensions are
approximate, based on satellite
imagery and eld measurements.
Note: All dimensions are
approximate, based on satellite
imagery and eld measurements.X ft*All asphalt curbs to be replaced with concrete curbs, and the majority
of existing concrete curb to be replaced with new concrete curbs.
Details illustrated in CAD le accompanying report.
Figure 7: Alternative A - Five Lanes
Figure 6: Existing Conditions/Opportunities and Constraints
Bike lanes are assumed under every design alternative.177
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
19CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE11-14 ftSLOEFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRA P P IA N W A Y MICHAEL DRDALESIDRA VIWEAVFUTNWAYRANCHORDMANOR R
D
KISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN WAY
APPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN WA
YPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyRLLSLOEFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRA P P IA N W A Y MICHAEL DRDALESIDRA VIWEAVFUTNWAYRANCHORDMANOR R
D
KISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN WAY
APPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN WA
YPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyRLLExisting R.O.W. dimension and
location unclear; conict between
parcel data and built conditions
Existing R.O.W. dimension and
location unclear; conict between
parcel data and built conditions5-12 ft11-14 ft10-20 ft11-12 ft15-17 ft13-14 ft7-10 ft5-11 ft13 ft11-14 ft10-20 ft11-12 ft5-8 ft5-7 ftNo change to roadway
conguration; new
signal at Rancho Rd
SB
84’ R.O.W.
68’ Curb-to-Curb
14’ 11’ 5’8’8’11’
SB
11’5’
Bike Bike Side-
walk
Side-
walk
Turn NB
11’
NB
A BBCD
B C D
See Figure 11
A
Pkg SB
84’ R.O.W.
64’ Curb-to-Curb
14’ 12’ 5’8’8’10’10’12’5’
Bike Bike Pkg Side-
walk
Side-
walk
Turn NB SB
68’ R.O.W.
48’Curb-to-Curb
14’ 12’ 5’10’10’12’5’
Bike Bike Side-
walk
Turn NBSide-
walk
SB
64’ R.O.W. (70’ at Post Office)
44’ Curb-to-Curb (48’ at Post Office)
12’ 11’ 5’10’10’11’5’
Bike Bike Side-
walk
Turn NBSide-
walk
No construction
required;
re-striping only
SB
78’ R.O.W.
58’ Curb-to-Curb
14’ 12’ 6’
10’
8’ 10’12’6’
Bike Bike Pkg Side-
walk
Side-
walk
Turn NB
6’
Appian
Way/Valley
View Rd
intersection
remains as is
No construction
required;
re-striping only
Existing asphalt curb and
sidewalk replaced with concrete
curb and 5’-6” wide sidewalk
400200100
FEET
0
400200100
FEET
0
Alternative B: Requirements Under CCTALOS Methodology
Alternative C: Complete Street (Under HCM-2000 Methodology)
Edge of Proposed R.O.W.
Building Footprint
Parcel Line (source: Contra
Costa County Mapping
Information Center)
Bulb-outs provided to
shorten pedestrian crossing
distances (where feasible)
Edge of Proposed R.O.W.
Building Footprint
Parcel Line (source: Contra
Costa County Mapping
Information Center)
Note: All dimensions are
approximate, based on satellite
imagery and eld measurements.
Note: All dimensions are
approximate, based on satellite
imagery and eld measurements.
R.O.W. passes through
existing structure
New Trac Signal
Existing Trac Signal
New Trac Signal
Bus shelter
Existing Trac Signal
Requires signicant
grading
Requires signicant
grading
Acquisition requiredX ftAcquisition requiredX ft***
Figure 8: Alternative B–Requirements under CCTALOS Methodology
Figure 9: Alternative C–Complete Street Using HCM-2000 Methodology178
20 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
Between Allview Avenue and the post office—just north of Appian Village
Drive—Appian Way remains at three lanes with bicycle lanes and no on-street
parking. In this segment, the curb-to-curb width varies depending on existing
topography and existing concrete curbs; however, sidewalks are typically 10 feet
wide; bicycle lanes are never less than five feet wide; travel lanes are never less
than 11 feet wide; and the turn lane is never less than 12 feet wide. The 10-foot
sidewalk would support a continuous four- or five-foot planter strip with street
trees and other plantings. This will enhance pedestrian comfort along these res-
idential-only areas. On-street parking is not recommended along this segment
as it is not critical alongside residential uses, and would incur significant land
acquisition costs.
In the Triangle Area, beginning near the existing post office about 150 feet north
of Appian Village Drive, an increased existing right-of-way allows for on-street
parking to support redevelopment with street-facing commercial mixed-use.
Regularly spaced planters or tree grates would be installed on the sidewalk in
this segment to support pedestrian movement.
This alternative minimizes the Appian Way frontage that would require land
acquisition, with only three short segments requiring more than 12 feet beyond
the existing right-of-way. Alternative C requires the same amount of grading as
Alternative B (about 350 linear feet of Appian Way frontage) but likely avoids
impacting existing structures.
While all three alternatives maintain existing bus stops, Alternative C also
assumes enhanced bus shelters at four bus stops, with one pair in the Triangle
Area and the other pair within Pinole’s commercial mixed-use district.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES WITH CONCLUSIONS
Alternatives were developed to provide a clear understanding of costs and ben-
efits inherent in each, so as to help CCTA, Contra Costa County, and the City of
Pinole reach agreement regarding future improvements.
Comparisons among the Alternatives fall into three broad categories:
• Transportation performance across all modes;
• Aesthetic benefits, including factors affecting livability and community iden-
tity; and
• Cost implications, including construction costs, acquisition costs, and on-
going maintenance.
CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Transportation Performance
A fair evaluation of transportation performance must consider all major modes:
motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit.
Motor Vehicles. For motor vehicles, the benchmark of performance is confor-
mance to the West County Action Plan’s MTSO to “maintain LOS D or better
at all signalized intersections on Appian Way.”41 All three Alternatives meet this
requirement. However, only two Alternatives meet the requirement by using the
CCTALOS methodology prescribed by the WCAP: Alternative A and Alterna-
tive B. Alternative C meets the MTSO requirement as determined by the HCM-
2000 methodology, which is an alternative method recognized by CCTA’s Tech-
nical Procedures manual.42
Bicycles. All three Alternatives depict bicycle lanes along one-hundred percent
of the corridor.
Pedestrians. While all three Alternatives provide continuous and reasonably
safe paths of travel for pedestrians, Alternative C is superior in several respects:
continuous concrete sidewalks, curb extensions at some crosswalks, a comfort-
able micro-climate provided by street trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and
separation of pedestrians from moving vehicles by street trees and parked cars
in some location. Alternative A also provides concrete sidewalks but they are
located at the curb with only bicycle lanes separating pedestrians from moving
vehicles. Some asphalt sidewalks and curbs remain under Alternative B, where
Appian Way is not widened to five lanes: asphalt sidewalks are prone to becom-
ing uneven, which can make wheelchair use more difficult and sometimes pain-
ful, and increases risk of tripping.
Public Transit. The existing bus stops are maintained in all three Alternatives.
In Alternative C, however, four bus shelters are recommended for the locations
show in Figure 9 where commercial activity is concentrated, in Pinole and in the
Triangle Area, as part of the Complete Streets approach.
Parking. Alternative C proposes on-street parking to support the land use goals
of Contra Costa County and Pinole. In both jurisdictions, policies envision
the transformation of low-intensity commercial areas into pedestrian-friendly
mixed-use districts where buildings front onto the street. On-street parking can
be a requirement for many developers when they are asked to locate building
entrances on the street. On-street parking also creates a more protected environ-
ment for pedestrians.
41 CCTA, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32.
42 CCTA, Technical Procedures Update, 2012, page 40.
179
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
21CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE
Table 3: Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative A: Five Lanes Alternative B: Requirements
under CCTALOS Methodology
Alternative C: Complete Street
Transportation Performance
Motor Vehicles
A. Fitzgerald Dr.to Michael Dr
4 Travel + Median/Turn
Substantially complies with MTSO
requirements under both CCTALOS
and HCM-2000
4 Travel + Median/Turn
Meets MTSO requirements under
both CCTALOS and HCM-2000
4 Travel + Median/Turn
Meets MTSO requirements under both CCTALOS and HCM-2000
B. Michael Dr.to Dalessi Dr
2 Travel + Median/Turn
Meets MTSO requirements under HCM-2000 only
C. Dalessi Dr.to Allview Ave
Allview Ave to Fulton Way
Fulton Way to Post Office (150 feet
north of Appian Village Drive)2 Travel + Median/Turn
Meets MTSO requirements under
both CCTALOS and HCM-2000Post Office to Triangle intersection
New Signals None One new signal (Appian Way and
Rancho Road)
One new signal (Appian Way and Rancho Road)
On-Street Parallel Parking None None 34% of corridor (See Figure 11, Sections A and B)
Bicycles
Bicycle lanes along 100 % of corridor Bicycle lanes along
100 % of corridor
Bicycle lanes along 100 % of corridor
Pedestrians
Sidewalks 100% concrete sidewalks 59% concrete sidewalks;
41% (4300 linear feet) existing
asphalt sidewalk to remain
100% concrete sidewalks
Public Transit Shelters None None 4 transit shelters recommended at existing bus stops
Community Character
• County’s standard street lighting
• No street trees (sidewalk width
does not allow)
• County’s standard street lighting,
between Michael Dr.and Fulton
Way only
• No new street trees required
• Street trees spaced 50 feet on center in planter strip (in residential areas) or tree grates (in
mixed-use or commercial areas)
Pedestrian-scaled acorn-style light fixtures 100 feet on center, recommended mid-block (with
larger light poles at intersections)
• Outdoor seating and/or other pedestrian amenities on sidewalks in commercial and mixed-use
areas.
• Curb extensions at crosswalks in areas with on-street parking
• Roundabout design north of the triangle affords widened sidewalks and bulb-out for specialty
landscaping, planters, pedestrian amenities and/or other identity elements.
Land Acquisition and Cost Implications
Land Acquisition 93,700 sf (2.15 acres)28,800 sf (0.66 acres)21,200 sf (0.49 acres)
Structure Acquisition and Demo (#)Approx. 9 Approx. 2 None
Grading Required Approx. 1,710 linear feet Approx. 370 linear feet Approx. 370 linear feet
New Concrete Curb Required Approx. 7,000 linear feet Approx. 1,750 linear feet Approx. 6,180 linear feet
Existing Concrete Curb Removed Approx. 1,225 linear feet Approx. 315 linear feet Approx. 425 linear feet
Excess Right-of-Way available for Sale Insufficient room Not considered Approx. 6,000 sq. ft. on northern tip of triangle is available with the proposed roundabout
design
CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES180
22 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Community Character
Improvements to enhance the character of the corridor are assumed under Alter-
native C. While these enhancements could also be included as part of the other
alternatives, the following distinctions have been drawn: Alternative A repre-
sents the County’s standard five-lane roadway only, and Alternative B represents
the minimum level of improvements required under the CCTALOS method of
analysis.
Street Trees and Landscaping. The use of street trees and planting strips in
Alternative C provides a more attractive environment, than is provided when
the sidewalk is placed at the curb. The other Alternatives assume fewer or no
street trees, but they could be added.
Lighting. Alternative C also proposes pedestrian-scaled light standards between
taller lights that are assumed at intersections under all schemes. The other Alter-
natives assume taller cobrahead lighting but pedestrian-scaled lighting would
not be precluded by the cross section.
Furnishings. Under Alternative C, the sidewalks in commercial mixed-use areas
would be wide enough to have enough space for benches and other forms of out-
door seating. The other alternatives offer no space for furnishings.
Placemaking. Alternative C has the potential of transforming the character
of the entire corridor and of making special recognizable destinations where
mixed-use development is encouraged by City and County policies. While the
feasibility of a roundabout at the Appian/Valley View intersection has not been
determined, a roundabout would provide clear aesthetic benefits if appropriately
designed and landscaped.
Land Acquisition and Cost Implications
Area take-offs and cost calculations are summarized in the Appendix. The
most significant costs for improvements will be associated with land acquisi-
tion, grading, and roadway construction. All of these factors are affected by the
physical size or overall extent of the project. Significant costs are also associated
with street trees, traffic calming features and pedestrian-scaled street lights, as is
assumed in Alternative C: Complete Street.
Alternative A is the most expensive (about $17.7 million) because land and build-
ing acquisition costs are considerable. The geographic extent of construction is
also greatest under Alternative A.
Alternative B represents the lowest construction costs (about $9.5 million), as it
makes no improvements south of Fulton Way, except for a new light signal at
Rancho Road. Some land acquisition would have to occur under Alternative B,
but significantly less than under Alternative A.
Alternative C is less expensive than Alternative A but more expensive than
Alternative B. Alternative C is estimated to cost about $13 million if a round-
about is assumed at the Appian Way/Valley View intersection (as described), and
roughly $12.5 million if a roundabout is not assumed. While Alternative C acqui-
sition costs are similar to those under Alternative B, the cost of street trees, land-
scaping, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and curb extensions add significant costs.
However, also note that these improvements are likely to accelerate redevelop-
ment in commercial mixed-use areas and enhance the image and land values in
the larger area.
On-going maintenance costs are another factor for consideration. Maintenance
costs would be higher under Alternative C, particularly for the care of street
trees. Some portion of these costs might be assumed by Business Improvement
District(s), if created. In addition, street-facing mixed-use buildings assumed
in Alternative C might require utility locations that necessitate replacement of
pavement when utility repairs occur, which is not the case under Alternative A
and B where utilities can be placed in a back-of-sidewalk easement.
APPIAN WAY/VALLEY VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION
Figure 10 shows the existing configuration of the Appian Way/Valley View inter-
section, and Figure 11 shows two improvement options. First is a T-intersection
improvement, and second is a roundabout design that would create a distinctive
place-making feature at the heart of the Triangle Mixed Use area.
The improved T-intersection design modifies the existing configuration slightly
by eliminating the sweeping right-turn lanes. This design narrows the right-of-
way on the west side of the intersection, which slows traffic while providing addi-
tional space for pedestrian movement or new development on the intersection.
The design also improves pedestrian access with crosswalks that extend across
the entire intersection and pedestrian refuges as needed.
The roundabout option further reduces the right-of-way and enhances pedes-
trian access and comfort. As its operational aspects have not been studied, addi-
tional analysis will be needed to determine its feasibility. As depicted, the round-
about conforms to geometric standards of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 672. It shows a two-lane circle in which traffic flows
counter-clockwise around an island with an inside radius of 30 feet. This alter-
native reduces the overall number of lanes that approach the intersection. In the
existing “T” configuration, the rights-of-way expand near the intersection to
five lanes on Appian Way and six lanes on Valley View Road, when lanes dedi-
181
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
23CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLECHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVESA
P
P
I
A
N
W
A
Y
A P P I A N W A YV A L L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
R
D
804020
FEET
0
Figure 10: Appian Way/Valley View – Existing Intersection
182
24 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
A
P
P
I
A
N
W
A
Y
Illustrative diagram only;
feasibility to be evaluated upon
further analysis.
Lane reductions along Valley View
Road to be considered.
Reduced right-of-way
better channelizes
motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians and provides
an opportunity for a
widened sidewalk and/or
an architectural statement
at the intersection
Oset crosswalk
provides a two-stage
crossing for improved
pedestrian accessibility
Skip striping guides
cyclists and highlights
conicts for motorists,
enhancing bicycle safety
New mixed-use
development
V A L L E Y V I E W R D A P P I A N W A Y804020
FEET
0 A
P
P
I
A
N
W
A
Y
Excess right-of-way
available for sale or as
development incentive
(1,950 Sq Ft)
Excess right-of-way
available for sale or as
development incentive
(3,840 Sq Ft)
New mixed-use
development
Inside Radius = 30’
Outside Radius = 60’
Circulating Lane = 25-32’
Illustrative diagram only;
feasibility to be evaluated upon
further analysis.
Lane reductions within circle and
along Valley View Road to be
considered. A P P I A N W A YV A L L E Y V I E W R D
804020
FEET
0
Figure 11: Appian Way/Valley View – Intersection Improvement Options
CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
RoundaboutT-Intersection
183
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
25CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLECHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
cated to right turns are included. In the potential roundabout design, Appian
Way widens into only four through lanes (without the sweeping right turn lane)
just north of the intersection, and Valley View Road remains at only four lanes
(without the sweeping right turn from Appian Way to Valley View).
In addition, crosswalks are set back from the circle to provide motorists with
adequate sightlines and reaction time. The crosswalks are accompanied by curb
extensions and pass through medians to minimize pedestrian crossing distances
and enhance pedestrian comfort.
Under either Appian Way/Valley View configuration, unneeded right-of-way
could be sold to abutting property owners, possibly in a way that creates an
incentive for desirable forms of private redevelopment. Assuming the round-
about, nearly 6,000 square feet of right-of-way might be sold to abutting prop-
erty owners. Real estate sales in 2012 suggest that unimproved land near Appian
Way would sell between $15 to $20 dollars per square foot, the market-based
value of this excess right-of-way would be approximately $90,000 to $120,000.43
For comparison, both average and median assessed valuations of land (without
improvements) on commercially-zoned land in the Triangle Area are $12 dollars
per square foot.44
Street improvements at the Appian/Valley View intersection, such as a reconfig-
ured intersection or a roundabout, have the potential to maintain adequate traf-
fic performance while creating “place-making” features that could accelerate the
transformation of the Triangle Area into a mixed-use pedestrian-friendly dis-
trict. Striped crosswalks passing through planted medians will greatly enhance
pedestrian comfort within the intersection. Furthermore, widened sidewalks
along all sides of the intersection, including the northernmost corner of the tri-
angle, are made possible by the overall reduction in lanes and provide pedestri-
ans with ample room to gather and stroll. Space is also devoted to the creation
of continuous planter strips, pedestrian amenities, and district identity features,
such as pedestrian-scaled lighting.
43 Loopnet Commercial Real Estate Listings, query for vacant commercial land in El Sobrante, http://www.loopnet.com.
44 Office of the Assessor, Contra Costa County, GIS query on November 1, 2012.
CONCLUSIONS
This report recommends Alternative C: Complete Street, because it leverages the
greatest number of community benefits at a cost comparable to or less than that
of building a five-lane roadway through this entire segment of Appian Way. All
these alternatives meet the transportation service objective of maintaining LOS
D at signalized intersections. However, Alternative C would deliver superior
pedestrian environments and safety. It would have a transformative effect on the
area’s image and identity. And it has the best chance of encouraging new private
investment to redevelop commercial areas into pedestrian-friendly districts.
Some of the pedestrian-oriented amenities such as street trees, benches, and
pedestrian-scaled lighting, could be incorporated into the other alternatives but
the overall design concept in Alternative C fully realizes the complete streets
idea. Higher maintenance costs for pedestrian amenities could be addressed, at
least in part, by district-level financing strategies such as the formation of a Busi-
ness Improvement District or by using new parking revenues as demand for on-
street parking grows. As designed, Alternative C would also be most responsive
to MTC’s Complete Streets initiative and to site-specific conditions along the
corridor and it would best support abutting land uses.
184
26
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Appendix: Cost Estimates of Design Alternatives
Julia R. Bueren, Director
Deputy Directors
R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Stephen Silveira
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Memo
January 14, 2013
TO: Chris Ford, Senior Associate, Dyett & Bhatia
FROM: Alexander Rivas, Staff Engineer, Public Works
SUBJECT: Appian Way Improvement Study Cost Estimates (Three Alternatives)
Assumptions:
Construction
For all Alternatives, the road layout was intended to minimize full-takes of property;
thus, improvements are generally centered over existing road pavement with widening
on both sides. For Alternative A, an exception to the centered layout is the southern
1000-ft section of the Appian Way (South of Argyle Road) where the recently installed
sidewalk on the easterly side is preserved, and widening is assumed to the west.
Additionally, the adjacent streets in the triangle area were included in the cost estima te
for Alternative A for the purpose of transitioning to the new five-lane layout. If
Alternative A or B is selected, additional alternatives should be studied to determine if it
is more cost efficient to hold an existing curb line and perform all widening on one side
of the road or continue with improvements centered over the existing pavement as
reflected in this estimates.
Import fill was not included in any of the alternatives.
For all Alternatives, it is projected that existing AC will not be replaced. The estimate
does; however, include a 2-inch road overlay. A slurry seal option could be utilized
instead of the overlay which could reduce the estimated costs for all alternatives.
For Alternatives A and B, the street drainage pipe would remain. Laterals will be
increased by 20-25 feet in the sections to be widened. This is based upon the
assumption for all alternatives that the existing pipes are in fair condition and half
would require replacement. Also included for all alternatives, are drainage modifications
at the Appian Way – Argyle Road intersection.
Chris Ford
Dyett & Bhatia
January 14, 2013
Page 2 of 3
For all Alternatives, past projects indicate that intersection signal replacement varies
between $150k and $350k. The cost below reflect the addition or modification of traffic
signals, minor street realignment, and left turn pocket)
Appian Way Intersections are Included in the given alternatives per notation on the
Dyett and Bhatia exhibit:
Allview Avenue; Modification – All Alternatives ($225,000)
Rancho Road; New Signal – Alternatives B and C ($300,000)
Manor Road; Modification – Alternatives A and C ($225,000)
Valley View Road; Modification – Alternatives A ($225,000)
Valley View Road; Roundabout – Alternatives C ($500,000)
Utilities
Because of necessary coordination efforts and particular unknowns, adjustments to
some utilities have been included; however, service boxes were assumed to remain.
Assume through franchise agreement that Utilities may cover a majority of relocation
cost.
PG&E may decide to underground their facilities. If this results, additional cost will be
associated to coordinate this effort.
Streetscape
There are no landscaping costs included for Alternatives A and B.
For Alternative C, landscaping costs to include street trees, public planting, and
pedestrian lighting was based on quantitative information provided in the draft study
report. Public planting (grass and an assortment of indigenous plants) was limited to
the proposed roundabout where Appian Way intersects Valley View Road. The initial
street tree planting is assumed to be a 24-gallon tree with grate for a more mature look
at the completion of the project. Street furniture costs were based on the length of
commercial street frontage and the number of bus stops within the project scope.
Traffic
Not included in the estimate is the installation of flashing signs near the curve in the
vicinity of the Appian Way and Argyle Road Intersection nor speed feedback signs.
R/W
R/W costs contain a contingency for cost of condemnation.
185
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
27APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Chris Ford
Dyett & Bhatia
January 14, 2013
Page 3 of 3
Factors in full property purchases include: $220,000 per 0.2 acre lot (Some lots are
greater), $50,000 relocation cost, and upward trend of the housing market.
R/W acquisition of portions of property on a square footage basis is based on the
following:
$20/SF for residential property
$40/SF for government and church property
$60/SF for commercial property
None of the estimates account for sale of excess right-of-way. Alternatives A and B will
have the ability to recover some of the costs through sale of a remnant property.
For Alternatives A and B, the R/W acquisition area was calculated using the street
layout drawing overlaid on the aerial and parcel maps. For Alternative C, the area of
R/W to be acquired was determined by Dyett and Bhatia from Table 3, pg. 21 of the
Draft Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study. The County
did not verify Alternative C’s right of way needs.
C.3
There are varying options when it comes to complying with C.3 requirements. The
options in every alternative estimate assume a linear rain garden similar to the one
installed by the City of El Cerrito, San Pablo Avenue. Given the varying elevations, a
series of check dams may be installed to ensure a flat surface. All estimates account for
enough treatment area to cover the newly created impervious surface.
There are other options to constructing linear rain gardens. One is to utilize purchased
property with flat enough slopes to cover larger areas without the need for check dams
with the caveat of potential reduced resale revenue. Another option may be to treat
stormwater runoff at an off-site location within the watershed. Because current rules
are changing, bike lanes were not exempted from the total area of newly created
impervious area.
(See enclosed estimates)
AR
C:\Users\grivas\Desktop\Project Shortcuts\Appian Way\Appian Way Study DnB Memo 1-14-2013.docx
c: Matt Taeker, matt@dyettandbhatia.com
Michael Dyett, dyett@dyettandbhatia.com
Jamar Stamps, Jamar.Stamps@dcd.cccounty.us
Chris Lau, clau@pw.cccounty.us
186
28
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Transportation Engineering Planning Cost Estimate
Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
Project Name:Appian Way Widening: 5Lane Option A
Alternative:Sidewalk/curb Improvements w/bike lanes between Valley View Drive and Michael Drive
Project Location:Appian Way from Valley View to Fitzgerald Drive
Assumptions:R=5.0, TI = 9.0
Project Length (ft):5200 5200 ft to be Modified
Date of Estimate:Jan. 11, 2013 Revision No.0
Revision Date
Prepared by:A. Rivas Revised by
No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Mobilization 1 LS 284,000.00$ 284,000$
2 Traffic Control 1 LS 270,000.00$ 270,000$
3 Construction Area Signs 10 EA 550.00$ 5,500$
4 Pavement Marking Removal 80 EA 150.00$ 12,000$
5 Tree Removal 30 EA 2,000.00$ 60,000$
6 Saw Cut 10400 LF 3.25$ 33,800$
7 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 67,200.00$ 67,200$
8 Roadway Excavation 5900 CY 75.00$ 442,500$
9 Cut Excavation 4800 CY 45.00$ 216,000$
10 Roadway Fill 400 CY 75.00$ 30,000$
11 Aggregate Base 8100 TON 45.00$ 364,500$
12 Hot Mix Asphalt 3300 TON 125.00$ 412,500$
13 Minor Concrete Sidewalk (Removal and Replacement)21700 SF 19.00$ 412,300$
14 Curb and Gutter 10400 LF 35.00$ 364,000$
15 curb ramps 20 EA 4,000.00$ 80,000$
16 Driveway 60 EA 3,000.00$ 180,000$
17 Retaining Wall 3000 SF 115.00$ 345,000$
18 Utility Adjustments (Fire Hydrants, Utility Boxes, St. Lights)1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000$
19 Drainage Modifications (pipes, riprap, etc.)800 LF 150.00$ 120,000$
20 Drainage Modifications (Inlet Relocations)18 EA 5,000.00$ 90,000$
21 Intersection Improvements(Traffic Signal Mod, Turn Pocket)3 EA 225,000.00$ 675,000$
22 Sign Relocation 40 EA 350.00$ 14,000$
23 Traffic Sign Installation Bike Lane 14 EA 350.00$ 4,900$
24 Striping Detail 1, Center Line 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$
25 Striping Detail 27B, Lane 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$
26 Striping Detail 39, Bike Lane Line 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$
27 Pavement Markings Bike Lane 250 SF 10.00$ 2,500$
28 AC 0.17FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization 4900 TON 110.00$ 549,000$
29 C.3 On Site Stormwater Runoff Treatment (See Calc)1 LS 491,000.00$ 491,000$
$
$
$
$
20,000$
PLAN Planning Engineering (TE) 424,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 5,704,000$
PE Preliminary Engineering (Design) 1,085,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)998,000$
Utility Coordination (Design)352,000$ CONTINGENCY*683,000$
Environmental 382,000$ SUBTOTAL (PreCon)10,282,106$
R/W R/W Engineering (Survey)465,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN)424,000$
Real Property Labor (including TCE's)432,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE)1,819,000$
R/W Acquisition 7,142,106$ SUBTOTAL (R/W)8,039,106$
CON Construction Engineering *856,000$
Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees 142,000$ GRAND TOTAL 17,687,106$
SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)11,280,106$ CURRENT YEAR 2012
* Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)ESCALATION YEAR 2012
* Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 2.5%
* CONTINGENCY is 10% of contract items plus construction engineering. ($10,000 min.)TOTAL (in 2012 dollars)17,700,000$
Public Education
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also
Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County
1/14/2013
Transportation Engineering Quantity Takeoff Worksheet
Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
Project Name:
Project length 5200 ft 5200 ft To be Modified
Pavement and Shoulder Backing
TI = 6.0
Existing pavement width 53 ft
Proposed pavement width 74 ft 0 FALSE Complete Pavement Replacement
Prop shoulder backing width (2sides)0 ft 0 FALSE
AC 0.17-FT Overlay TRUE
AC depth 0.4 ft 150 pcf FALSE
AB depth 1.05 ft 140 pcf
Proposed additional area incl taper 0 sf
Taper area 0 sf
TON 4900 110.00 AC 0.17-FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization
Excavation depth 1.45 ft
Excavation area (AB)109200 sf 5900 cy
Slurry seal area No Slurry Seal 2.25 $/sy
Shoulder grading 0 cf 0 cy
Grading CUT 4726 cy Use Worksheet starting at I29
Grading FILL 373 cy
Overlay area for road crown shift 12000 sf
Overlay thickness 0.17 ft
AC Overlay 65416 cf 4900 TON 110 $/ton
AC 43680 cf 3280 ton Shoulders plus overlay to shift crown
AB 114660 cf 8030 ton
Shoulder backing 0 cf 0 ton
Slope Work
Site visit still needed for accurate take offs. [9/10/07]
Cut (north slope) width [rough est.]see calc to right
Cut (north slope) height [rough est.]see calc to right
Cut 4726 cy
Fill (south) width [rough est.]see calc to right Import Fill?cy
Fill (south) height [rough est.]see calc to right
Fill 373 cy
Net Import fill:0
Retaining wall length 0 ft
Reatining wall height [rough est.]5 ft
Retaining wall area [rough est.]0 sf
Drainage
C.3 facilities (Bike lanes and slurry seal [maintenance] are exempt.) Full Length of Widening Work FALSE Both Sides
Swale Length: 1100 ft 1100 ft Irrigation TRUE Check Dams
Swale Width:5 ft 5,500 ft2 Swale Area 5%; Excedes the 4% Requirement Slope Variant (1-5):3
Engineered Soil Depth: 1.5 ft 310 cy 33,480.00$ 1 & 2 Relatively Flat
Class II Perm:2 ft 410 cy 166,050.00$ 3 Moderate Slopes
6" perforated pipe 1120 ft 9.00$ per ft 10,080.00$ 4 & 5 Increasing Elevation
Riprap 0 Tons 90$ Per Ton $ Ranges (Very Hilly)
Check dams 4in (55 Total Count)20 ft Interval 1,000$ Per Dam 55,000.00$ Planting Type Cost $/sqr ft
Planting Small Trees w/Plants 11$ per ft2 54,450.00$ None 1.00$
Pedestrial Safety Barrier Metalic Handrail Type 3%of Cost 9,571.80$ Grassy 4.00$
Irrigation 30%of Cost 95,718.00$ Grassy w/Plants 7.00$
Landscape Architect Consultant 15%of Cost 63,652.47$ Small Trees w/Plants 11.00$
Total Cost:Large Trees w/Grass 15.00$
Shoulder Perforated Pipe ($/ft)10.00$
6 in. at 10ft, 5% slope Check Dams ($/ft2)40.00$
Excavation per linear ft.2.25 cf 0.083 cy $40/cf (2007 Deer Valley)Engineered Soil ($/ft3)4.00$
Class II Perm ($/ft3)15.00$
Erosion Control
Erosion control turf reinforcement mat $95/sy (2004 Rossmoor)
$490,652.47
Appian Way Widening: 5-Lane Option A
1
ALTERNATIVE A
187
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
29APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County
1/14/2013
Erosion control blanket 0 sy $15/sy (2006 San Ramon Creek)
Landscaping
Street Trees:Along entire length of the project.FALSE Plant Trees Tree Size Planting Cost
Quantities of Trees to be Removed:10 FALSE Regular Intervals Small 750.00$
Number of Trees to be Planted:0 TRUE Irrigation Medium 1,250.00$
Tree Grates? (Yes/No)Yes Cost:$400 FALSE Both Sides Large 1,750.00$
Tree Type:Medium Establishment Maint Cost per Year
Trees $
Planter Areas:Planter Areas:41,772.60$
Planting Area: (ft2)10100 Tree Placement:$
Planting Type:Grassy w/Plants Planter Areas:70,700.00$
Public Lighting:$
Public Lighting:FALSE Lighting Irrigation:21,210.00$
Number of lights to be Placed:0 FALSE Regular Intervals Consultant: (15%)13,786.50$
Estimated Cost Per light:4,000.00$ FALSE Both Sides Total Cost:105,696.50$
Sidewalk + Curb & Gutter
Sidewalk:
Average Width:5 FT
Length of Road (If dirrerent from above):FT
Curb and Gutter?Yes
Both Sides of the Road?Yes 2
General Sidewalk Thickness 5 IN
Curb & Gutter Length:10400 LF
Sidewalk Area:52000 SF
Concrete Amount:802 CY
2
188
30
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Transportation Engineering Planning Cost Estimate
Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
Project Name:Appian Way Widening: 5Lane North of Fulton Way Option B
Alternative:Sidewalk/curb Improvements w/bike lanes between Valley View Drive and Michael Drive
Project Location:Appian Way from Valley View to Fitzgerald Drive
Assumptions:R=5.0, TI = 9.0
Project Length (ft):5200 2100 ft to be Modified
Date of Estimate:Jan. 11, 2013 Revision No.0
Revision Date
Prepared by:A. Rivas Revised by
No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Mobilization 1 LS 151,000.00$ 151,000$
2 Traffic Control 1 LS 140,000.00$ 140,000$
3 Construction Area Signs 10 EA 550.00$ 5,500$
4 Pavement Marking Removal 30 EA 150.00$ 4,500$
5 Tree Removal 10 EA 2,000.00$ 20,000$
6 Saw Cut 4200 LF 3.25$ 13,650$
7 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 36,200.00$ 36,200$
8 Roadway Excavation 2400 CY 75.00$ 180,000$
9 Cut Excavation 100 CY 60.00$ 6,000$
10 Roadway Fill 100 CY 95.00$ 9,500$
11 Aggregate Base 3300 TON 45.00$ 148,500$
12 Hot Mix Asphalt 1400 TON 125.00$ 175,000$
13 Minor Concrete Sidewalk (Removal and Replacement)20000 SF 16.00$ 320,000$
14 Curb and Gutter 9600 LF 35.00$ 336,000$
15 curb ramps 20 EA 4,000.00$ 80,000$
16 Driveway 26 EA 3,000.00$ 78,000$
17 Utility Adjustments (Fire Hydrants, Utility Boxes, St. Lights)1 LS 70,000.00$ 70,000$
18 Drainage Modifications (pipes, riprap, etc.)600 LF 150.00$ 90,000$
19 Drainage Modifications (Inlet Relocations)10 EA 5,000.00$ 50,000$
20 Intersection Improvements(Traffic Signal Mod, Turn Pocket)1 EA 225,000.00$ 225,000$
21 New Traffic Signal w/Minor St Modification Rancho Rd 1 EA 300,000.00$ 300,000$
22 Sign Relocation 15 EA 350.00$ 5,250$
23 Traffic Sign Installation Bike Lane 14 EA 350.00$ 4,900$
24 Striping Detail 1, Center Line 4400 LF 2.50$ 11,000$
25 Striping Detail 27B, Lane 4400 LF 2.50$ 11,000$
26 Striping Detail 39, Bike Lane Line 4400 LF 2.50$ 11,000$
27 Pavement Markings Bike Lane 125 SF 10.00$ 1,250$
28 AC 0.17FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization 2000 TON 110.00$ 230,000$
29 C.3 On Site Stormwater Runoff Treatment (See Calc)1 LS 204,000.00$ 204,000$
$
$
$
$
20,000$
PLAN Planning Engineering (TE) 400,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 2,917,000$
PE Preliminary Engineering (Design) 746,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)510,000$
Utility Coordination (Design)233,000$ CONTINGENCY*394,000$
Environmental 268,000$ SUBTOTAL (PreCon)5,670,800$
R/W R/W Engineering (Survey)270,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN)400,000$
Real Property Labor (including TCE's)240,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE)1,247,000$
R/W Acquisition 3,513,800$ SUBTOTAL (R/W)4,023,800$
CON Construction Engineering *438,000$
Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees 72,000$ GRAND TOTAL 9,511,800$
SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)6,180,800$ CURRENT YEAR 2012
* Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)ESCALATION YEAR 2012
* Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 2.5%
* CONTINGENCY is 10% of contract items plus construction engineering. ($10,000 min.)TOTAL (in 2012 dollars)9,500,000$
Public Education
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also
Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County
1/14/2013
Transportation Engineering Quantity Takeoff Worksheet
Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
Project Name:
Project length:5,200 ft 2,100 ft To be Widened
Pavement and Shoulder Backing
TI = 6.0
Existing pavement width 53 ft
Proposed pavement width 74 ft 0 FALSE Complete Pavement Replacement
Prop shoulder backing width (2sides)0 ft 0 FALSE
AC 0.17-FT Overlay TRUE
AC depth 0.4 ft 150 pcf TRUE
AB depth 1.05 ft 140 pcf
Proposed additional area incl taper 0 sf
Taper area 0 sf
Excavation depth 1.45 ft
Excavation area (AB)44100 sf 2400 cy
Slurry seal area 384800 No Slurry Seal 2.25 $/sy
Shoulder grading 0 cf 0 cy
Grading CUT 63 cy Use Worksheet starting at I29
Grading FILL 51 cy
Overlay thickness 0.17 ft
AC Overlay 26418 sf 2000 TON 110 $/ton
AC 17640 cf 1323 ton Shoulders plus overlay to shift crown
AB 46305 cf 3241 ton
Shoulder backing 0 cf 0 ton
Slope Work
Site visit still needed for accurate take offs. [9/10/07]
Cut (north slope) width [rough est.]see calc to right
Cut (north slope) height [rough est.]see calc to right
Cut 63 cy
Fill (south) width [rough est.]see calc to right Import Fill?cy
Fill (south) height [rough est.]see calc to right
Fill 51 cy
Net Import fill:0
Retaining wall length 0 ft
Reatining wall height [rough est.]5 ft
Retaining wall area [rough est.]0 sf
Drainage
C.3 facilities (Bike lanes and slurry seal [maintenance] are exempt.) Full Length of Widening Work FALSE Both Sides
Swale Length: 450 ft 450 ft Irrigation TRUE Check Dams
Swale Width:5 ft 2,250 ft2 Swale Area 5.1%; Excedes the 4% Requirement Slope Variant (1-5):3
Engineered Soil Depth: 1.5 ft 130 cy 14,040.00$ 1 & 2 Relatively Flat
Class II Perm:2 ft 170 cy 68,850.00$ 3 Moderate Slopes
6" perforated pipe 470 ft 9.00$ per ft 4,230.00$ 4 & 5 Increasing Elevation
Riprap 0 Tons 90$ Per Ton $ Ranges (Very Hilly)
Check dams 4in (22 Total Count)20 ft Interval 1,000$ Per Dam 22,500.00$ Planting Type Cost $/sqr ft
Planting Small Trees w/Plants 11$ per ft2 22,275.00$ None 1.00$
Pedestrial Safety Barrier Metalic Handrail Type 3%of Cost 3,956.85$ Grassy 4.00$
Irrigation 30%of Cost 39,568.50$ Grassy w/Plants 7.00$
Landscape Architect Consultant 15%of Cost 26,313.05$ Small Trees w/Plants 11.00$
Total Cost:Large Trees w/Grass 15.00$
Shoulder Perforated Pipe ($/ft)10.00$
6 in. at 10ft, 5% slope Check Dams ($/ft2)40.00$
Excavation per linear ft.2.25 cf 0.083 cy $40/cf (2007 Deer Valley)Engineered Soil ($/ft3)4.00$
Class II Perm ($/ft3)15.00$
Erosion Control
Erosion control turf reinforcement mat $95/sy (2004 Rossmoor)
Erosion control blanket 0 sy $15/sy (2006 San Ramon Creek)
$203,313.05
Appian Way Widening: 5-Lane North of Fulton Way Option B
1
ALTERNATIVE B
189
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
31APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County
1/14/2013
Landscaping
Trees:Along entire length of the project.FALSE Plant Trees Tree Size Planting Cost
Quantities of Trees to be Removed:10 FALSE Regular Intervals Small 750.00$
Number of Trees to be Planted:0 FALSE Irrigation Medium 1,250.00$
Tree Grates? (Yes/No)Yes Cost:$400 FALSE Both Sides Large 1,750.00$
Tree Type:Medium Establishment Maint Cost per Year
Trees $
Planter Areas:Planter Areas:$
Planting Area: (ft2)0 Tree Placement:$
Planting Type:None Planter Areas:$
Public Lighting:$
Public Lighting:FALSE Lighting Irrigation:
Number of lights to be Placed:0 FALSE Regular Intervals Consultant: (15%)$
Estimated Cost Per light:4,000.00$ FALSE Both Sides Total Cost:$
Sidewalk + Curb & Gutter
Sidewalk:
Average Width:5 FT
Length of Road (If dirrerent from above):4800 FT
Curb and Gutter?Yes
Both Sides of the Road?Yes 2
General Sidewalk Thickness 5 IN
Curb & Gutter Length:9600 LF
Sidewalk Area:48000 SF
Concrete Amount:741 CY
2
190
32
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Transportation Engineering Planning Cost Estimate
Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
Project Name:Appian Way Widening: Complete Streets Option C
Alternative:Sidewalk/curb Improvements w/bike lanes between Valley View Drive and Michael Drive
Project Location:Appian Way from Valley View to Fitzgerald Drive
Assumptions:R=5.0, TI = 9.0
Project Length (ft):5200 5200 ft to be Modified
Date of Estimate:Jan. 11, 2013 Revision No.0
Revision Date
Prepared by:A. Rivas Revised by
No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Mobilization 1 LS 295,000.00$ 295,000$
2 Traffic Control 1 LS 280,000.00$ 280,000$
3 Construction Area Signs 10 EA 550.00$ 5,500$
4 Pavement Marking Removal 80 EA 150.00$ 12,000$
5 Tree Removal 10 EA 2,000.00$ 20,000$
6 Saw Cut 10400 LF 3.25$ 33,800$
7 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 67,200.00$ 67,200$
8 Roadway Excavation 1100 CY 75.00$ 82,500$
9 Cut Excavation 1300 CY 45.00$ 58,500$
10 Aggregate Base 1500 TON 45.00$ 67,500$
11 Hot Mix Asphalt 600 TON 125.00$ 75,000$
12 Minor Concrete Sidewalk (Removal and Replacement)43400 CF 15.00$ 651,000$
13 Curb and Gutter 10400 LF 35.00$ 364,000$
14 curb ramps 20 EA 4,000.00$ 80,000$
15 Driveway 60 EA 3,000.00$ 180,000$
16 Retaining Wall 1200 SF 125.00$ 150,000$
17 Utility Adjustments (Fire Hydrants, Utility Boxes, St. Lights)1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000$
18 Drainage Modifications (pipes, riprap, etc.)600 LF 150.00$ 90,000$
19 Drainage Modifications (Inlet Relocations)18 EA 5,000.00$ 90,000$
20 New Traffic Signal w/Minor St Modification Rancho Rd 1 LS 300,000.00$ 300,000$
21 Intersection Improvements(Traffic Signal Mod, Turn Pocket)2 EA 225,000.00$ 450,000$
22 Roundabout at Appian Wy & Valley View Rd Intersection 1 EA 500,000.00$ 500,000$
23 Sign Relocation 40 EA 350.00$ 14,000$
24 Traffic Sign Installation Bike Lane 14 EA 350.00$ 4,900$
25 Striping Detail 1, Center Line 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$
26 Striping Detail 39, Bike Lane Line 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$
27 Pavement Markings Bike Lane 250 SF 10.00$ 2,500$
28 AC 0.17FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization 3500 TON 110.00$ 395,000$
29 C.3 On Site Stormwater Runoff Treatment (See Calc)1 LS 84,000.00$ 84,000$
30 Landscaping (Street Trees, Planting, Lighting)1 LS 1,022,900.00$ 1,022,900$
31 Bus Shelters 4 EA 15,000.00$ 60,000$
32 Street Furniture 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000$
33 3Year Landscaping Maintenance Contract Extension 3 YR 111,851.54$ 335,555$
20,000$
PLAN Planning Engineering (TE) 467,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 5,948,000$
PE Preliminary Engineering (Design) 1,042,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)982,000$
Utility Coordination (Design)339,000$ CONTINGENCY*672,000$
Environmental 368,000$ SUBTOTAL (PreCon)5,385,000$
R/W R/W Engineering (Survey)373,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN)467,000$
Real Property Labor (including TCE's)312,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE)1,749,000$
R/W Acquisition 2,484,000$ SUBTOTAL (R/W)3,169,000$
CON Construction Engineering *842,000$
Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees 140,000$ GRAND TOTAL 13,007,000$
SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)6,367,000$ CURRENT YEAR 2012
* Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)ESCALATION YEAR 2012
* Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 2.5%
* CONTINGENCY is 10% of contract items plus construction engineering. ($10,000 min.)TOTAL (in 2012 dollars)13,000,000$
Public Education
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also
Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County
1/14/2013
Transportation Engineering Quantity Takeoff Worksheet
Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
Project Name:
Project length 5200 ft 5200 ft To be Modified
Pavement and Shoulder Backing
TI = 6.0
Proposed Pavement Expansion 12400 ft2 Use worksheet
Proposed Pavement Reduction 7000 ft2 0 FALSE Complete Pavement Replacement
Existing Paved Area 269,600 ft2 0 FALSE
Proposed Paved Area 275,000 ft2 AC 0.17-FT Overlay TRUE
AC depth 0.4 ft 150 pcf FALSE
AB depth 1.05 ft 140 pcf
Proposed additional area incl taper 0 ft in xSect
Taper area 0 sf
TON 3500 110 AC 0.17-FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization
Excavation depth 1.45 ft
Excavation area (AB)19400 sf 26.62963 sy
Slurry seal area No Slurry Seal 2.25 $/sy
Shoulder grading 0 cf 0 cy
Grading CUT 1224 cy Use Worksheet starting at I29
Grading FILL 0 cy
Overlay area for road crown shift 0 sf
Overlay thickness 0.17 ft
AC Overlay 46750 sf 3500 TON 110 $/ton
AC 7760 cf 582 ton Shoulders plus overlay to shift crown
AB 20370 cf 1426 ton
Shoulder backing 0 cf 0 ton
Slope Work
Site visit still needed for accurate take offs. [9/10/07]
Cut (north slope) width [rough est.]see calc to right
Cut (north slope) height [rough est.]see calc to right
Cut 1224 cy
Fill (south) width [rough est.]see calc to right Import Fill?cy
Fill (south) height [rough est.]see calc to right
Fill 0 cy
Net Import fill:0
Retaining wall length 300 ft
Reatining wall height [rough est.]4 ft
Retaining wall area [rough est.]1200 sf
C.3 facilities
C.3 facilities (Bike lanes and slurry seal [maintenance] are exempt.) Full Length of Widening Work FALSE Both Sides
Swale Length: 200 ft 200 ft Irrigation TRUE Check Dams
Swale Width:5 ft 1,000 ft2 Swale Area 5.2%; Excedes the 4% Requirement Slope Variant (1-5):2
Engineered Soil Depth: 1.5 ft 60 cy 6,480.00$ 1 & 2 Relatively Flat
Class II Perm:2 ft 80 cy 32,400.00$ 3 Moderate Slopes
6" perforated pipe 220 ft 9.00$ per ft 1,980.00$ 4 & 5 Increasing Elevation
Riprap 0 Tons 90$ Per Ton $ Ranges (Very Hilly)
Check dams 4in (8 Total Count)24 ft Interval 1,000$ Per Dam 8,333.33$ Planting Type Cost $/sqr ft
Planting Grassy w/Plants 7$ per ft2 6,300.00$ None 1.00$
Pedestrial Safety Barrier Metalic Handrail Type 1%of Cost 554.93$ Grassy 4.00$
Irrigation 30%of Cost 16,648.00$ Grassy w/Plants 7.00$
Landscape Architect Consultant 15%of Cost 10,904.44$ Small Trees w/Plants 12.00$
Total Cost:Large Trees w/Grass 16.00$
Perforated Pipe ($/ft)10.00$
Center Medians:Check Dams ($/ft2)40.00$
(None)Engineered Soil ($/ft3)4.00$
Class II Perm ($/ft3)15.00$
Erosion Control
Erosion control turf reinforcement mat $95/sy (2004 Rossmoor)
Erosion control blanket 0 sy $15/sy (2006 San Ramon Creek)
$83,904.44
Appian Way Widening: Complete Streets Option C
1
ALTERNATIVE C
191
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
33APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County
1/14/2013
Landscaping
Trees:Along entire length of the project.TRUE Plant Trees Tree Size Planting Cost
Quantities of Trees to be Removed:10 TRUE Regular Intervals Small 750.00$
Tree Planting Interval: (ft)50 208 Trees TRUE Irrigation Medium 1,250.00$
Tree Grates? (Yes/No)Yes Cost:$400 TRUE Both Sides Large 1,750.00$
Tree Type:Medium Establishment Maint Cost per Year
Trees 93,080.00$
Planter Areas:Roundabout (No other areas considered)Planter Areas:18,771.54$
Planting Area: (ft2)3000 Tree Placement:343,200.00$
Planting Type:Grassy w/Plants Planter Areas:21,000.00$
Public Lighting:416,000.00$
Public Lighting:TRUE Lighting Irrigation:109,260.00$
Lighting Interval: (ft)100 104 Lights TRUE Regular Intervals Consultant: (15%)133,419.00$
Estimated Cost Per light:4,000.00$ TRUE Both Sides Total Cost:1,022,879.00$
Sidewalk + Curb & Gutter
Sidewalk:
Average Width:10 FT
Length of Road (If dirrerent from above):FT
Curb and Gutter?Yes
Both Sides of the Road?Yes 2
General Sidewalk Thickness 5 IN
Curb & Gutter Length:10400 LF
Sidewalk Area:104000 SF
Concrete Amount:1605 CY
2
Average Width Worksheet Return Quantity Take-Off
Expansion Area (ft2):12400
Total Length 5200 ft Total Length 5200 ft Reduction Area ((ft2):7000
Total Area 269600 ft2 Total Area 275000 ft2
Average Width 52 ft Average Width 53 ft
No. Segment Length
(FT)
Width
(FT)
Area
(FT2)
No. Segment Length
(FT)
Width (FT) Area
(FT2)
Reduction
(FT2)
Expansion
(FT2)
1 - 1700'100 55 5500 1 - 800'100 55 5500
2 100 55 5500 2 100 55 5500
3 100 55 5500 3 100 55 5500
4 100 55 5500 4 100 55 5500
5 100 55 5500 5 100 55 5500
6 100 55 5500 6 100 55 5500
7 100 55 5500 7 100 55 5500
8 100 55 5500 8 100 55 5500
9 100 55 5500 9 - 400'100 58 5800 300
10 100 55 5500 10 100 58 5800 300
11 100 55 5500 11 100 58 5800 300
12 100 55 5500 12 100 58 5800 300
13 100 55 5500 13 - 2000 100 44 4400 1100
14 100 55 5500 14 100 44 4400 1100
15 100 55 5500 15 100 44 4400 1100
16 100 55 5500 16 100 44 4400 1100
17 100 55 5500 17 100 44 4400 1100
18 - 2600'100 45 4500 18 100 44 4400 100
19 100 45 4500 19 100 44 4400 100
20 100 45 4500 20 100 44 4400 100
21 100 45 4500 21 100 44 4400 100
22 100 45 4500 22 100 44 4400 100
23 100 45 4500 23 100 44 4400 100
24 100 45 4500 24 100 44 4400 100
25 100 45 4500 25 100 44 4400 100
26 100 45 4500 26 100 44 4400 100
27 100 45 4500 27 100 44 4400 100
28 100 45 4500 28 100 44 4400 100
29 100 45 4500 29 100 44 4400 100
30 100 45 4500 30 100 44 4400 100
31 100 45 4500 31 100 44 4400 100
32 100 45 4500 32 100 44 4400 100
33 100 45 4500 33 - 500'100 48 4800 300
34 100 45 4500 34 100 48 4800 300
35 100 45 4500 35 100 48 4800 300
36 100 45 4500 36 100 48 4800 300
37 100 45 4500 37 100 48 4800 300
38 100 45 4500 38 - 400'100 58 5800 1300
39 100 45 4500 39 100 58 5800 1300
40 100 45 4500 40 100 58 5800 1300
41 100 45 4500 41 100 58 5800 1300
42 100 45 4500 42 - 1000'100 64 6400 1900
43 100 45 4500 43 100 64 6400 1900
44 - 700'100 63 6300 44 100 64 6400 100
45 100 63 6300 45 100 64 6400 100
46 100 63 6300 46 100 64 6400 100
47 100 63 6300 47 100 64 6400 100
48 100 63 6300 48 100 64 6400 100
49 100 63 6300 49 100 64 6400 100
50 100 63 6300 50 100 64 6400 100
51 - 200'100 75 7500 51 100 75 7500
52 100 75 7500 52 100 75 7500
53 0
Existing:Proposed:
192
34 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
This page intentionally left blank.
193
APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
35APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES194
DYETT & BHA TIA
Urban and Regi onal P l anners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94111
415 956 4300 415 956 7315
195
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:06/05/2014
Subject:Contra Costa County Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan Quarterly Report
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 7
Referral Name: RECEIVE Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan and Quarterly Update, and
PROVIDE direction to County Watershed Program Staff.
Presenter: Cece Sellgren, (925) 313-2296 Contact: Cece Sellgren, (925)
313-2296
Referral History:
Cece Sellgren presented the draft Long-Term Trash Management Plan (Trash Plan) for Contra Costa County to the
Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWI Committee) on March 6, 2014. The TWI Committee
received the presentation and authorized the County Watershed Program (CWP) staff to proceed with outreach to
affected communities and implement elements of the Trash Plan.
Referral Update:
Staff at the CWP has utilized their contractor, Debris Tech, to pick up litter in several
neighborhoods with high and very high trash rates and several County roads in order to
demonstrate achievement of a 40% trash reduction by the July 2014 deadline. CWP staff has
initiated protocols for monitoring and assessment of trash rates within these neighborhoods and
roads. They have shared these protocols with other Contra Costa cities.
CWP staff has met with staff from the departments of Conservation & Development, Health
Services, Public Works, Sheriff’s, and the Housing Authority, and with the staff from Supervisor
Glover’s office to better understand County policies, procedures and practices related to litter,
trash and illegal dumping.
CWP staff has produced a draft flow chart for Department responsibility and action timelines
associated with illegal dumping and illicit discharge and has received a draft report from Larry
Walker and Associates on the costs associated with trash reduction activities.
Staff is organizing meetings with West Contra Costa Unified and Mount Diablo Unified School
Districts in conjunction with relevant cities. Staff has also attended a workshop provided by other
municipalities in the South Bay to learn their innovative strategies and initiatives.
196
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
The County Stormwater Manager recommends:
County Watershed Program staff will continue to meet with County Departments and other
agencies, and
Continue to refine estimated costs of trash reduction strategies.
Meet with staff from Supervisor’s Gioia’s office.
Meet with the Municipal Advisory Councils of the five selected communities to present the
Trash Plan requirements and proposed approaches to meet them.
Meet with Executive Directors of Chambers of Commerce, service organizations, faith
communities and citizen leaders in each of five selected communities.
Adopt RecycleMore’s Plastic Bag Ordinance to create plastic bag ordinance parity in West
Contra Costa County.
Begin discussions of who will fund which trash reduction strategy.
Return to the TWI Committee in September with the next quarterly report.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The fiscal impact has not yet been determined.
Attachments
LTTRP Progress Report
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
197
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Julia R. Bueren , Director
Deputy Directors
R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Stephen Silveira
Memo
May 29, 2014
TO: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Cece Sellgren, Stormwater Manager, County Watershed
Program
SUBJECT: Update on trash reduction activities required to comply with
Municipal Regional (NPDES) Permit
This report summarizes the progress made by staff within the Contra Costa County
Watershed Program in implementing the Short Term Trash Reduction Plan to
achieve a 40% reduction in litter entering the County’s storm drain system, local
creeks, the Delta, or the Bay. It also discusses effort to develop a final,
community based Long Term Trash Reduction Plan. Finally this report discusses
some of the challenges to implementing the Long Term Trash Reduction Plan.
On the ground activities
Staff at the County Watershed Program (Program) has utilized their contractor,
Debris Tech, to pick up litter within road right of way in several neighborhoods
with high and very high trash rates, and several County roads in order to
demonstrate achievement of a 40% trash reduction by the July 2014 deadline. The
goal is to reduce the trash load to a medium level (Yellow on trash maps) or lower,
in these areas. Specifically, the County is picking up litter within North Richmond
residential neighborhoods south of Wildcat Creek and selected neighborhoods in
Bay Point twice a month (See Figures 1 and 2). Rollingwood, and Montalvin
Manor, and selected neighborhoods in Rodeo are picked up once a month (see
Figures 3 and 4). Several County roads have had litter removed from the right of
way, as well.
For each neighborhood or County road, staff had conducted visual assessments of
litter accumulation before and after litter removal activities, as well as before and
after street sweeping (if applicable). The visual assessments are a new
requirement of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water
198
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Julia R. Bueren , Director
Deputy Directors
R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Stephen Silveira
Board). It appears the County is at the forefront in designing and implementing an
assessment protocol. We have shared these protocols with other Contra Costa
cities.
Internal Meetings
Staff has met with staff from the Dept. of Conservation & Development (Building
Inspection and Solid Waste Divisions), Health Services Dept. (Environmental
Health and Hazardous Materials Divisions), Public Works Dept. (Maintenance and
Transportation Engineering) , Sheriff’s Dept., and staff from Supervisor Glover and
Gioia’s office to better understand County policies, procedures, and practices
related to litter, trash, and illegal dumping. These meetings have been very
productive in understanding the various roles different departments and divisions
within them play in addressing trash. Some of the issues addressed include:
Contra Costa County does not have a single, County-wide waste management
authority. Instead several different agencies negotiate and administer solid waste
and recycling services. The Department of Conservation and Development (DCD)
Solid Waste Division negotiates trash franchise agreements and administers
conditions of franchise agreements in selected communities within the County.
Some unincorporated communities belong to one of the two integrated waste
management authority, which negotiates the franchise agreement on their behalf.
Other communities have a community facilities district or a sanitary district
negotiate the franchise agreement on their behalf.
The diversity of entities negotiating the franchise agreements and responding to
complaints makes it very difficult to implement programs to address litter. For
example, Health Services Department (HSD) Environmental Health Division
responds to complaints where residences or businesses do not have garbage
service. DCD Building Inspection Division responds to complaints of overflowing
trash bins. There appears to be little communication between these two groups.
The County’s response to illegal dumping and illicit discharges also involves
multiple Departments and Divisions, each with a unique role. The County appears
to lack clear policies and procedures designating responsibility and processes for
implementation. The Watershed Program staff has developed draft flow charts for
Department/Division responsibility and action timelines associated with illegal
dumping and illicit discharge (Figure 5 and 6). Response procedures are not well
understood by all County Departments/Divisions, and there appears to be little
communication between them. Most County personnel who interact with the
199
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Julia R. Bueren , Director
Deputy Directors
R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Stephen Silveira
public on these matters have almost no knowledge of the different roles within the
County.
The County is not currently removing light weight litter associated with illegal
dumping in road right of way and homeless encampments on County or Flood
Control District property. It is this kind of litter that must be addressed under the
NPDES permit requirements. Procedures and responsibility has not been
determined at this time.
It proved far more difficult than anticipated to arrange for meetings with
Supervisor’s and their key staff. Program staff met with Sup. Glover and his staff
on May 21. The meeting went very well. Program staff is scheduled to attend the
Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council on June 3rd. The Rodeo MAC will meet on
June 26th. Program staff will meet with Supervisor Gioia and his staff on Monday
June 2nd. Meeting with staff from the other three supervisorial districts will likely
occur during the regularly scheduled Public Works Department meetings in the
coming months.
Cost Comparisons
The County hired Larry Walker and Associates (LWA) to examine the cost of
various trash reduction strategies. LWA has produced a draft report on the
potential costs associated with trash reduction activities. The first draft, recently
submitted, is not ready for distribution. Program staff will work with consultant
staff to prepare a second draft.
Program staff is monitoring the costs associated with on-land litter clean-up. The
current costs are outlined in Table 1. This include planning, actual litter pick-up,
contract administration, and required effectiveness assessments.
Table 1 – Annual costs for on-land litter pick up
Frequency of Litter Pick-up Contractor* Staff Evaluation** Total Costs/year
Once/week – 4 sites
cleaned once a month
$45,000 $10,600 $55,600
Twice/week – 8 sites $90,000 $21,200 $111,200
* Includes staff administrative time
** Includes staff travel and field time to visually assess trash load at designated
monitoring transects before litter pick-up, afterwards, and prior to street sweeping.
200
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Julia R. Bueren , Director
Deputy Directors
R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Stephen Silveira
Program staff is developing their own cost assessments of existing programs,
including:
Cost to implement parking restrictions on street sweeping days
Cost to increase frequency of street sweeping in certain areas
Cost to develop a litter focused program that utilizes existing County
employees within their existing job duties.
Cost to hire a litter focused staff in either DCD-Building Inspection or HSD-
Environmental Health
Coordination with other Cities and Agencies
Staff is coordinating with the West County and Central County cities to arrange a
meeting with West Contra Costa Unified and Mount Diablo Unified School Districts.
The West County coalition met on May 27th. They developed three goals - 1)
Encourage the school district to address litter within their schools, 2) Reduce the
amount of litter generated that forms a “halo” around many of their school
facilities and keep these areas litter free, 3) Educate and activate students to clean
up litter in their communities. The West County coalition decided to focus on the
6 high schools and 6 middle schools within West Contra Costa Unified School
District. They will meet with District staff the week after school gets out. The
Central County coalition has not yet met, but will do so in the next week or so.
Program staff met with the Contra Costa Housing Authority, and secured
permission to implement on-land litter pick-ups at their facilities in North Richmond
and Rodeo. We are also coordinating street sweeping efforts. The Housing
Authority is open to implementing the “Love your Block” program within one of
their projects. This program would utilize maintenance workers, code inspectors,
waste haulers, and volunteers to hold a block party where any solid waste could
be disposed or recycled, minor repairs could be conducted, vegetation
management conducted (lawn mowing, weeding), and a BBQ lunch provided to
instill neighborhood pride. Once completed, inspectors from either the County or
the Housing Authority would monitor litter loads, instances of disrepair,
landscaping management, and illegal dumping. A quick response would be
required by the responsible party (tenant, County, or Housing Authority).
Richmond has implemented this program very effectively in some of their most
blighted communities, and created a sense of pride in communities that formerly
were some of the most challenged communities.
Program staff attended a workshop in the South Bay that focused on integrating
201
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Julia R. Bueren , Director
Deputy Directors
R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Stephen Silveira
solid waste services with litter abatement. Several Santa Clara County cities and
agencies have formed the “Zero Litter Initiative”. One of their new programs,
called “Right Size, Right Service”, utilizes the waste haulers to monitor trash
dumpsters for multi-family residential complexes and commercial business. The
hauler informs residents, owners, or property managers of undersized dumpsters
that action must be taken by placing stickers on the trash dumpsters. The waste
haulers also notify City/County staff of undersized dumpsters. After a single
warning, the waste hauler stops emptying the dumpster. The City/County
personnel make contact with the responsible party and, if the over-filling of
dumpsters is not abated, issue a ticket on the third offense. Trash service is also
suspended on the third offence. This program has dramatically reduced litter
generated from over flowing trash bins in commercial and multi-family residential
complexes.
Next Steps
The County Stormwater Manager recommends the following activities:
Program staff continues to conduct on-land trash litter removal to ensure
County is meeting its 40% trash reduction requirements. Staff should explore
other methods to implement trash reduction, such as coordinating with non-
profit groups already engaged in litter abatement and beautification. This is
particularly important in North Richmond and Bay Point, which have mitigation
funds targeted at these activities. But until other methods are developed,
implemented, and proven successful and cost effective, on-land litter clean-up
activities should continue.
County Watershed Program staff should continue to meet with other County
Departments and other agencies to seek ways to improve processes and
communication regarding addressing litter. As new processes are developed,
Program staff should implement them on a trial basis and determine costs
associated with them, and develop formal procedure documents.
Coordinate with Supervisor Glover and Gioia to attend Municipal Advisory
Council (MAC) Meetings in select communities. Introduce MAC members to
keep elements of the Long Term Trash Reduction Plan. And obtain feedback
from Supervisor staff, MAC members, and members of the public.
Initiate the process to impose parking restrictions during street sweeping in
select commercial areas within Rodeo and El Sobrante.
Continue to define estimated costs of trash reduction strategies.
Determine percent trash reduction that current and proposed activities will
provide.
202
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Julia R. Bueren , Director
Deputy Directors
R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Stephen Silveira
Meet at the monthly Public Works meeting with staff from Sup. Mitchoff’s,
Piepho’s and Anderson’s office to brief the Supervisors and their staff on the
Long Term Trash Reduction Plan requirements and process.
Meet with thee Municipal Advisory Councils of the five selected communities to
present the Trash Plan requirements and proposed approaches to meet them.
Consider adopting RecycleMore’s (West County Integrated Waste Management
Authority) single use bag ordinance in unincorporated communities within their
jurisdiction (North Richmond, East Richmond Heights, Rollingwood, Montalvin
Manor, Bay View, Tara Hills, and El Sobrante). This will create ordinance parity
of unincorporated communities with their city neighbors.
Begin discussions of who will fund which trash reduction strategies.
Return to TWIC in September with the next quarterly report.
CS:
G:\fldctl\NPDES\C.10 Trash Reduction\Trash Reduction Planning\Long Term Plan\TWIC Reports\5-28-14
LTTRP Progress Report.docx
C: Sup. Gioia
Sup. Glover
J. Bueren, Public Works Director
Steve Kowalewski, Admin
M. Carlson, Flood Control
M. Mancuso, Flood Control
J. Steere, Flood Control
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 9.
Meeting Date:06/05/2014
Subject:RECEIVE update on the County's IPM program and take ACTION as
appropriate.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 8
Referral Name: Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management policy
Presenter: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator Contact: Tanya Drlik,
925-335-3214
Referral History:
The TWI Committee has asked the Integrated Pest Management Coordinator to update the Committee quarterly on
the County's integrated pest management program.
Referral Update:
The Integrated Pest Management Annual Report was presented to TWI in December. This is the second quarterly
update of 2014 (see attached report).
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Accept report
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None
Attachments
TWIC Memo
County Staff Responses
210
WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D.
HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
RANDALL L. SAWYER
DIRECTOR
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS
4333 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, California
94553-2229
Ph (925) 646-2286
Fax (925) 646-2073
• Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan •
• Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs • Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers •
May 28, 2014
TO: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
Supervisor Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Andersen, Vice Chair
FROM: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator
SUBJECT: Progress Report on IPM Activities
IPM Advisory Committee
1. At the March 5, 2014 meeting of the IPM Advisory Committee (the Committee), members heard a presentation
from Dr. Michael Blankinship who participated in a 2004 study in Contra Costa that included goat grazing.
Although the study showed that the costs of grazing and spraying herbicides were similar, this has not been the
County’s experience since 2011. Dr. Blankinship was not sure where the figures for conventional herbicide
spraying were gathered for comparison in the report, since no spraying was carried out as part of the study. The
County has found that the cost of using goats for vegetation management is on average considerably more than
using herbicides and is intimately tied to the site. Factors such as the ease with which goats can access the site, the
size of the site, the availability of water at the site, how much fencing is needed, and how often the fencing must
be moved all affect cost. Dr. Blankinship agreed that costs for grazing are extremely variable depending on the
conditions, timing, and location of their use.
The Committee also heard updates from the Departments and from the subcommittees.
2. Staffed the first meetings of each subcommittee (Decision-Making, Cost Accounting, and Transparency).
The subcommittees have begun defining their work for the year.
a. The Decision-Making subcommittee will review four decision-making documents this year: artichoke
thistle, Japanese knotweed, and purple starthistle from the Agriculture Department, and weed
management at airports from Public Works Vegetation Management.
b. The Cost Accounting subcommittee will work with the Grounds Division to determine the cost of re-
designing a County landscape to be more water and energy efficient, more weed and pest resistant, and to
require less maintenance.
c. The Transparency subcommittee is reviewing how the County posts for pesticide use and how the
County provides information to the public.
Structural IPM
3. Worked with Public Works Facilities Management to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Structural IPM
Services for County buildings. Pestec’s contract comes to an end on September 30, 2014, and the County is going
out to bid for IPM service. The RFP was posted on BidSync.com on May 16, and all companies that bid on the
contract in 2009 plus additional companies were notified of the posting by phone or email. Proposals are due on
July 22 and interviews will be in August. The current RFP is very similar to the one developed in 2009 with added
refinements to make it easier to read and to understand.
4. Arranged an IPM workshop on May 13 for Head Start Home Base educators provided by Luis and Carlos Agurto
of Pestec. The workshop focused on how to prevent pests in the home and simple strategies for low income
211
Progress Report on IPM Activities 2
families for dealing with pest invasions. Attendees said the workshop was excellent and asked to have it repeated
for the Home Base parents.
5. Worked on coordinating an IPM workshop for Head Start classroom educators.
6. Monitored the work of Pestec, the County’s structural IPM contractor.
7. Received regular reports from Pestec on needed repairs for pest prevention. Pestec assigns priorities to these
repairs, and the Facilities Division is working on completing the highest priorities.
8. Responded to a request from Parents for a Safer Environment to investigate the use of rat bait by a company
other than Pestec around the County Administration Building at 651 Pine Street in Martinez. No rodent bait of
any kind is being used around the County Administration Building (or around or in any other County buildings).
Pestec uses tamper-proof bait boxes to house non-toxic feeding blocks to monitor for rodent activity and if
activity is detected, they use a snap trap inside the bait box to catch the rodent. Three bait stations belonging to
Orkin (the County’s previous contractor) were found around the building and were removed. The bait stations
were 4 years old and were completely empty.
Landscape IPM
9. Attended a workshop in San Rafael on landscape maintenance during drought that was provided by U.C.
Cooperative Extension.
10. Arranged for Dr. Igor Laćan, U.C. Cooperative Extension Horticultural Advisor for the Bay Area, to provide a
workshop in July on managing landscapes during drought and planning for landscapes that can withstand
continual drought. The Grounds Manager and his staff will attend, and various Public Works administrative staff
will be invited, along with city parks and school landscape maintenance personnel from around the County.
IPM in Contra Costa Cities
11. Resumed work with the Cities of El Cerrito and San Pablo and the County Clean Water Program on guidance
documents for city IPM coordinators.
a. Produced a guidance document on structural IPM that includes information on which pests can be
managed in-house by cities and which should be managed by professionals, information about how to
hire a structural IPM contractor, examples of IPM contract language, and fact sheets on various common
structural pests.
b. Produced a draft guidance document on IPM for weeds in landscapes that includes general principles and
fact sheets on specific weeds.
c. Worked on planning the additional guidance documents that this group will produce.
12. Reviewed, edited, and produced material for the County Clean Water Program’s “My Green Garden” website,
and commented extensively on the strategy.
Bed Bugs
13. Continued to organize quarterly meetings of the Contra Costa Bed Bug Task Force.
a. Andrew Sutherland, U.C. Urban IPM Advisor, has informed the Task Force that the grant we
collaborated on has been funded and work will begin later this year. The grant project will compare
“conventional” bed bug treatments with an IPM program for bed bugs in at least 1 multi-family
apartment building in both southern California and Contra Costa. County Partners on this project include
U.C. researchers and pest control companies in both southern California and the Bay Area, Monument
Impact (formerly the Chavez Center) in Concord, and this County’s IPM Coordinator.
14. Responded to a number of calls from tenants for assistance with bed bug problems.
15. Worked with the Environmental Health Division and Code Enforcement in the Cities of Concord and Richmond
to develop city protocols for responding to bed bug complaints and working with recalcitrant landlords. Concord
is beginning a pilot program using their protocol. Once the City has worked with the protocol and made any
212
Progress Report on IPM Activities 3
revisions, the IPM Coordinator, Environmental Health, and the City will present the protocol to other cities in
the County and discuss lessons learned from the pilot program.
16. Worked with the Environmental Health Division to develop a bed bug training program for County health
inspectors. On April 17, Environmental Health inspectors were trained in how to inspect for the presence of bed
bugs. A number of Code Enforcement officers from around the County also attended the training.
17. Accompanied Environmental Health inspectors and California Department of Public Health staff on the
County’s first bed bug inspection in an apartment in Concord on May 14.
Other Projects
18. Provided a presentation on urban IPM to a meeting of the California Pest Control Advisors in San Mateo on
April 10.
19. Attended the regular meeting of the Head Start Health and Nutrition Services Advisory Committee to report on
IPM related issues on April 29.
20. Attended the County’s annual Advisory Body Training on May 1 for updates on the duties and responsibilities of
staff to Advisory Bodies to the Board of Supervisors. This presentation always includes training on the Brown
Act and the County’s Better Government Ordinance.
21. Updated a document responding to various concerns from the public about the County’s IPM program (see
County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public, attached).
213
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 1
Contra Costa County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public
regardingRegarding the County Integrated Pest Management Program
May 27, 2014
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
IPM Contract Language
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“the county still does not have IPM
language in its contracts with pest
control contractors”
2009: the IPM Coordinator and County staff added IPM language to the contract
for pest management in & around Co. buildings. The contractor emphasizes
education, sanitation, and pest proofing as primary solutions. Insecticides, mainly
in the form of baits, are used as a last resort. For the control of rats and mice in
and around County buildings, the County only uses only sanitation, education,
and trappings for rats and mice.
Special Districts currently hires only 1 contractor for pest control. He is employed
by means of a purchase order, which is not an appropriate vehicle for IPM
contract language; however,
o as a condition of his employment, he is required to abide by the Public
Works “Landscape Design, Construction, and Maintenance Standards and
Guidelines”1 which contain language outlining the IPM approach. This also
applies to any other contractor hired by Special Districts.
o this has been explained to PfSE several times.
Spring 2012: to reinforce the IPM standards, the Special Districts Manager sent a
letter to each Special Districts’ contractor detailing the IPM approach expected of
them. This is an on-going practice and any new contractors will receive the same
letter to emphasize the County’s IPM principles.
On 11/28/12, Susan JunFish asked for Special Districts contracts and purchase
orders; on 11/29/12 the IPM Coordinator sent her the contracts, purchase orders,
and letters mentioned above that were sent out by Special Districts.
On 2/14/13, Susan JunFish asked again for copies of the letters and was sent
them on 2/15/13.
The Grounds Division occasionally hires a contractor to apply pesticides that the
Division does not have staff or equipment to apply itself. The IPM Coordinator
considers that these contracts or purchase orders do not require IPM language
because the contractor is hired for a specific pesticide application and not to
perform IPM services or make any IPM decisions. In these cases the Grounds
Division has already gone through the IPM decision making process and has
decided the specific work ordered is appropriate.
Unprofessional Behavior by County Staff
11/6/13-IPM
11/13/13-IO
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“serious pattern of hostile and
unprofessional treatment to the
community by County staff”
“continued name-calling, shouting,
and put-downs by county staff and
Staff disagree with the assertions that staff have been hostile or unprofessional
toward members of PfSE or that staff have engaged in name-calling, shouting, or
put-downs in any committee meetings. However, without reference to specific
incidents on specific dates, it is impossible for staff to respond in detail.
Members of the public have always had ample opportunity (within defined limits)
to participate in all aspects of IPM Committee meetings.
Starting in 2014,: IPM full committee and subcommittee meetings will strictly
1 http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2147
214
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 2
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Committee members at IPM
meetings”
“require staff to take training in
order to learn how to work
productively in public meetings”
“record meetings with a
camcorder”
adhere to the Ground Rules adopted unanimously by the IPM Committee on May
5, 2010. The IPM Coordinator will distribute Committee Ground Rules with each
agenda packet. This will make public participation more fair and prevent one or a
few individuals from dominating public comment. This course of action should limit
the potential opportunities for improper discourse.
Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner, suggested that meetings be audio
recorded (no video). The issue may be taken up at a future IPM Committee
meeting.
Intimidation of a member of Parents for a Safer Environment by the IPM Coordinator
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“we ask that in the future, [County]
staff not contact the community
and pressure them to retract their
public comments”
On November 13, 2013, Margaret Lynwood submitted a written public comment to
the Internal Operations Committee. In the comment, she stated that she had “been
attending pesticide related meetings and [had] discovered a serious pattern of
hostile and unprofessional treatment to the community by county staff.” Since Ms.
Lynwood did not provide specific details, and the IPM coordinator had no record of
her attending and did not remember seeing her in the last 4 years at any IPM
Committee or subcommittee meetings, but only at TWIC and IO meetings, she
contacted Ms. Lynwood by phone to understand her concerns and ask her if she felt
that County Supervisors or other staff in TWIC or IO meetings had exhibited
unprofessional behavior. She said, “No,” and was unable to cite a specific instance
when she had witnessed such behavior. The IPM Coordinator did not ask her to
retract her public comment.
Use of Pre-Emergent Herbicides
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The Community wants to be
assured that the Public Works Dept
does not use pesticides along the
Flood Control District that has [sic]
residual activity before a
forecasted rainstorm.”
This is an issue about pre-emergent herbicides and was discussed in a
subcommittee meeting on 10/29/13 and again in the Advisory Committee meeting
on 11/6/13. Both meetings were attended by both Susan JunFish and Shirley
Shelangoski of PfSE.
The following points were made:
Pre-emergent herbicides have residual activity by design because they are meant
to prevent the germination of weeds over an extended period of time, sometimes
a number of weeks.
Pre-emergent herbicides are used by Public Works as part of their herbicide
rotation program to prevent the development of herbicide-resistant weeds.
Herbicide rotation is one of a number of best practices strongly recommended by
the University of California and many other researchers to prevent herbicide
resistance2. Creating herbicide-resistant weeds is considered an extremely
serious problem by weed scientists throughout the world.
Pre-emergent herbicides are not applied on flood control channel banks; they are
used on flood control access roads above the banks.
Pre-emergent herbicides need irrigation or rainfall shortly after their application,
typically within a few days to several weeks, to carry them shallowly into the soil
where they become active. Because there is no irrigation on flood control access
roads, pre-emergent herbicides must be applied prior to a rain event.
The Department follows all label stipulations for the application of pre-emergent
2 2012. Norsworthy, Jason K., et al. Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations. Weed Science 2012 Special
Issue:31-62.
2000. Prather, Timothy S., J.M. DiTlmaso, and J.S. Holt. Herbicide Resistance: Definition and Management Strategies. University of California, Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication #8012. 14 pp.
215
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 3
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
herbicides (and all other herbicides). Note that a pesticide label is law and must
be strictly followed.
The use of pre-emergent herbicides can reduce the total amount of herbicide
needed to control weeds in the County because it takes a smaller amount of pre-
emergent herbicide to control weeds in an area than it would with a post-emergent
herbicide.
Use of Garlon 3A (triclopyr) on flood control channel slopes
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“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”
Staff has reviewed EPA documents for triclopyr reregistraion; information on
triclopyr in the Nature Conservancy’s Weed Control Methods Handbook;
information on triclopyr in the Weed Science Society of America’s Herbicide
Handbook; and the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation’s “Environmental
Fate of Triclopyr” (January 1997); and has found that triclopyr:
o Is practically non-toxic to birds, fish, and crustaceans
o Is of very low toxicity to mammals and is rapidly absorbed and then rapidly
excreted by the kidneys, primarily in unmetabolized form
o Has an average half-life in soil of 30 days (considered short persistence)
o Would have little toxicological hazard to fish and wildlife as currently used in
forestry (CCC’s use is similar, although the County uses less product per
acre than studies cited)
o Has a low Koc, which indicates mobility in soil; however, studies show that
triclopyr is only somewhat prone to lateral movement and is practically not
prone to vertical movement. In addition, triclopyr is fairly immobile in the
sub-surface flow.
o Could be used without harm to nearby streams in forestry applications if
buffer zones are used around streams and ephemeral drainage routes.
CCC Public Works Vegetation Management uses Garlon 3A as follows:
o Garlon 3A is a broadleaf contact herbicide with no pre-emergent qualities. It
does not kill grasses, so it is often used with Roundup (glyphosate), which
does kill grasses.
o Generally Garlon 3A is not used during the rainy season.
o It is used on roadsides, flood control channel slopes, and flood control
channel access roads.
o On flood control channel slopes, Garlon 3A is sprayed down the slope no
further than the toe of the slope. Flood control channels are trapezoidal in
cross section, and the toe of the slope is where the slope meets the flat part
of the channel. Depending on the site, the water in the channel is from 10-
50 ft. from the toe.
o If there is a chance of the herbicide getting into the water, Public Works
uses Renovate 3, which has the same active ingredient (triclopyr), but is
labeled for aquatic use.
Posting for pesticide use
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The county staff are still not
posting when applying pesticide in
parks, along hiking trails, major
intersections of rights of ways,
along flood control districts where
many people, children and their
In 2009 the Departments developed a pesticide use posting policy. The policy
does not require posting in “rights-of-way or other areas that the general public
does not use for recreation or pedestrian purposes”.
The CCC posting policy, including the provision mentioned above, is consistent
with, and very similar to the posting policies of Santa Clara and Marin Counties
and with the City of San Francisco.
The policy was reviewed and discussed by the IPM Committee when it was first
developed, and in 2012 was revised to allow web posting and allow permanent
216
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 4
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
3/6/14-TWIC pets frequent.”
“Posting online of pesticide
applications”
“Posting online of pesticide use
reports from each program as they
are generated on a monthly basis
[for fulfilling reporting requirements
with the state Department of
Pesticide Regulation]”
signs in certain areas.
County Departments have verified that they abide by the posting policy.
The County has been working on the online posting of pesticide applications (for
the areas required by the CCC posting policy). By August 2014 the website will
be live.
Pesticide use reports that are generated for the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation are provided yearly to Parents for a Safer Environment.
Monthly reports are available if the public wishes to view them.
Adopting an IPM ordinance
9/4/13-IPM
11/65/13-IPM
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Issue of adopting an IPM
ordinance for the County
In 2009, Susan JunFish proposed the need for an IPM Ordinance to the BOS.
The Board directed the Committee to investigate the issue.
In 2009, County Counsel wrote an opinion recommending the use of an
administrative bulletin to supplement the County’s IPM Policy.
At several meetings in 2010 and 2011, the IPM Committee studied the issue and
heard presentations from PfSE and from other counties. In 2011 the Committee
concluded unanimously that the County should adopt an IPM Administrative
Bulletin to supplement the IPM Policy that the County adopted in 2002. In CCC
an administrative bulletin serves to direct staff and carries consequences for non-
compliance.
The IPM Committee found no advantage to adopting an IPM ordinance.
In April of 2013, the IPM Administrative Bulletin was adopted.
In the fall of 2013, the IPM Committee again reviewed the issue of adopting an
IPM Ordinance. For the second time, the Committee saw no advantage to
developing an ordinance and once again voted unanimously to recommend the
continued use of the IPM Policy supplemented by the IPM Administrative Bulletin.
Reporting “Bad Actor” pesticides
11/65/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Disagreement on how the County
should report “Bad Actor3”
pesticides in the IPM Annual
Report
Since FY 00-01, the County has been publishing pesticide use figures that
include use figures for “Bad Actors”.
Note that all pesticides used by County operations are reported in the IPM Annual
Report, regardless of the toxicity or hazards of the pesticide. At issue is the
categorization of pesticides in the report, not whether all use is reported.
Susan JunFish, of Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE), has been asking that
additional pesticides be reported as “Bad Actors”. To resolve this issue, the IPM
Committee heard presentations from Susan JunFish and held a special meeting
of the Data Management subcommittee on March 25, 2013 devoted exclusively to
this issue. Dr. Susan Kegley4 was invited to speak, as requested by Susan
JunFish.
After hearing Dr. Kegley’s presentation and discussing the issue with her and with
representatives of PfSE, the subcommittee members concluded that the County
should report as “Bad Actors” only those that are designated as such in the
Pesticide Action Network database.
3 “Bad Actor” is a term coined by 2 advocacy groups, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and Californians for Pesticide Reform, to i dentify a “most toxic” set
of pesticides. These pesticides are at least one of the following: known or probable carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants, cholinesterase
inhibitors, known groundwater contaminants, or pesticides with high acute toxicity. The pesticides designated as “Bad Actors” can be found in the PAN
database on line: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/
4 Ph.D. Organic/Inorganic Chemistry; Principal and CEO, Pesticide Research Institute; former Senior Staff Scientist for Pesticide Action Network (PAN);
instrumental in the development of the PAN database.
217
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 5
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
June 26, 2013: The IPM Committee voted unanimously to make changes to the
2012 IPM Annual to reflect the recommendation from the Data Management
subcommittee, as noted above. The IPM Coordinator continues to report
pesticides as “Bad Actors” only if they are designated as such in the PAN
database.
Providing comments on the kestrel study and rodenticides use issues
11/65/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We have asked the Dept of Ag
and the IPM Advisory Committee
to provide comments on the
Kestrel study and PfSE's Draft
LD50 document in the past two
years.” In conjunction with this
research paper, PfSE has brought
up its concern about the
rodenticides used by County
operations.
On 9/18/12 Susan JunFish circulated to members of the IPM Committee the
abstract from the kestrel study mentioned at left. On 2/4/13, the IPM Coordinator
circulated the actual research paper to all the members of the IPM Committee.
On November 22, 2013, Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner, sent a formal
response to Susan JunFish regarding the kestrel study. (TWIC and the IPM
Committee Chair and IPM Coordinator were cc’ed on this communication.)
On January 7, 2014, Vince Guise re-sent the formal response to Susan JunFish
and Shirley Shelangoski. On January 16. 2014, Shirley Shelangoski confirmed
having received the document.
Susan JunFish asked the Committee to comment on the study, and the formal
response was provided by the Agriculture Dept.
Regarding “PfSE’s Draft LD50 document”, neither the Committee nor County staff
can comment on data calculated by Susan JunFish that have no references or
clear calculation methods. This was conveyed to PfSE in the In the Department of
Agriculture’s Kestrel response letter.
Note that as part of the Department of Agriculture’s ground squirrel program, the
Department surveys ground squirrel treated areas for ground squirrel carcasses
(or any other carcasses). Staff rarely find dead ground squirrels above ground,
which is consistent with U.C. research in the state and the experience of other
agencies. Staff has never found secondary kill, such as raptors or predatory
mammals, in areas the Department treats. This does not mean, nor does the
County claim, that no secondary kill ever occurs in the course of the County’s
treatment program.
The IPM Committee did not discuss the research paper specifically; however, the
Committee and County staff took the following steps regarding the rodenticide
issue:
o In 2012, the Agriculture Dept. conducted an in-house trial of live-trapping of
ground squirrels as a possible alternative to rodenticides treatment. See
below for more detail.
o At their January 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from the
Agriculture Dept on the trapping study and heard a presentation from the
State Department of Fish and Wildlife on secondary poisoning of raptors and
other predators and the state’s efforts to restrict use of the more toxic 2nd
generation anticoagulant rodenticides (CCC does not use 2nd generation
anticoagulants because of their toxicity and their hazards to non-target
animals that consume poisoned rodents).
o At their March 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from Dr.
Jim Hale on wildlife issues in CCC that included discussion of the impacts of
rodenticides.
o At their May 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from Mt.
Diablo Audubon on their campaign to curb the use of 2nd generation
rodenticides.
o The Agriculture and Public Works Departments jointly prepared a map of the
County marking where rodenticides are used by the Agriculture Dept. This
map was presented in separate meetings to Supervisors Gioia, Mitchoff, and
218
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 6
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Andersen, and to Susan JunFish & Shirley Shelangoski of PfSE. In these
meetings the Agricultural Commissioner explained the Department’s ground
squirrel program and the live trapping study.
o The Agriculture Dept. prepared a very detailed decision making document for
ground squirrel management in the County to record their decision making
process and explain the complexities involved in their decisions, including
biology, safety, efficacy, cost and the goals of the program. This document
was discussed extensively in a subcommittee meeting and again in a regular
Committee meeting. PfSE members were present and participated in the
discussion.
o In 2013, the Agriculture Dept revised its ground squirrel baiting methodology
to make it safer for staff, to make applications more precisely targeted, and to
reduce the amount of bait used each season. The amount of bait used by the
Department has been reduced by over 50% since 2011. Use has gone from
35,915 lbs in 2011 and 14,271 lbs in 2013. 14,271 lbs of bait is 1.4 lbs. of
actual diphacinone.
o In February and again in August of 2013, the IPM Coordinator investigated
rodenticides use by contractors to Special Districts. She presented her
findings to the Committee at the 9/4/13 meeting.
o On 3/5/14, the IPM Committee heard an update from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife on the regulations concerning 2nd generation
anticoagulant rodenticides and on secondary poisoning of raptors and
mammalian predators by anticoagulant rodenticides.
Trapping for ground squirrels
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“[PfSE] asked TWIC to instruct the
Department of Agriculture and
Public Works Dept to use trapping
methods [for ground squirrels]”
“Santa Clara spends only
$25/ground squirrel trapping &
removal”
In 2012, the Agriculture Department ran an extensive, in-house ground squirrel
live trapping trial to determine the feasibility of using live traps to protect critical
County infrastructure from ground squirrel burrowing.
o The trapping was successful in that staff were easily able to capture 152
ground squirrels in the 1,200 linear foot trial area along a County road over
the 5 day trial period.
o The squirrels were euthanized on site by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
o Unfortunately, squirrels from the surrounding area quickly moved into the
vacant burrows. This makes trapping ineffective in areas with
surrounding pressure from ground squirrels.
o When the Department uses rodenticide bait, the squirrels do not move back
into the vacant burrows for an extended period of time. The Department
surmises that because baited squirrels die mostly in their burrows, the
carcasses repel any newcomers.
o The Department found that live trapping would be prohibitive. It would cost
$5,074/linear mile compared to $220/linear mile using bait. The Department
treats around 925 linear miles of roadway each year.
o Note that along roadsides, the Department spreads bait in a 12 to 15 ft wide
swath at a rate of 2 to 3 oat kernels per square foot. This treatment method
takes advantage of the natural foraging habit of the ground squirrel, an
animal that is highly adapted to finding individual seed kernels on the
ground.
o The Department verified the expense by contacting 2 pest control
contractors. Using their fees per hour or per squirrel trapped, the
Department estimated that the cost to use a contractor to trap ground
squirrels would be between $12,524 and $16,700 per linear mile.
o Note that at the $25/squirrel rate quoted by PfSE, it would cost the
219
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 7
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
County $16,720/linear mile if the ground squirrel catch rate were
similar to the 152 squirrels/1,200 linear feet. This is 3 times more than it
cost for Agriculture Department personnel to trap over a linear mile, so using
a contractor would not save money, even if this method were effective.
o One pest control contractor said he had also observed the ineffectiveness of
trapping in areas with surrounding ground squirrel pressure.
o The Department also observed some other unexpected outcomes:
Traps were checked daily, but staff found squirrels bloodied and
wounded from fighting with each other or trying to chew their way out of
the traps.
Traps were vandalized by the public even though large signs warned
people to leave the traps alone. This exposed the public to health risks
from bites and scratches and from transmissible diseases carried by
ground squirrels.
o In certain small areas that have a limited number of ground squirrel colonies,
live trapping may be a viable alternative.
Santa Clara County Regional Parks find live trapping effective for their limited use
of the method. They trap squirrels around Regional Park buildings to prevent
undermining of foundations. This is a very small area compared to the hundreds
of miles of roads involved in CCC. Park rangers are close by to educate the
public and to observe the traps continually. This reduces vandalism and allows
park personnel to have squirrels dispatched soon after they are trapped, which
prevents harm to the squirrels from fighting or gnawing the cage.
In March 2006, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors directed county staff to
avoid the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within county-owned properties and
facilities. To address these concerns, the county hired a consultant and formed
an ad hoc committee. The County developed an IPM program and as a result of a
subsequent study, the ad hoc committee and the Board recommended broadcast
baiting with diphacinone as the primary control method for ground squirrels. The
Board approved this program in December 2006.
The CCC Agriculture Department has also evaluated kill traps but has chosen not
to use that method for many reasons, including the increased risk of taking non-
target animals, the risk of injury to curious children, and the expense.
CCC is the only Bay Area county using rodenticides for ground squirrels
12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“[Contra Costa is] currently the only
Bay Area county to continue to use
the archaic and non-specific to
target pest method of rodenticides
to kill grounds squirrels”
Contra Costa County is not the only Bay Area county using rodenticide bait to
manage ground squirrels.
Note that CCC uses diphacinone-treated bait to protect critical infrastructure in
the County from damage caused by ground squirrel burrowing. Diphacinone is a
1st generation anticoagulant that is less toxic and less persistent in animal tissues
than 2nd generation anticoagulants. The Agriculture Department endeavors to
maintain a relatively ground squirrel-free 100 ft buffer along various County roads
(mainly in East County), along levees and railroad embankments, and around
earthen dams and bridge abutments. To maintain this buffer, the Department
treats a 12 to 15 ft. swath.
o The Santa Clara Valley Water District uses diphacinone- and
chlorophacinone-treated bait in areas similar to the sites the CCC
Agriculture Department treats for the CC Water District.
o Alameda County engages in a ground squirrel treatment program using
diphacinone bait that is very similar to CCC. They treat roadsides and levees
and Zone 7 Water District sites and use a similar amount of diphacinone-
220
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 8
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
treated bait.
San Francisco City and County allows the use of bromadiolone bait (a 2nd
generation anticoagulant rodenticide) at the SF Airport and by commercial
lessees on city properties that are not adjacent to natural areas. Second
generation anticoagulants are more toxic and more persistent in the tissues of
poisoned animals than 1st generation anticoagulants, such as the diphacinone
that CCC Department of Agriculture uses. Bromadiolone persists in liver tissues
for 248 days compared to 90 days for diphacinone which makes sub-lethally
poisoned animals walking hazards for predators much longer.
Note that San Francisco allows the use of diphacinone for baiting rats in areas
with high public health concerns and where trapping is infeasible. CCC uses only
trapping to control rats and mice in and around County buildings. But note also
that CCC is far less urbanized than San Francisco, and therefore does not have
the same kind of pest pressure from rats.
Marin and Napa County Public Works Departments reported that they have
nowhere near the kind of ground squirrel populations that East Contra Costa
County has, and consequently, they don’t do anything about the few grounds
squirrels along their roads.
The County should use volunteers and free labor
12/5/13-TWIC
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The County should use free labor
programs
This could be particularly helpful around County buildings. The Grounds Manager
would welcome Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE) volunteers to pull weeds
at particular sites, but PfSE would first need to negotiate with the County to
determine if PfSE volunteers would be permitted work on County landscaping. If
the work were approved, PfSE would need to organize and supervise the
volunteers.
Note that County unions have protested the use of inmate labor for jobs that
could be filled by union members. The union recently won a grievance against the
Sheriff’s Department regarding the use of inmate labor for grounds maintenance
work. The union has filed a grievance against the fire department regarding the
use of inmate labor to clear brush. The Grounds Manager does not anticipate that
PfSE volunteers pulling weeds would precipitate these kinds of union actions.
In the County’s other IPM programs, using volunteers is more difficult.
o “Free” labor involves considerable County resources including outreach to
solicit volunteers, planning and organizing work sessions, staff time for
training volunteers, transportation of volunteers, equipment for volunteers
and staff time for supervision.
o Almost all of the Agriculture Department’s noxious weed program involves
activity on private land or on lands that are not owned or managed by the
County. Use of volunteer help in these areas would involve liability for those
land owners or managers.
o Much of the Public Works Department’s creek and roadside vegetation
management involves work in dangerous areas such as roadsides or steep
and rocky slopes and requires the use of hazardous equipment such as
chain saws and brush cutters. County liability for volunteers performing this
kind of work would be extremely high.
o The County’s structural IPM program is not suited to the use of volunteer
labor.
Note that the County does use volunteers, most notably in creek restoration and
clean up, for creek water quality monitoring and for outreach to the public about
creek water quality and the value of healthy creeks and watersheds.
221
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 9
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
The County should expand goat grazing and competitive planting
12/5/13-TWIC
3/5/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The County should expand the
competitive planting and goat
grazing programs”
The County Flood Control District is partnering with Restoration Trust, an
Oakland-based non-profit, in a native planting experiment along Clayton Valley
Drain (near Hwy 4 adjacent to Walnut Creek). The study involves planting 2
species of native sedges and 1 species of native grass. These are perennial
species that stay green year round and are resistant to fire. The plants are
compatible with flood control objectives because they do not have woody stems,
and during flood events, they would lie down on the slope, thus reducing flow
impedance. They are not sensitive to broadleaf herbicides that will be needed to
control weeds at least until the plants have spread enough to outcompete weeds.
County volunteers installed the first plantings on December 7, 2013
Note that it is conceivable that herbicides may always have to be used on these
plantings to prevent the area from being overrun with weeds because the
surrounding weed pressure is very high.
Restoration Trust will be monitoring the test plots for the next 5 years to assess
the survival of the native plants and their degree of successful competition with
non-native annual species. The County will gather information over the next few
years to determine whether, how, and where to expand this kind of planting. The
County cannot expand this project without data on its costs and viability.
Over the last 3 years, the Public Works Department has expanded its use of goat
grazing considerably. In 2012 they grazed 99 acres and in 2013 they grazed 189
acres. It is now a regular management tool for the Department. Every site the
County manages differs in the ease with which goats can be used and their
suitability for managing vegetation. The Department uses goats where they are
appropriate and cost effective, and continues to gather data on costs and long-
term effectiveness at individual sites. Cost is affected by many factors:
o The size of the site—loading and unloading the animals is a fixed cost, so
small sites cost more per acre than large sites
o The ease of access to the site—the harder it is to get the goats into an area,
the more expensive it is
o The availability of water—if water must be trucked in, the cost is greater
o The security of the site—the more fencing that required and the more the
fences must be taken down and erected within the site both increase the cost
o The time of year—because of law of supply and demand, cost is greater
during the peak grazing season
o The presence of endangered species—sites with endangered species and
other restrictions from the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife are good candidates
for grazing regardless of the cost
Considering least-toxic alternatives before choosing pesticides
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Staff has still not demonstrated
that for each pest control problem,
least toxic alternatives were
evaluated prior to choosing
pesticides.”
Estimates for costs of herbicide
applications need to include cost of
permits, tracking requirements,
In 2012, the IPM Committee developed a form for recording IPM decisions made
by the Departments. In 2013, each IPM program in the County produced at least
1 decision-making document for a specific pest or pest management situation
(the Agriculture Department produced 2 documents that year).
These documents show which least-toxic alternatives are considered and tested,
which are being regularly employed, which are not, and why.
In 2013, each decision-making document was extensively reviewed by the
Decision-Making subcommittee with PfSE members in attendance.
Recording the thought processes and decision-making path for each pest or pest
222
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 10
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
storage of chemicals, licensing,
training, etc.
management situation takes considerable time (approximately 40 hours of work).
In 2014, each IPM program will produce more decision-making documents, which
will be reviewed by the Decision-Making subcommittee.
In 2014, the Cost Accounting subcommittee will be gathering information on the
costs of current and alternative pest management methods.
Herbicide treatment costs reported in the 2013 IPM Annual Report included all
associated costs mentioned by PfSE. When costs are compared in future
documents, every effort will be made to include all related costs for both
pesticides and alternatives.
Excessive pesticide use in CCC
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Contra Costa County uses more
pesticide than any other Bay Area
County (or, than several Bay Area
Counties combined)
“lack of progress is evident in that
the county has not significantly
altered their use of pesticide since
2009”
The assertion that CCC uses more pesticide than any other Bay Area County, or
other counties combined, is hard to evaluate since staff have not seen current
pesticide use figures for County operations in other Bay Area Counties.
This could be researched, but would take time. It is difficult to compare counties,
all of which vary greatly in their size, their budgets, their staff, their pests, their
weather, and the kinds of responsibilities they choose to undertake. Staff feel that
comparing pesticide use in various counties is not particularly relevant to how
well Contra Costa County operations are implementing IPM.
In 2012 and 2013, the IPM Data Management subcommittee undertook to find
additional metrics to evaluate the County’s IPM programs. This proved to be a
difficult task, and the committee’s research did not discover any unique or
innovative measures for evaluating IPM programs in other Bay Area counties, or
across the U.S.
The subcommittee agreed that pesticide use data do not reveal whether the
County is implementing IPM, and so in 2012, the subcommittee developed the
IPM Priority Assessment Tool. This is a compilation of IPM best management
practices (BMPs). The subcommittee asked the Departments to fill out the form in
2012 and 2013 and report the percentage of implementation of each of the
BMPs.
It is important to understand that pesticide use can increase and decrease from
year to year depending on the pest population, the weather, the invasion of new
and perhaps difficult to control pests, the use of new products that contain small
percentages of active ingredient, the use of chemicals that are less hazardous
but not as effective, the addition or subtraction of new pest management projects
to a department’s workload, and cuts or increases to budgets or staff that change
priorities or workload.
Since FY 2000-2001, the County has reduced its pesticide use by 60%--from
18,931 lbs of active ingredient in FY 00-01 to 7494 lbs of active ingredient in
FY12-13.
Since FY 2000-2001, each Department has been evaluating their pesticide use
and researching options for eliminating or reducing pesticide use. County
operations have eliminated the use of 22 of the 31 “Bad Actor” pesticides that
they had been using.
The County’s pesticide use trend follows a trend typical of other pollution
reduction programs. Early reductions are dramatic during the period when
changes that are easy to make are accomplished. Once this “low-hanging fruit”
has been plucked, it takes more time and effort to investigate and analyze where
additional changes can be made. The County is entering this period, and if further
reductions in pesticide use are to be made, it will require time for focused study
and additional funding for implementation.
Note that County operations use about 2% of all the pesticide (active ingredients)
223
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 11
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
that is required to be reported in the County. The total reported to the state does
not include homeowner use, which researchers suspect is a considerable
amount.
CCC should do more IPM training and outreach to County staff and the public
12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“the County IPM Coordinator and
the IPM Advisory Committee
[should] provide annual IPM
training and outreach programs to
both county staff and the public”
The County should “provide
training and conferences such as
those conducted by Santa Clara
and San Francisco counties which
train hundreds of interested
participants.”
The IPM Committee is an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and does
not have the a budget, nor does it have the staff or the mandate to provide
outreach and training.
There is no need to duplicate San Francisco and Santa Clara’s regional IPM
conferences, and it would be impossible for the IPM Coordinator to do so without
staff and budget.
In 2012, the IPM Coordinator partnered with cities in CCC to provide a half-day
landscape IPM training to City and County staff and will probably do so again in
the future.
The IPM Coordinator has provided extensive education in person and over the
phone to County staff and Contra Costa citizens on bed bug awareness and an
IPM approach to managing bed bugs. The IPM Coordinator produces educational
materials on bed bugs for professionals and lay people that are housed on the
Health Services bed bug website.
The Departments provide annual training to County staff that includes IPM.
County staff attend numerous trainings and conferences that include IPM training
in order to stay current on pest management research and to maintain their
various licenses.
The Department of Agriculture has a biologist on-call from 8 AM to 5 PM each
weekday to answer questions from the public about pests and pest management.
Biologists base their responses on IPM principles and on materials and resources
from the U.C. Statewide IPM Program.
Every day in the course of their work, County staff from Public Works, Health
Services and the Department of Agriculture engage citizens in dialog about the
pest management work the County does and the IPM principles the County
employs.
The Department of Agriculture provides many training sessions each year on
pesticide safety, including IPM issues, to growers, farm workers, agencies, and
the pest control industry.
The Department of Agriculture is a member of the Egeria densa Integrated Pest
Management Committee and developed the Contra Costa Delta/Discovery Bay
Region Brazilian Waterweed (Egeria densa) Integrated Pest Management Plan.
The County Clean Water Program sponsors an annual Bay Friendly Landscaping
training for County staff and professional landscapers throughout the county. This
training includes information about IPM and about reducing inputs into and
outputs from landscaping activities to prevent pollution in creeks and the Bay.
The County Clean Water Program provides support for watershed coordinators
and friends of creeks groups that coordinate volunteers to conduct general
outreach to the community about water quality in creeks and the value and
importance of wildlife habitat, watersheds ,andwatersheds, and creek restoration.
The County Clean Water Program provides support to the Bringing Back the
Natives Garden Tour which educates the public about the many benefits of
gardening with California native plants.
The County Clean Water Program supports the Our Water, Our World Program in
Contra Costa County (a program originally developed by CC Central Sanitary
224
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 12
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
District). This program provides in-store IPM education directly to consumers who
are purchasing pesticides.
In 2014 the County Clean Water Program will be launching other IPM and
pesticide public education programs.
The Contra Costa Master Gardener Program trains volunteers with a curriculum
that includes IPM. Master Gardener volunteers are available Monday through
Thursday from 9 to Noon to answer gardening and pest management questions
from the public. Advice is based on materials and resources from the U.C.
Statewide IPM Program. Master Gardeners also provide presentations on
gardening and IPM to a broad cross section of Contra Costa citizens.
The IPM Coordinator has been working closely with the Cities of El Cerrito and
San Pablo over the past 2 years to develop IPM guidance for cities on
implementing IPM and to develop standard operating procedures for various
pests.
The IPM Coordinator accepts many speaking engagements throughout the
County and the region to provide training on IPM and especially on bed bug
issues.
The IPM Coordinator and other County staff have been working closely with cities
to provide guidance on the crises of bed bug infestations they are experiencing.
The IPM Coordinator is working with Code Enforcement in the City of Richmond
to develop bed bug training for Code Enforcement officers throughout the state.
The Agricultural Department represents the California Agricultural
Commissioner’s and Sealer’s Association as the sitting member of the California
Invasive Species Advisory Task Force.
In October 2013, County staff attended a Parents for a Safer Environment’s IPM
workshop and found it informative. Parents for a Safer Environment can provide a
useful community service by hosting more such workshops.
In April 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided an in-person IPM tutorial for the
Grounds Division’s new spray technician.
In May 2014, the IPM Coordinator arranged an IPM workshop given by Pestec,
the County’s Structural IPM Contractor, for the County’s Head Start Home Base
educators. Pestec presented information on how to prevent pests in the home
and simple, non-toxic strategies for low income families to use to combat pest
invasions. Home Base educators provide in-home education to Head Start
families.
In May 2014, the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division sponsored a
workshop on IPM for bed bugs for County Environmental Health Inspectors and
code enforcement officers in Contra Costa municipalities.
In July 2014, the County will host a presentation by the U.C. Horticultural Advisor
on how landscapes should be managed during drought and how to plan
landscapes for what is likely to be continual droughts. County staff, both
administrators and maintenance personnel, will be invited along with park
personnel from the cities in CCC.
Violations of the Brown Act
12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“continued violations of the Brown
Act including repeated disposal of
original meeting minutes, repeated
failure to provide public records at
all or much later than 10 working
Staff always respond within 10 days to public records requests. In almost all
cases staff respond within 1 to 3 days. The only reason for delay has been to find
and collect documents that have been requested.
The County takes public records requests seriously and responds promptly to
each one.
Hand written meeting minutes are recycled after official minutes have been typed
225
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 13
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
day, and meeting minutes that do
not accurately reflect comments
made or not made by participants”
up. Official minutes, once approved by the IPM Committee, are posted on the
IPM website.
The IPM Committee approves the minutes for each meeting. The public is
provided time to comment on the minutes, and as the IPM Committee sees fit, the
minutes are corrected.
Staff is ready to respond to any specific instances or claims of Brown Act
violations.
Financial incentives to serve on the IPM Committee
12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The County should “discourage
financial incentives of [IPM
Committee] applicants by providing
a minimum of a 5 year moratorium
for those who serve to be eligible
for receiving a county contract or
any funding”
Staff disagree that there are any kinds of financial incentives to serve on the IPM
Advisory Committee, but will defer to the Board of Supervisors on whether to
impose such a moratorium.
Monetary compensation or gifts from pesticide salespeople
12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We are requesting that TWIC
require that all staff involved in
ordering pesticides from
salespersons fill out a form
disclosing any monetary
compensation or any other forms
of gifts from pesticide
salespersons”
County staff do not receive (and have not been offered) gifts or compensation in
any form from pesticide salespeople or any other salespeople. Accepting gifts or
compensation would be against County policy5 and would subject staff and their
departments to disciplinary action.
IPM Committee did not accept all of Parents for a Safer Environment’s priorities as their own
2/12/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The IPM Committee is planning to
include only 70% of PfSE’s
priorities as the Committee’s
priorities for 2014
The IPM Committee devoted more than an entire meeting to the discussion of its
work priorities for 2014. The public was fully involved in the discussion and PfSE
provided documents and testimony detailing their own priorities. The Committee
had a thorough discussion and then voted on which priorities to pursue.
The IPM Committee needs a non-voting facilitator
2/12/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment:
Staff believe that meetings are run effectively and efficiently.
The new IPM Committee chair was has been very effective at running the
5 California Government Code § 1090 prevents county employees and officials from being "financially interested" in any contract made by them in their
official capacity, or by anybody or board of which they are members.
California Government Code § 81000 et seq., known as the Political Reform Act, requires, among other things, that certain public employees perform their
duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interest. See Cal Gov Code § 81001(b). It also prevents certain employees from
using their positions to influence county decisions in which they have a financial interest. See Cal Gov Code 87100. The Act also requires certain employees
and officers to file a Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests (the CCC Agricultural Commissioner, the managers in Public Works and the IPM
Coordinator fill out this form) See Cal Gov Code 89503.
CCC Administrative Bulletin 117.6, paragraph 6, can be read to prevent employees from accepting any gift which "is intended, or could reasonably
considered as tending to influence business or applications pending before the Board of Supervisors."
226
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 14
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
T=TWIC
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
“an impartial, non-voting facilitator
would make the meetings run
smoother and become more
viable”
January and February 2014 IPM Committee meetings and allowing the public
ample opportunities to provide comment.
Parents for a Safer Environment disagrees with responses to “unresolved” issues in the Triennial
Review Report
11/6/13-IPM
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment:
Disagreement with the response by
staff to “unresolved issues” in the
Triennial Review Report for the
IPM Advisory Committee
The response in dispute refers to the question in Section VIII of the Triennial
Review report to the Board of Supervisors from the IPM Committee: “The
purpose of this section is to briefly describe any potential issues raised by
advisory body members, stakeholders, or the general public that the advisory
body has been unable to resolve.”
The response given to this question in the report accurately reflects the response
intended by the IPM Committee as agreed at their November 6, 2013 meeting.
The issue in question for the IPM Committee was whether to describe in Section
VIII only issues that the Committee had been unable to resolve, or to also include
a discussion of issues that PfSE felt were still unresolved. The Committee
debated this and decided to also include a discussion of issues that PfSE felt
were unresolved. However, it was completely clear from the discussion at the
meeting that the Committee agreed that the issues described in this section (with
the exception of the two that were noted as ongoing) had previously been given
due consideration by the Committee, and that the Committee had addressed the
issues. The Committee directed the IPM Coordinator to meet with the Committee
Secretary to compile Committee and staff responses to the “unresolved” PfSE
issues to include in the report and then to submit the report.
Note that in the IPM Committee’s extensive planning sessions for 2014 work, the
Committee did not identify any of the “unresolved” issues as priorities for 2014.
227
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.
Meeting Date:06/05/2014
Subject:Regulatory Structure for Taxicab Permitting
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 18
Referral Name: Taxicab Ordinance Review
Presenter: Timothy M. Ewell Contact: Timothy M. Ewell, (925)
335-1036
Referral History:
On September 5, 2013, the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee received a staff report (Attachment
A) regarding the status of a regulatory structure for taxicab permitting within the unincorporated area, pursuant to
Government Code § 53075.5 (the “Statute”). At that time, the Committee directed staff to work with the County
Administrator’s Office (CAO) to:
Obtain advice from County Counsel regarding the County’s potential risk and exposure for not having a
taxicab permitting ordinance or resolution pursuant to the California Code.
1.
Coordinate with the Office of the Sheriff to identify resources and develop a budget for codifying and
administrating a taxicab permitting ordinance or resolution.
2.
Referral Update:
Staff Analysis
On November 27, 1962, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 1684 (Attachment B), which established
a regulatory structure for taxicab drivers operating within the unincorporated area of the County. Taxicab permits
were issued by the County Sheriff after submission of an application and a fee. On May 17, 1983, the Board of
Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 83-18 (Attachment C), which repealed in full the existing taxicab permitting
ordinance. It is unclear why the taxicab permitting ordinance was repealed at that time.
After reviewing the current Statute, it has been determined that the County is required to regulate taxicab service for
the unincorporated area regardless of necessity. The CAO requested the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC) conduct a brief survey of California counties to determine how existing regulatory structures are
implemented in unincorporated areas across the State (Attachment D). In brief, five out of seven responding
counties identified the County Sheriff’s Office as the lead agency for purposes of implementing the Statute. Of the
two counties that did not identify the Sheriff’s Office as the lead agency, one indicated that a countywide
transportation authority was the lead agency and one did not have a regulatory structure in place in accordance with
the Statute.
To determine the scope of potential taxicab operators with businesses established in the county unincorporated area,
228
To determine the scope of potential taxicab operators with businesses established in the county unincorporated area,
the CAO requested that the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office search for active taxi related business licenses. That
query resulted in five active licenses, two of which are located at the same address. Of the five active licenses, two
appear to have a business address located in the unincorporated area – one in Pacheco and one in Bay Point.
Proposed Implementation Framework
After reviewing the Statute and the active business licenses within the County, CAO worked with staff from the
Sheriff’s Office and Treasurer-Tax Collector to structure an implementation framework to bring the County into
compliance with Statute at no additional county cost. Below is an outline of the proposed framework:
Treasurer-Tax Collector
I. Issues general business license to taxi companies operating in the unincorporated area.
II. Notifies applicants of the need to acquire a taxicab permit in jurisdiction where business is located.
Sheriff’s Office
I. Issues Permits to new taxicab operators and businesses located in the County
unincorporated area
a. Applicant provides valid business license to operate in the unincorporated area
b. Sheriff facilitates referrals for the California Department of Justice Live Scan and drug testing for permit
applicants with businesses established in the unincorporated area, at cost of the applicant.
c. Applicant provides proof of taxicab vehicle inspection conducted by private entity at time of application
for a permit, at cost of the applicant.
d. Sheriff to establish a fee for reviewing new applications and annual renewals as part of the Taxicab
ordinance
II. Existing taxicab operators and businesses permitted in other jurisdictions within Contra
Costa County doing business in an unincorporated area.
a. Ordinance to allow a permit from any other jurisdiction within Contra Costa County to operate a taxicab
to be accepted with no further
action required by Sheriff’s Office.
b. Business owner are still responsible for acquiring a business license to operate in the unincorporated area
from Treasurer Tax Collector.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
I. REVIEW the proposed implementation framework related to the regulation of taxicab services within the
unincorporated area.
II. PROVIDE feedback to staff regarding the proposed implementation framework.
III. DIRECT staff to begin drafting an ordinance to implement the proposed implementation framework, including
establishment of a fee for services
rendered in processing new applications and renewals for a taxicab permit by the Office of the Sheriff.
CONSIDER reviewing the proposed implementation framework related to the regulation of taxicab services within
229
CONSIDER reviewing the proposed implementation framework related to the regulation of taxicab services within
the unincorporated area; PROVIDE feedback; and DIRECT staff to draft an Ordinance to implement the proposed
implementation framework, including establishment of a fee for services rendered for processing new applications
and renewals for a taxicab permit by the Office of the Sheriff. (Timothy Ewell, County Administrator’s Office)
Attachment A: September 5, 2013, TWIC Staff Report
Attachment B: Ordinance No. 1684 “Taxicab Drivers”
Attachment C: Ordinance No. 83-13 – Taxicab Ordinance Repealed
Attachment D: Taxicab Ordinance Survey Results – CSAC, March 2014
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Taxicab Ordinanace Attachment A
Ordinance #1684 Attachment B
Ordinance #83-18 Attachment C
Taxicab Ordinance Survey Results 03/14 Attachment D
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248