HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 06012015 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
June 1, 2015
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation
and Development)
4.REVIEW record of meeting for the May 4th, 2015 Transportation, Water and
Infrastructure Committee Meeting. (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,
Department of Conservation and Development)
6.ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of
the County, to submit State and Regional grant applications for the Active
Transportation Program (ATP), Cycle 2. (Mary Halle, Department of Public Works)
7.AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit
grant applications to Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) Cycle 7 funding cycle. (Angela Villar, Department of Public Works)
8.AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit
grant applications to the US Department of Transportation (DOT) for the
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)
Discretionary Grant Program for the Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project -
Phase 2 and the Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Project. (Nancy
Wein, Department of Public Works)
1
9.RECEIVE update on Pedestrian-Rail Safety issues and DIRECT staff as
appropriate. (Robert Sarmiento, Department of Conservation and Development)
10.Adjourn
11.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, July 6th at 1pm.
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:06/01/2015
Subject:Administrative Items
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, Senior Planner Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
4
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:06/01/2015
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for the May 4th, 2015 Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Committee Meeting
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, Senior Planner Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This record was prepared pursuant to the Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d)
of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
Referral Update:
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 4, 2015 Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
5-4-15 TWIC Meeting Minutes
5-4-15 TWIC Sign-In Sheet
HANDOUT 5-4-15 Meeting AB779
HANDOUT 5-4-15 Meeting 25% Conservation
5
HANDOUT 5-4-15 Emergency Fact Sheet
HANDOUT 5-4-15 Supplier Tiers
6
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
May 4, 2015
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair
Attendees: John Wiggins, Environmental Health Div., CCCounty
John Burgh, CC County Water District
Tom Guarino, Governmental Relations, PG&E
Michelle Blackwell, EBMUD
Steve Kowaleski, CC County Public Works Dept.
Julie Bueren, CC County Public Works Dept.
Mark Seedall, CC County Water District
Laura Case, Deputy Chief of Staff, Sup. Mitchoff
Rick Kovar, CC County Office of Emergencuy Svcs
Derek Shepard, CC County Office of Emergency Svcs
Mary Halle, CC County Public Works Dept.
Trevor McGuire, CC County Public Works Dept.
John Cunningham, CC County DCD
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).
Tom Guarino of PG&E discussed streetlight LED conversion and meeting coordination.
3.Administrative Items, if applicable (John Cunningham Department of Conservation and Development).
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the March 2, 2015 Committee Meeting
with any necessary corrections.
The Record of Action for the March 2, 2015 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (hereafter
Committee) Meeting was unanimously approved.
5.ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit to
Caltrans and MTC grant applications for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Cycle 2.
The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation.
6.AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to utilize Rule 20A work credits through PG&E to
underground overhead electrical facilities within the Orwood Bridge crossing at Werner Dredger Cut.
This item was continued to allow for additional research of alternatives.
7.CONSIDER Executive Order B-29-15 (Continued State of Emergency - Drought Conditions - Edmund G.
7
7.CONSIDER Executive Order B-29-15 (Continued State of Emergency - Drought Conditions - Edmund G.
Brown Jr.), DISCUSS a Contra Costa County response, and take ACTION as appropriate.
The Committee directed staff to bring a consolidated report to the Board of Supervisors when comprehensive
information is available.
8.CONSIDER Report on Local, State and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take
ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report above.
The Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.
9.REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2015 Calendar.
The Committee unanimously approved the calendar.
10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, June 1, 2015, at 1pm.
11.Adjourn
This meeting adjourned on the afternoon of May 4, 2015.
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
8
Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms,
abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that
may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee:
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOB Area of Benefit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BATA Bay Area Toll Authority
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission
BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County)
BOS Board of Supervisors
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CalWIN California Works Information Network
CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids
CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response
CAO County Administrative Officer or Office
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CCWD Contra Costa Water District
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water)
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSA County Service Area
CSAC California State Association of Counties
CTC California Transportation Commission
DCC Delta Counties Coalition
DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
DPC Delta Protection Commission
DSC Delta Stewardship Council
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement)
EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District
GIS Geographic Information System
HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
HOT High-Occupancy/Toll
HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle
HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement
Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LCC League of California Cities
LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy
MAC Municipal Advisory Council
MAF Million Acre Feet (of water)
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACo National Association of Counties
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency
Operations Center
PDA Priority Development Area
PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department
RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties
RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area
RFI Request For Information
RFP Request For Proposals
RFQ Request For Qualifications
SB Senate Bill
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SR2S Safe Routes to Schools
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central)
TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County)
TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee
WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
For Additional Information Contact: Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
9
10
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 26, 2015
california legislature—2015–16 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 779
Introduced by Assembly Member Cristina Garcia
February 25, 2015
An act to amend Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code, relating
to environmental quality.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 779, as amended, Cristina Garcia. Environmental quality: transit
priority areas.
(1) The
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead
agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the
completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that
it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect
on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the
project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to
prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would
avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that
the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the
environment.
CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and
develop, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify
and adopt, proposed revisions to the guidelines for the implementation
of CEQA to establish criteria for determining the significance of
11
transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that,
among other things, promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
This bill would instead provide that the transportation impact related
to greenhouse gas emissions of a project located within a transit priority
area is not a significant impact on the environment. provide that the
revised guidelines shall not be effective before July 1, 2017.
(2) CEQA provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of certain
projects on an infill site within a transit priority area are not considered
to be significant impacts on the environment.
This bill would additionally provide that an automobile delay impact,
as described solely by the level of service or a similar measure of
vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, is not a significant impact on
the environment for those projects.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code is
line 2 amended to read:
line 3 21099. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms
line 4 mean the following:
line 5 (1) “Employment center project” means a project located on
line 6 property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no
line 7 less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.
line 8 (2) “Floor area ratio” means the ratio of gross building area of
line 9 the development, excluding structured parking areas, proposed for
line 10 the project divided by the net lot area.
line 11 (3) “Gross building area” means the sum of all finished areas
line 12 of all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its
line 13 exterior walls.
line 14 (4) “Infill site” means a lot located within an urban area that
line 15 has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least
line 16 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only
line 17 by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are
line 18 developed with qualified urban uses.
line 19 (5) “Lot” means all parcels utilized by the project.
line 20 (6) “Net lot area” means the area of a lot, excluding publicly
line 21 dedicated land and private streets that meet local standards, and
line 22 other public use areas as determined by the local land use authority.
2
12
line 1 (7) “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile
line 2 of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned
line 3 stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon
line 4 included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted
line 5 pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of
line 6 Federal Regulations.
line 7 (b) (1) The Office of Planning and Research shall prepare,
line 8 develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources
line 9 Agency for certification and adoption proposed revisions to the
line 10 guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 21083 establishing criteria
line 11 for determining the significance of transportation impacts of
line 12 projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote
line 13 the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of
line 14 multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
line 15 In developing the criteria, the office shall recommend potential
line 16 metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but
line 17 are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled
line 18 per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips
line 19 generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used
line 20 to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate,
line 21 reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.
line 22 (2) Upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the
line 23 Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile
line 24 delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures
line 25 of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered
line 26 a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division,
line 27 except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.
line 28 (3) This subdivision does not relieve a public agency of the
line 29 requirement to analyze a project’s potentially significant
line 30 transportation impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any
line 31 other impact associated with transportation. The methodology
line 32 established by these guidelines shall not create a presumption that
line 33 a project will not result in significant impacts related to air quality,
line 34 noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation.
line 35 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the adequacy of parking for a
line 36 project shall not support a finding of significance pursuant to this
line 37 section.
line 38 (4) This subdivision does not preclude the application of local
line 39 general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval,
3
13
line 1 thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the
line 2 police power or any other authority.
line 3 (5) On or before July 1, 2014, the Office of Planning and
line 4 Research shall circulate a draft revision prepared pursuant to
line 5 paragraph (1).
line 6 (5) The revised guidelines adopted pursuant to paragraph (1)
line 7 shall not be effective before July 1, 2017.
line 8 (c) (1) The Office of Planning and Research may adopt
line 9 guidelines pursuant to Section 21083 establishing alternative
line 10 metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service for
line 11 transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. The alternative
line 12 metrics may include the retention of traffic levels of service, where
line 13 appropriate and as determined by the office.
line 14 (2) This subdivision shall not affect the standard of review that
line 15 would apply to the new guidelines adopted pursuant to this section.
line 16 (d) (1) Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use
line 17 residential, or employment center project on an infill site within
line 18 a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts
line 19 on the environment.
line 20 (2) (A) This subdivision does not affect, change, or modify the
line 21 authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant
line 22 to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers
line 23 provided by other laws or policies.
line 24 (B) For the purposes of this subdivision, aesthetic impacts do
line 25 not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.
line 26 (e) This section does not affect the authority of a public agency
line 27 to establish or adopt thresholds of significance that are more
line 28 protective of the environment.
line 29 SECTION 1. Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code is
line 30 amended to read:
line 31 21099. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms
line 32 mean the following:
line 33 (1) “Employment center project” means a project located on
line 34 property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no
line 35 less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.
line 36 (2) “Floor area ratio” means the ratio of gross building area of
line 37 the development, excluding structured parking areas, proposed for
line 38 the project divided by the net lot area.
4
14
line 1 (3) “Gross building area” means the sum of all finished areas
line 2 of all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its
line 3 exterior walls.
line 4 (4) “Infill site” means a lot located within an urban area that
line 5 has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least
line 6 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only
line 7 by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are
line 8 developed with qualified urban uses.
line 9 (5) “Lot” means all parcels utilized by the project.
line 10 (6) “Net lot area” means the area of a lot, excluding publicly
line 11 dedicated land and private streets that meet local standards, and
line 12 other public use areas as determined by the local land use authority.
line 13 (7) “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile
line 14 of a transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is
line 15 scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included
line 16 in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to
line 17 Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
line 18 Regulations.
line 19 (b) (1) For a project located in a transit priority area, the
line 20 transportation impact related to greenhouse gas emissions shall
line 21 not be considered a significant impact on the environment.
line 22 (2) This subdivision does not relieve a public agency of the
line 23 requirement to analyze a project’s potentially significant
line 24 transportation impacts related to other air quality, noise, or safety,
line 25 or any other nongreenhouse gas emissions related impact associated
line 26 with transportation.
line 27 (3) This subdivision does not preclude the application of local
line 28 general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval,
line 29 thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the
line 30 police power or any other authority.
line 31 (c) Pursuant to Section 21083, the Office of Planning and
line 32 Research may prepare and the Secretary of the Natural Resources
line 33 Agency may adopt revisions to the guidelines establishing
line 34 alternative metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service
line 35 for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. The
line 36 alternative metrics may include the retention of traffic levels of
line 37 service, where appropriate and as determined by the office.
line 38 (d) (1) Automobile delay, as described solely by level of service
line 39 or similar measure of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion,
line 40 aesthetic, and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use
5
15
line 1 residential, or employment center project on an infill site within
line 2 a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts
line 3 on the environment.
line 4 (2) (A) This subdivision does not affect, change, or modify the
line 5 authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant
line 6 to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers
line 7 provided by other laws or policies.
line 8 (B) For the purposes of this subdivision, aesthetic impacts do
line 9 not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.
line 10 (e) This section does not affect the authority of a public agency
line 11 to establish or adopt thresholds of significance that are more
line 12 protective of the environment.
O
6
16
PROPOSED TEXT OF EMERGENCY REGULATION
Article 22.5. Drought Emergency Water Conservation.
Sec. 863. Findings of Drought Emergency.
(a) The State Water Resources Control Board finds as follows:
(1) On January 17, 2014, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of
emergency under the California Emergency Services Act based on drought conditions;
(2) On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued a proclamation of a continued state of
emergency under the California Emergency Services Act based on continued drought
conditions;
(3) On April 1, 2015, the Governor issued an Executive Order that, in part,
directs the State Board to impose restrictions on water suppliers to achieve a statewide 25
percent reduction in potable urban usage through February 28, 2016; require commercial,
industrial, and institutional users to implement water efficiency measures; prohibit
irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf in public street medians; and prohibit
irrigation with potable water outside newly constructed homes and buildings that is not
delivered by drip or microspray systems;
(34) The drought conditions that formed the basis of the Governor’s emergency
proclamations continue to exist;
(45) The present year is critically dry and has been immediately preceded by two
or more consecutive below normal, dry, or critically dry years; and
(56) The drought conditions will likely continue for the foreseeable future and
additional action by both the State Water Resources Control Board and local water
suppliers will likely be necessary to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water and to
further promote conservation.
Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code.
References: Cal. Const., Art., X § 2; Sections 102, 104, and 105, and 275, Water Code;
Light v. State Water Resources Control Board (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1463.
Sec. 864. End-User Requirements in Promotion of Water Conservation.
(a) To prevent the waste and unreasonable use of water and to promote water
conservation, each of the following actions is prohibited, except where necessary to
address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a
permit issued by a state or federal agency:
(1) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes
runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and
public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures;
(2) The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except
where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to
cease dispensing water immediately when not in use;
(3) The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; and
(4) The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature,
except where the water is part of a recirculating system;
17
(5) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48
hours after measurable rainfall; and
(6) The serving of drinking water other than upon request in eating or drinking
establishments, including but not limited to restaurants, hotels, cafes, cafeterias, bars, or
other public places where food or drink are served and/or purchased.;
(7) The irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf on public street medians;
and
(8) The irrigation with potable water of landscapes outside of newly constructed
homes and buildings that is not delivered by drip or microspray systemsin a manner
inconsistent with regulations or other requirements established by the California Building
Standards Commission.
(b) To promote water conservation, operators of hotels and motels shall provide
guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. The
hotel or motel shall prominently display notice of this option in each guestroom using
clear and easily understood language.
(c) Immediately upon this subdivision taking effect, all commercial, industrial
and institutional properties that use a water supply any portion of which is from a source
other than not served by a water supplier meeting the requirements of Water Code section
10617 or section 350 subject to section 865shall either:
(1) Limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water
to no more than two days per week; or
(2) Reduce potable water usage by 25 percent for the months of June 2015
through February 2016 as compared to the amount used for the same months in 2013.
(cd) The taking of any action prohibited in subdivision (a) or the failure to take
any action required in subdivisions (b) or (c), in addition to any other applicable civil or
criminal penalties, is an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars
($500) for each day in which the violation occurs. The fine for the infraction is in
addition to, and does not supersede or limit, any other remedies, civil or criminal.
Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code.
References: Cal. Const., Art., X § 2; Sections 102, 104, and 105, 275, 350, and 10617,
Water Code; Light v. State Water Resources Control Board (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th
1463.
Sec. 865. Mandatory Actions by Water Suppliers.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) “Distributor of a public water supply” has the same meaning as under
section 350 of the Water Code.
(2) “R-GPCD” means residential gallons per capita per day.
(3) “Total potable water production” means all potable water that enters
into a water supplier’s distribution system, excluding water placed into
storage and not withdrawn for use during the reporting period, or water
exported outsider the supplier’s service area.
(4) The term “uUrban water supplier,” when used in this section, refers
tomeans a supplier that meets the definition set forth in Water Code
18
section 10617, except it does not refer to suppliers when they are
functioning solely in a wholesale capacity, but does apply to suppliers
when they are functioning in a retail capacity.
(b)(1) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier shall implement
all requirements and actions of the stage of its water shortage contingency plan that
imposes includes mandatory restrictions on the number of days that outdoor irrigation of
ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water is allowed, or shall amend its water
shortage contingency plan to include mandatory restrictions on the number of days that
outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water is allowed and
implement these restrictions within forty-five (45) days. Urban water suppliers with
approved alternate plans as described in subdivision (b)(2) are exempted from this
requirement.
(2) An urban water supplier may submit a request to the Executive Director for
approval of an alternate plan that includes allocation-based rate structures that satisfies
the requirements of chapter 3.4 (commencing with section 370) of division 1 of the Water
Code, and the Executive Director may approve such an alternate plan upon determining
that the rate structure, in conjunction with other measures, achieves a level of
conservation that would be superior to that achieved by implementing limitations on
outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it
serves to no more than two days per week.
(c) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier that does not have a
water shortage contingency plan that restricts the number of days that outdoor irrigation
of ornamental landscapes and turf with potable water is allowed, or has been notified by
the Department of Water Resources that its water shortage contingency plan does not
meet the requirements of Water Code section 10632 shall, within forty-five (45) days,
limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the
persons it serves to no more than two days per week.
(db) In furtherance of the promotion of water conservation each urban water
supplier shall:
(1) Provide prompt notice to a customer whenever the supplier obtains
information that indicates that a leak may exist within the end-user’s exclusive control.
(2) Prepare and submit to the State Water Resources Control Board by the 15th of
each month a monitoring report on forms provided by the Board. The monitoring report
shall include the amount of potable water the urban water supplier produced, including
water provided by a wholesaler, in the preceding calendar month and shall compare that
amount to the amount produced in the same calendar month in 2013. The monitoring
report shall specify the population served by the urban water supplier, the percentage of
water produced that is used for the residential sector, descriptive statistics on water
conservation compliance and enforcement efforts, and the number of days that outdoor
irrigation is allowed, and monthly commercial sector use, monthly industrial sector use,
and monthly institutional sector use. The monitoring report shall also estimate the gallons
of water per person per day used by the residential customers it serves.
(c)(1) To prevent the waste and unreasonable use of water and to meet the
requirements of the Governor’s April 1, 2015 Executive Order, each urban water supplier
shall reduce its total potable water production by the percentage identified as its
19
conservation standard in this subdivision. Each urban water supplier’s conservation
standard considers its service area’s relative per capita water usage.
(2) Each urban water supplier whose source of supply does not include
groundwater or water imported from outside the hydrologic region in which the water
supplier is located, and that received average annual precipitation in has a minimum of
four years’ reserved supply available may, notwithstanding its average July-September
2014 R-GPCD, submit forto the Executive Director for approval a request that, in lieu of
the reduction that would otherwise be required under paragraphs (3) through (10), the
urban water supplier shall to reduce its total potable water usageproduction by 4 percent
for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. Any such
request shall be accompanied by information showing that the supplier’s sources of
supply do not include groundwater or water imported from outside the hydrologic region
and that the supplier’s service area received average annual precipitation in 2014supplier
has a minimum of four years’ reserved supply available.
(3) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was
less than 65 shall reduce its total potable water usageproduction by 8 percent for each
month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013.
(4) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was
between 65 or more but less than 80and 79.9 shall reduce its total potable water
usageproduction by 12 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the
same month in 2013.
(5) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was
between 80 or more but less than 95and 94.9 shall reduce its total potable water
usageproduction by 16 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the
same month in 2013.
(6) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was
between 95 or more but less than 110and 109.9 shall reduce its total potable water
usageproduction by 20 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the
same month in 2013.
(7) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was
between 110 or more but less than 130and 129.9 shall reduce its total potable water
usageproduction by 24 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the
same month in 2013.
(8) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was
between 130 or more but less than 170and 169.9 shall reduce its total potable water
usageproduction by 28 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the
same month in 2013.
(9) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was
between 170 or more but less than 215and 214.9 shall reduce its total potable water
usageproduction by 32 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the
same month in 2013.
(10) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD
was greater than 215 or more shall reduce its total potable water usageproduction by 36
percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013.
(d)(1) Beginning June 1, 2015, each urban water supplier shall comply with the
conservation standard specified in subdivision (c).
20
(2) Compliance with the requirements of this subdivision shall be measured
monthly and assessed on a cumulative basis.
(e) Each urban water supplier that servesprovides 20 percent or more of its total
potable water production for commercial agricultural use meeting the definition of
Government Code section 51201, subdivision (ab) may subtract the amount of water
supplied for commercial agricultural use from its potable water production total, provided
that the supplier complies with the Agricultural Water Management Plan requirement of
paragraph 12 of the April 1, 2015 Executive Order. Each urban water supplier that serves
20 percent or more of its total potable water production for commercial agricultural use
meeting the definition of Government Code section 51201, subdivision (ab) shall certify
that the agricultural uses it serves meet the definition of Government Code section
51201, subdivision (ab), and shall report its total potable water production pursuant to
subdivision (b)(2), identifying the total amount of water supplied for commercial
agricultural use.
(ef)(1) To prevent waste and unreasonable use of water and to promote water
conservation, each distributor of a public water supply, as defined in Water Code section
350, that is not an urban water supplier shall, within forty-five (45) days, take one or
more of the following actions:
(1A) Limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water
by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week; or
(2B) Implement another mandatory conservation measure or measures intended to
achieve a 2025 percent reduction in potable water consumption by the persons it serves
relative to the amount consumed in 2013.
(2) Each distributor of a public water supply, as defined in Water Code section
350, that is not an urban water supplier shall submit a report by December 15, 2015, on a
form provided by the Board, that includes:either confirms compliance with subdivision
(f)(1)(A) or identifies :
(A) total potable water production, by month, from June through November,
2015, and total potable water production, by month, for June through November 2013; or
(B) Confirmation that the distributor limited outdoor irrigation of ornamental
landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days
per week.
Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code.
References: Cal. Const., Art., X § 2; Sections 102, 104, 105, 275, 350, 1846, 10617
and 10632, Water Code; Light v. State Water Resources Control Board (2014) 226
Cal.App.4th 1463.
Sec. 866. Additional Conservation Tools.
(a)(1) To prevent the waste and unreasonable use of water and to promote
conservation, when a water supplier does not meet its conservation standard required by
section 865 the Executive Director, or histhe Executive Director’s designee, may issue
conservation orders requiring additional actions by the supplier to come into compliance
with its conservation standard.
21
(2) All conservation ordersA decision or order issued under this article by the
board or an officer or employee of the board shall beis subject to reconsideration under
article 2 (commencing with section 1122) of chapter 4 of part 1 of division 2 of the
California Water Code.
(b) The Executive Director, or his designee, may issue an informational order
requiring water suppliers, or commercial, industrial or institutional properties that receive
any portion of their supply from a source other thannot served by a water supplier
meeting the requirements of Water Code section 10617 or section 350subject to section
865, to submit additional information relating to water production, water use or water
conservation beyond that required to be reported pursuant to the other provisions of this
article. The failure to provide the information requested within 30 days or any additional
time extension granted is a violation subject to civil liability of up to $500 per day for
each day the violation continues pursuant to Water Code section 1846.
Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code.
References: Cal. Const., Art., X § 2; Sections 100, 102, 104, 105, 174, 186, 187, 275,
350, 1051, 1122, 1123, 1825, 1846, 10617 and 10632, Water Code; Light v. State Water
Resources Control Board (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1463.
22
NOTICE OF PROPOSED EMERGENCY REGULATION
IMPLEMENTING THE 25% CONSERVATION STANDARD
On April 1, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued the fourth in a series of Executive Orders on
actions necessary to address California’s severe drought conditions. With snowpack water
content at a record low level of 5 percent of average for April 1st , major reservoir storage
shrinking each day as a percentage of their daily average measured over the last several
decades, and groundwater levels continuing to decline, urgent action is needed. The April 1
Executive Order requires, for the first time in the State’s history, mandatory conservation of
potable urban water use. Commercial agriculture in many parts of the State has already been
notified of severe cutbacks in water supply contracted through the State and Federal Water
Projects and is bracing for curtailments of surface water rights in the near-term. Conserving
water more seriously now will forestall even more catastrophic impacts if it does not rain next
year.
Stakeholder Involvement
To maximize input in a short amount of time, the State Water Board released a proposed
regulatory framework for implementing the 25% conservation standard on April 7, 2015 for
public input. Over 250 comments were submitted by water suppliers, local government,
businesses, individuals, and non-governmental organizations. Draft regulations that
considered this input were released on April 18 for informal public comment. Almost 300
comments were received that addressed the methodology for the assignment of conservation
standards, the availability of exclusions or adjustments under defined conditions, how to
approach the commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) sector, the requirements for smaller
water suppliers, and the approach to enforcement. A Notice of Proposed Emergency
Regulations, which considers this input and initiates the formal emergency rulemaking
process, was released on April 28, 2015. If approved, water savings amounting to
approximately 1.3 million acre-feet of water, or nearly as much water as is currently in Lake
Oroville, will be realized over the next nine months.
What’s Next
The Notice of Proposed Emergency Rulemaking begins a formal comment period that will
conclude just prior to the State Water Board’s consideration of adoption of the proposed
emergency regulation at its May 5-6, 2015 meeting. The formal comment period will conclude
on May 4, 2015 at 10:00am. All comments will be immediately provided to the Board Members
and posted on the State Water Board’s webpage at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/emergency_manda
tory_regulations.shtml
23
During this formal notice period, all comments must be received by 10:00am on Monday
May 4, 2015 and submitted either electronically to: commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov or in
writing to the address in the Notice. All comments should indicate on the subject line:
“Comment Letter – Emergency Conservation Regulation.”
Proposed Emergency Regulation - Key Provisions
Conservation Standard for Urban Water Suppliers
As drought conditions continue, all water suppliers will need to do more to meet the statewide
25% conservation standard. Since the State Water Board adopted its initial emergency urban
conservation regulation in July 2014, statewide conservation has reached 9%. Everyone must
do more, but the greatest opportunities to meet the statewide 25% conservation standard exist
in those areas with higher water use. Often, but not always, these water suppliers are located
in areas where the majority of the water use is directed at outdoor irrigation due to lot size,
climate and other factors. As temperatures are forecast to climb to above average for the
summer months, it will become even more important to take aggressive actions to reduce
outdoor water use. The emergency regulation establishes tiers of required water reductions
that emphasize the opportunities to reduce outdoor water use.
Many comments spoke to the question of fairness and equity in the construction of the tiers in
earlier drafts of the regulation. Concerns were raised about accounting for factors that
influence water use, such as past conservation, climate, lot size, density, and income.
Ultimately, the tier structure proposed on April 18, 2015 was maintained as the best way to
achieve the 25% water reduction called for by the Governor.
Feedback is specifically requested on whether the conservation framework should be modified
to double the number of tiers and use two percent increments instead of four percent. This
change would provide further refinement for water suppliers that find themselves on one side
or the other of a tier.
The conservation savings for all urban water suppliers are allocated across nine tiers of
increasing levels of residential water use (R-GPCD) to reach the statewide 25 percent
reduction mandate. This approach lessens the disparities in reduction requirements between
agencies that have similar levels of water consumption, but fall on different sides of dividing
lines between tiers. Suppliers have been assigned a conservation standard that ranges
between 8% and 36% based on their R-GPCD for the months of July – September, 2014.
These three months reflect the amount of water used for summer outdoor irrigation, which
provides the greatest opportunity for conservation savings. Some suppliers may be eligible,
under specific conditions, for placement into a lower 4% conservation tier. Water suppliers
that reduced their water use prior to the drought will have a lower R-GPCD and thus a lower
conservation standard than water suppliers with similar climate and
density factors where R-GPCD remains high.
24
The Smith family of three learns that
their water district must reduce water
use by 12 percent. A manufacturing
plant uses 20 percent of the water
and cannot reduce its use. So,
residents are told to reduce their use
by 15 percent to meet the overall 12
percent target. The Smith family
uses an average of 210 gallons per
day (or about 70 gallons per person),
165 gallons for indoor use and 45
gallons for watering their small yard.
To meet the 15% reduction
requirement they must reduce total
water use to about 180 gallons per
day. This is equivalent to about 60
gallons per person per day.
Urban water suppliers (serving more than 3,000
customers or delivering more than 3,000 acre feet of
water per year and accounting for more than 90% of
urban water use) will be assigned a conservation
standard, as shown in the following table:
Tier
R-GPCD
Range # of
Suppliers
in Range
Conservation
Standard From To
1 reserved 0 4%
2 0 64.9 23 8%
3 65 79.9 24 12%
4 80 94.9 44 16%
5 95 109.9 51 20%
6 110 129.9 48 24%
7 130 169.9 82 28%
8 170 214.9 54 32%
9 215 612.0 85 36%
Exceptions
The proposed regulation allows water suppliers to request to modify their total water use or be
placed into a lower conservation tier under two situations:
1. Urban water suppliers delivering more than 20 percent of their total water production to
commercial agriculture may be allowed to modify the amount of water subject to their
conservation standard. These suppliers must provide written certification to the Board
to be able to subtract the water supplied to commercial agriculture from their total water
production for baseline and conservation purposes.
2. Urban water suppliers that have a reserve supply of surface water that could last at
least four years may be eligible for placement into lower conservation tier. Only
suppliers meeting the eligibility criteria will be considered. These criteria relate to the
source(s) of supply, storage capacity, and the number of years that those supplies could
last.
The Jones family of four learn that their water district must reduce water use by 32 percent. An oil
refinery uses 10 percent of the district’s water and cannot reduce its use. Their city also has many small
businesses, and a golf course, which can reduce use by more than 10 percent. The residents must now
reduce their use by 30 percent to meet the overall 32 percent target. The Jones family uses an average of
1,200 gallons per day (or about 300 gallons per person); 300 gallons for indoor use and 900 gallons
outdoors, to irrigate a large yard that includes grass and fruit trees. To cut water use by 30 percent, the
Jones’ must cut their water use by 360 gallons per day to 840 gallons which is equivalent to 210 gallons
per person per day.
25
Feedback is specifically requested on whether the regulation should allow water suppliers
whose supplies include groundwater to apply for inclusion the 4% reserve tier if it can be
demonstrated that they have a minimum of 4 years of supply, do not rely upon imported water,
and their groundwater supplies recharge naturally.
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Sector Clarification
There are no specific use reduction targets for commercial, industrial, and institutional users
served by urban and all other water suppliers. Water suppliers will decide how to meet their
conservation standard through reductions from both residential and non-residential users.
Water suppliers are encouraged to look at their commercial, institutional and industrial
properties that irrigate outdoor ornamental landscapes with potable water for potential
conservation savings.
Conservation Standard For All Other Water Suppliers
Smaller water suppliers (serving fewer than 3,000 connections) will be required to achieve a
25% conservation standard or restrict outdoor irrigation to no more than two days per week.
These smaller urban suppliers serve less than 10% of Californians.
End-User Requirements
The new prohibitions in the Executive Order apply to all Californians and will take effect
immediately upon approval of the regulation by the Office of Administrative Law. These
include:
Irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf on public street medians is prohibited;
and
Irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes and buildings not in
accordance with emergency regulations or other requirements established in the
California Building Standards Code is prohibited.
These are in addition to the existing restrictions that prohibit:
Using potable water to wash sidewalks and driveways;
Allowing runoff when irrigating with potable water;
Using hoses with no shutoff nozzles to wash cars;
Using potable water in decorative water features that do not recirculate the water;
Irrigating outdoors during and within 48 hours following measureable rainfall; and
Restaurants from serving water to their customers unless the customer requests it.
Additionally, hotels and motels must offer their guests the option to not have their linens and
towels laundered daily, and prominently display this option in each guest room.
26
It will be very important as these provisions are implemented to ensure that existing trees
remain healthy and do not present a public safety hazard. Guidance on the implementation of
both prohibitions will be developed.
Self-Supplied CII
Commercial, industrial and institutional properties under Provision 5 of the Executive Order
with an independent source of water supply (not served by a water supplier), are required
under the proposed emergency regulation to either limit outdoor irrigation to two days per week
or achieve a 25% reduction in water use. Often, these properties have large landscapes that
would otherwise not be addressed by this regulation.
New Reporting Requirements
Total monthly water production and specific reporting on residential use and enforcement as
laid out in the previously adopted emergency regulations will remain in effect. Because the
conservation standard applies to total water production, the proposed emergency regulation
expands the reporting to include information on water use in the commercial, industrial, and
institutional sectors. Small water suppliers with fewer than 3,000 service connections will be
required to submit a single report on December 15, 2015 that provides their water production
from June-November 2015 and June-November 2013 and the number of days per week
outdoor irrigation is allowed.
Commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities with an independent source of supply (they
are not served by a water supplier) are not required to submit a report; however they should be
prepared to demonstrate their compliance with the two day per week watering restriction or the
25% reduction in water use if requested to do so by the Board.
Compliance Assessment
In many communities around the state, over half (and up to 80 percent) of total residential
water use is for outdoor irrigation during the summer months. With summer just around the
corner, bringing with it the greatest opportunity for making substantial conservation gains,
immediate action is essential. As a result, the Board will begin assessing compliance with the
submittal of the June monthly report on July 15, 2015. Beyond June, the Board will track
compliance on a cumulative basis. Cumulative tracking means that conservation savings will
be added together from one month to the next and compared to the amount of water used
during the same months in 2013. This tracking will look like the sample graph below.
Example Comparison of Monthly Savings and Cumulative Savings
2013
Water Use
2015 Water
Use
Monthly
savings
Cumulative or
Running
Savings
June 1000 800 20% 20%
July 1500 1050 30% 26%
August 1200 1020 15% 22%
September 900 825 8% 20%
27
20%
30%
15%
8%
20%
26%
22%
20%
June July August September
Monthly savings
Cumulative or Running Savings
Two additional tools are included in the proposed emergency regulation to both expedite the
investigation of water suppliers not meeting their conservation standard and to require the
implementation of actions to correct this situation. A proposed informational order would
require water suppliers to respond to request for information or face immediate enforcement.
The proposed conservation order can be used to direct specific actions to correct non-
compliance. Both of these tools are tailored to the emergency circumstances that the State
finds itself in as a result of continuing drought conditions. Violation of an information or
conservation order carries a penalty of up to $500 per day.
The Board will work with water suppliers along the way that are not meeting their targets to
implement actions to get them back on track. These actions could include changes to rates
and pricing, restrictions on outdoor irrigation, public outreach, rebates and audit programs, leak
detection and repair, and other measures. The Board may use its enforcement tools to ensure
that water suppliers are on track to meet their conservation standards at any point during the
270 days that the emergency regulation is in effect.
Conclusion
No one knows how the future will unfold. While the state may return to “normal,” or even to
above average hydrologic water conditions in 2016, such an outcome is far from certain. If
there is a fifth, or even sixth, year of water scarcity the emergency regulation will have
contributed to safeguarding the state’s future water supplies, thereby forestalling potentially
dramatic economic consequences. An example of the challenge facing the State comes from
Australia, which experienced persistent and severe drought across most of its continent
between 2002 and 2012. Over the full course of the 10 years of drought, half a percentage
point may have been shaved from Australia’s GDP growth rate due to water curtailments,
lowered productivity, unemployment and reduced exports. A half-point reduction in GDP
growth is significant: if this were to occur in California, cumulative state output would be
reduced by close to half a trillion dollars over the same 10-year span of time.
28
The State Water Board is committed to working with water suppliers around the State on
implementation of the emergency regulation to reduce the risk that the State faces if drought
conditions do not abate. A workshop to discuss implementation of the emergency regulation
will be scheduled for October 2015, and the Board will continue to receive monthly updates
and hear public comment as it has been doing since adopting its initial emergency regulation in
July 2014.
As Governor Brown said on April 1, 2015, when announcing his fourth Executive Order since
the drought began, “All of us in so many different parts of California, doing so many different
things, have to now pull together in our own different contexts to do what is required.”
(This fact sheet was last updated on April 28, 2015)
29
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardWestborough Water District257,568,499213,776,79043,791,70917%40.628%Arcata City of499,104,000495,047,0004,057,0001%43.528%San Francisco Public Utilities Commission20,365,410,00018,717,900,0001,647,510,0008%45.428%Santa Cruz City of2,527,700,0001,933,400,000594,300,00024%47.328%California Water Service Company South San Francisco2,075,673,5901,907,534,254168,139,3368%48.828%California‐American Water Company Monterey District2,903,844,5432,590,336,368313,508,17511%51.328%California Water Service Company East Los Angeles3,998,522,8613,819,956,279178,566,5824%51.428%California‐American Water Company San Diego District2,795,094,8882,578,195,144216,899,7448%51.928%Cambria Community Services District166,216,81395,513,57070,703,24343%54.328%East Palo Alto, City of409,886,088454,911,335‐45,025,247‐11%55.628%Park Water Company2,833,164,1102,598,821,539234,342,5718%55.628%San Bruno City of929,865,974849,620,19780,245,7779%55.728%Daly City City of1,888,066,3011,622,632,784265,433,51714%58.828%North Coast County Water District809,332,364713,333,36195,999,00312%59.528%Golden State Water Company Florence Graham1,246,577,2191,227,482,32619,094,8942%59.728%Golden State Water Company Bell‐Bell Gardens1,279,423,0431,208,354,84771,068,1966%60.828%Coastside County Water District565,550,000524,430,00041,120,0007%61.928%Hayward City of4,474,967,9373,957,222,483517,745,45512%62.128%Grover Beach City of352,828,667208,202,769144,625,89741%62.328%Redwood City City of2,525,846,7742,179,170,327346,676,44714%63.428%Compton City of1,858,895,9191,837,323,74721,572,1721%63.628%Soquel Creek Water District1,046,626,000826,889,000219,737,00021%64.228%Seal Beach City of905,215,264856,337,55048,877,7145%64.728%Inglewood City of2,457,964,6452,284,776,001173,188,6437%65.13 12%Goleta Water District3,523,431,4803,053,227,871470,203,60913%65.53 12%Oxnard City of5,742,131,0375,086,123,686656,007,35111%66.63 12%Paramount City of1,628,999,7121,623,382,0345,617,6790%67.03 12%California Water Service Company King City428,820,478403,729,91825,090,5606%67.73 12%Golden State Water Company Southwest7,303,405,7896,894,299,322409,106,4676%68.23 12%Golden State Water Company Bay Point512,238,443452,672,80259,565,64112%69.23 12%San Luis Obispo City of1,387,716,5061,278,706,170109,010,3368%69.93 12%Morro Bay City of316,836,255281,236,75635,599,49911%70.03 12%South Gate City of2,066,696,3832,017,629,67549,066,7082%70.13 12%Vernon City of1,907,061,7691,788,380,162118,681,6076%70.63 12%Huntington Park City of1,171,761,7311,128,423,49243,338,2404%71.33 12%Golden State Water Company Norwalk1,214,317,9281,131,519,08082,798,8487%72.23 12%Milpitas City of2,719,687,9792,424,775,231294,912,74811%72.33 12%Estero Municipal Improvement District1,137,677,7971,077,438,67060,239,1275%72.83 12%Total Water ProductionPage 1 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.30
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionGolden State Water Company S San Gabriel664,867,252637,528,31727,338,9354%73.63 12%Sweetwater Authority5,185,495,3374,886,767,783298,727,5546%75.03 12%City of Big Bear Lake, Dept of Water & Power610,520,000590,469,86020,050,1403%75.83 12%La Palma City of545,401,972497,342,47148,059,5019%75.93 12%Marina Coast Water District1,063,425,908946,396,368117,029,54011%76.03 12%Lompoc City of1,253,200,0001,106,800,000146,400,00012%76.63 12%San Lorenzo Valley Water District416,952,583335,050,26781,902,31620%77.93 12%Santa Ana City of9,729,076,3979,323,684,636405,391,7604%78.33 12%Port Hueneme City of500,546,894456,100,75944,446,1359%78.93 12%Santa Fe Springs City of1,526,056,7301,408,567,739117,488,9918%80.14 16%Crestline Village Water District185,010,871167,499,02717,511,8449%80.34 16%McKinleyville Community Service District344,448,000300,869,00043,579,00013%80.54 16%Montebello Land and Water Company859,407,071791,398,61968,008,4518%80.54 16%Sweetwater Springs Water District208,544,913177,491,27231,053,64115%80.84 16%Santa Barbara City of3,348,530,7272,632,951,217715,579,50921%80.94 16%Rohnert Park City of1,267,000,0001,124,000,000143,000,00011%81.04 16%Lake Arrowhead Community Services District440,648,885386,238,21354,410,67112%81.54 16%Valley County Water District2,033,127,8211,853,913,772179,214,0499%81.64 16%San Diego City of47,355,303,59846,452,597,390902,706,2082%82.04 16%Mountain View City of2,967,854,7972,531,213,885436,640,91215%82.54 16%Golden State Water Company Artesia1,402,138,6901,348,796,81253,341,8794%83.44 16%California Water Service Company Dominguez8,444,765,5828,077,205,172367,560,4104%83.74 16%Greenfield, City of573,049,890501,684,12671,365,76412%83.84 16%Long Beach City of14,658,100,59213,842,168,619815,931,9736%83.84 16%Dublin San Ramon Services District2,779,417,0001,959,505,000819,912,00029%84.74 16%Golden State Water Company Culver City1,415,824,4501,344,756,25471,068,1965%84.84 16%Sunnyvale City of4,612,426,9493,920,970,221691,456,72815%85.24 16%California Water Service Company Salinas District4,612,101,0984,065,974,106546,126,99212%86.04 16%Lynwood City of1,264,349,1561,237,371,91626,977,2402%86.34 16%Santa Rosa City of5,454,466,8744,447,473,3731,006,993,50118%86.74 16%Hawthorne City of1,070,747,7891,135,592,223‐64,844,434‐6%86.74 16%California Water Service Company Mid Peninsula3,986,792,2093,551,780,554435,011,65511%87.44 16%San Gabriel Valley Water Company9,747,519,5879,124,165,807623,353,7806%88.34 16%Alameda County Water District10,539,100,0008,458,900,0002,080,200,00020%88.34 16%Santa Clara City of5,338,900,0004,749,500,000589,400,00011%88.34 16%Menlo Park City of1,058,240,665769,095,397289,145,26827%88.64 16%Millbrae City of668,885,610603,267,24265,618,36910%89.24 16%Petaluma City of2,407,770,0002,071,485,000336,285,00014%89.64 16%Page 2 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.31
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionHi‐Desert Water District744,117,577733,074,47211,043,1051%90.24 16%Burlingame City of1,288,363,7481,075,113,151213,250,59817%90.44 16%Los Angeles Department of Water and Power139,452,680,105 130,343,503,463 9,109,176,6427%90.94 16%Vallejo City of4,410,308,0004,020,375,000389,933,0009%91.34 16%San Buenaventura City of4,446,346,9943,813,888,925632,458,06914%91.34 16%Pico Rivera City of1,267,056,9811,099,162,034167,894,94813%91.64 16%Scotts Valley Water District311,979,632253,857,83558,121,79719%91.64 16%Irvine Ranch Water District15,406,744,24615,015,266,341391,477,9043%91.74 16%Santa Maria City of3,370,607,1613,257,210,864113,396,2973%93.04 16%Windsor, Town of963,136,985817,896,531145,240,45315%93.04 16%California Water Service Company Redwood Valley108,182,67482,440,41125,742,26324%93.34 16%American Canyon, City of915,968,361777,155,653138,812,70815%93.54 16%Golden State Water Company West Orange4,000,477,9693,830,090,258170,387,7114%94.24 16%East Bay Municipal Utilities District52,390,500,00046,127,500,0006,263,000,00012%94.24 16%Crescent City City of583,110,000710,650,000‐127,540,000‐22%94.54 16%Martinez City of1,027,679,751871,695,210155,984,54015%95.55 20%Pomona City of5,817,361,3335,468,536,077348,825,2566%95.95 20%San Jose City of5,294,000,0004,707,000,000587,000,00011%96.05 20%Bellflower‐Somerset Mutual Water Company1,350,031,7891,268,477,69481,554,0956%96.25 20%California Water Service Company Hermosa/Redondo2,984,799,0712,983,495,6661,303,4060%96.45 20%Azusa City of5,165,530,5974,670,763,054494,767,54310%97.35 20%California Water Service Company Stockton6,808,665,5676,318,910,872489,754,6957%97.65 20%El Segundo City of1,692,179,5321,788,496,457‐96,316,925‐6%97.95 20%Westminster City of3,064,371,9902,956,971,359107,400,6304%98.05 20%Carpinteria Valley Water District1,160,826,1581,028,941,051131,885,10711%98.25 20%Lomita City of591,013,026547,632,42543,380,6007%98.25 20%Norwalk City of559,456,000511,830,00047,626,0009%98.65 20%Mesa Water District4,434,609,8254,283,056,327151,553,4993%99.05 20%Moulton Niguel Water District7,135,207,7996,864,125,480271,082,3194%99.25 20%Santa Monica City of3,462,200,0003,321,100,000141,100,0004%99.25 20%Rowland Water District2,857,000,1422,756,214,295100,785,8464%99.25 20%Livermore City of Division of Water Resources1,642,615,0001,199,514,000443,101,00027%100.15 20%Fountain Valley City of2,438,968,6042,305,516,153133,452,4525%100.25 20%Watsonville City of2,045,660,7521,803,744,576241,916,17612%100.35 20%Lathrop, City of 1,149,290,000 990,960,000 158,330,000 14% 100.35 20%Pittsburg City of2,481,549,0002,226,323,000255,226,00010%100.45 20%El Monte City of328,279,000312,936,00015,343,0005%100.65 20%Tahoe City Public Utilities District372,523,331326,265,84846,257,48312%100.95 20%Page 3 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.32
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionMid‐Peninsula Water District823,925,361712,822,442111,102,91913%101.45 20%Mammoth Community Water District499,483,000447,407,00052,076,00010%102.95 20%San Gabriel County Water District1,612,133,6431,485,957,453126,176,1908%102.95 20%Helix Water District8,454,736,6368,067,103,778387,632,8585%103.65 20%Whittier City of2,041,957,7432,084,064,264‐42,106,521‐2%104.25 20%Great Oaks Water Company Incorporated2,641,791,5672,210,783,322431,008,24416%104.25 20%Hollister City of832,612,930742,476,98090,135,95011%104.45 20%Calexico City of1,524,360,0001,440,570,00083,790,0005%104.65 20%Lakewood City of2,086,631,9731,856,580,866230,051,10711%105.05 20%Oceanside City of6,988,111,9486,765,555,423222,556,5253%105.15 20%San Jose Water Company36,046,000,00031,608,300,0004,437,700,00012%105.75 20%Valley of the Moon Water District800,300,880646,691,259153,609,62119%106.55 20%Escondido City of4,625,134,3514,059,907,513565,226,83812%106.75 20%Fairfield City of5,435,000,0004,853,000,000582,000,00011%106.75 20%Downey City of4,090,256,5543,834,059,128256,197,4266%106.95 20%Glendale City of6,839,188,0706,346,086,881493,101,1897%107.15 20%Otay Water District8,209,272,7567,888,634,952320,637,8044%107.15 20%Marin Municipal Water District7,006,662,6705,966,662,2211,040,000,44815%107.45 20%Camarillo City of2,747,943,8392,399,416,293348,527,54613%107.55 20%California‐American Water Company Sacramento District8,801,191,6497,285,565,4231,515,626,22517%107.85 20%Adelanto city of1,091,834,544993,603,39498,231,1509%108.55 20%Anaheim City of16,337,538,84715,992,788,037344,750,8102%108.65 20%Ukiah City of678,601,000551,722,000126,879,00019%108.65 20%Huntington Beach City of7,506,541,5687,116,888,432389,653,1365%109.05 20%Napa City of3,605,871,8913,247,435,321358,436,57010%109.25 20%Lakeside Water District1,064,566,388977,942,04486,624,3438%109.35 20%Padre Dam Municipal Water District2,952,148,7582,752,858,026199,290,7337%109.45 20%Crescenta Valley Water District1,200,433,9971,043,760,838156,673,15913%109.45 20%Torrance City of3,906,665,3433,703,464,394203,200,9505%111.06 24%Big Bear City Community Services District266,135,894256,898,0079,237,8883%111.06 24%Vista Irrigation District4,896,569,3944,632,303,886264,265,5075%111.16 24%Perris, City of437,809,090430,597,0207,212,0702%111.96 24%Pismo Beach City of434,216,578359,495,58774,720,99117%113.16 24%Vallecitos Water District4,390,033,3504,037,168,840352,864,5108%116.16 24%Soledad, City of581,571,300531,785,50049,785,8009%116.76 24%Manhattan Beach City of1,219,661,8911,153,188,20066,473,6915%116.76 24%Palo Alto City of3,180,440,8522,685,999,460494,441,39216%116.86 24%Gilroy City of2,328,666,0001,995,678,000332,988,00014%117.56 24%Page 4 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.33
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionHumboldt Community Service District610,120,000573,669,00036,451,0006%117.96 24%Alhambra City of2,575,148,4332,329,573,763245,574,66910%118.36 24%Golden State Water Company S Arcadia908,701,874851,189,09857,512,7776%118.56 24%Orchard Dale Water District589,289,272550,757,34038,531,9317%118.66 24%Buena Park City of3,777,921,4453,441,805,698336,115,7479%118.96 24%Golden State Water Company Placentia1,868,334,3271,778,757,77089,576,5575%118.96 24%Pico Water District1,029,001,320960,057,63168,943,6907%119.16 24%Delano City of2,386,120,0002,229,650,000156,470,0007%119.46 24%El Centro City of1,978,323,0001,910,544,00067,779,0003%119.56 24%Pleasanton City of4,439,552,0003,099,891,0001,339,661,00030%119.86 24%Woodland City of2,938,159,0202,454,292,204483,866,81616%119.86 24%El Toro Water District2,331,141,1092,239,576,85891,564,2514%119.96 24%San Fernando City of839,719,127786,931,19652,787,9316%120.36 24%Suburban Water Systems San Jose Hills7,160,122,3996,833,016,444327,105,9555%120.36 24%Sunny Slope Water Company1,052,785,122950,022,234102,762,88810%120.56 24%California Water Service Company Livermore2,781,467,7811,909,163,511872,304,27031%120.56 24%Laguna Beach County Water District872,082,691867,064,5795,018,1121%121.06 24%Fortuna City of303,008,000276,986,00026,022,0009%121.26 24%Amador Water Agency899,761,000773,623,400126,137,60014%121.56 24%South Coast Water District1,639,847,3061,549,814,55790,032,7495%121.76 24%Alco Water Service1,156,954,0001,028,617,000128,337,00011%124.26 24%Monte Vista Water District2,603,464,9222,359,464,115244,000,8079%125.06 24%Golden State Water Company Barstow1,595,531,5121,445,509,515150,021,9979%125.46 24%California Water Service Company Marysville575,127,769496,597,57578,530,19414%125.56 24%Coachella City of1,395,900,0001,294,010,000101,890,0007%125.56 24%Brea City of2,826,761,1292,727,376,44499,384,6854%125.96 24%Colton, City of2,519,711,3302,487,549,79432,161,5361%126.36 24%Chino City of3,332,449,9593,123,999,542208,450,4166%126.76 24%Santa Margarita Water District7,105,190,3666,932,489,109172,701,2562%126.86 24%Reedley City of1,302,000,0001,109,000,000193,000,00015%126.96 24%Ontario City of8,782,999,3638,499,508,622283,490,7413%126.96 24%Valencia Water Company7,817,224,6116,780,899,7671,036,324,84413%127.06 24%Groveland Community Services District127,297,63296,625,39630,672,23624%127.56 24%Eureka City of860,874,000799,778,00061,096,0007%128.16 24%North Marin Water District2,457,000,0001,986,810,000470,190,00019%129.16 24%City of Newman Water Department559,946,000448,854,000111,092,00020%129.26 24%Tuolumne Utilities District1,441,240,862992,152,425449,088,43731%129.36 24%Golden State Water Company Simi Valley1,830,698,4871,657,215,187173,483,3009%129.96 24%Page 5 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.34
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionTwentynine Palms Water District666,765,336641,552,25625,213,0804%130.57 28%Eastern Municipal Water District22,059,815,75621,154,600,492905,215,2644%130.77 28%South Pasadena City of1,045,005,526935,193,595109,811,93111%131.07 28%California Water Service Company Oroville830,595,287682,007,037148,588,25118%131.67 28%Healdsburg City of540,150,000446,810,00093,340,00017%131.97 28%Burbank City of4,712,137,4864,362,205,638349,931,8477%132.27 28%Arroyo Grande City of776,210,684654,635,517121,575,16716%132.47 28%San Juan Capistrano City of2,040,416,4661,962,283,81078,132,6554%133.37 28%Garden Grove City of6,584,316,8606,185,605,054398,711,8066%133.67 28%Del Oro Water Company369,631,917306,051,99063,579,92717%134.37 28%Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District146,056,000148,820,000‐2,764,000‐2%134.57 28%Tracy City of4,529,625,6943,497,663,7681,031,961,92523%134.67 28%Riverside City of17,427,511,87015,956,944,3801,470,567,4908%135.37 28%West Kern Water District4,045,106,5813,679,048,346366,058,2359%135.47 28%Fullerton City of7,215,373,7676,969,105,034246,268,7333%136.87 28%Lincoln Avenue Water Company613,030,807557,668,64955,362,1579%137.27 28%La Habra City of Public Works2,397,728,8482,535,032,864‐137,304,016‐6%137.57 28%Newport Beach City of4,220,349,4783,924,557,845295,791,6337%137.87 28%Carlsbad Municipal Water District4,342,002,8504,259,269,17382,733,6772%138.67 28%Pasadena City of8,349,297,6317,614,975,148734,322,4839%139.07 28%Truckee‐Donner Public Utilities District1,264,764,4661,144,274,188120,490,27810%139.47 28%Contra Costa Water District8,855,338,3807,547,370,7521,307,967,62815%139.97 28%Shasta Lake City of309,004,338258,461,00050,543,33816%140.27 28%Suburban Water Systems Whittier/La Mirada5,584,910,9825,234,793,399350,117,5836%141.17 28%Antioch City of4,642,068,0004,042,923,000599,145,00013%141.97 28%South Tahoe Public Utilities District1,641,227,0001,550,474,00090,753,0006%141.97 28%Sonoma City of583,798,675494,362,23489,436,44115%142.77 28%San Gabriel Valley Fontana Water Company10,907,224,81610,188,722,419718,502,3977%142.97 28%West Sacramento City of3,567,747,2742,941,460,832626,286,44318%143.07 28%Tehachapi, City of582,624,632536,291,81846,332,8148%143.77 28%Davis City of3,023,400,0002,527,400,000496,000,00016%143.97 28%Benicia City of1,543,102,0181,217,315,761325,786,25721%143.97 28%California Water Service Company Dixon, City of382,549,575346,705,91835,843,6579%144.37 28%Sunnyslope County Water District694,319,032596,249,46098,069,57214%144.67 28%Roseville City of8,448,024,0966,930,859,8521,517,164,24418%145.17 28%Elk Grove Water Service1,982,552,9821,615,618,816366,934,16619%145.37 28%Paso Robles City of1,705,474,0001,511,094,000194,380,00011%146.17 28%Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District6,567,437,7566,285,445,931281,991,8254%146.37 28%Page 6 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.35
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionSacramento City of28,979,000,00023,440,000,0005,539,000,00019%146.47 28%Walnut Valley Water District5,119,451,7704,877,344,159242,107,6105%146.47 28%Rialto City of2,544,482,5552,596,683,954‐52,201,399‐2%146.87 28%Diablo Water District1,487,225,0001,338,770,000148,455,00010%147.77 28%Patterson City of1,040,156,104948,595,32091,560,7849%148.37 28%San Dieguito Water District1,583,703,1061,621,176,020‐37,472,914‐2%148.47 28%Orange City of7,732,617,2887,437,395,896295,221,3934%148.77 28%California Water Service Company Kern River Valley222,882,376201,376,18221,506,19410%148.97 28%San Bernardino City of11,535,034,61410,722,937,586812,097,0287%149.17 28%Suisun‐Solano Water Authority1,038,300,000918,300,000120,000,00012%150.07 28%Cerritos City of2,219,233,9531,991,297,621227,936,33210%153.67 28%Sanger City of1,552,776,0001,422,246,000130,530,0008%153.77 28%Fresno City of36,603,191,42430,513,707,6506,089,483,77417%154.27 28%Monrovia City of1,885,000,0001,673,000,000212,000,00011%154.67 28%Covina City of 1,500,350,310 1,393,914,200 106,436,110 7% 154.77 28%Lake Hemet Municipal Water District2,880,852,4662,579,961,258300,891,20810%154.97 28%Stockton City of8,304,530,0007,263,300,0001,041,230,00013%155.07 28%Jurupa Community Service District6,546,170,4116,107,698,865438,471,5457%155.57 28%Ventura County Waterworks District No. 85,424,122,8544,896,895,245527,227,60910%156.17 28%Tustin City of2,984,049,6132,895,189,92988,859,6843%156.57 28%California‐American Water Company Los Angeles District5,579,752,7545,179,473,602400,279,1517%156.87 28%San Clemente City of2,270,663,0842,331,434,375‐60,771,291‐3%157.77 28%Chino Hills City of3,952,965,8043,587,674,904365,290,9009%157.87 28%Rubidoux Community Service District1,400,190,0001,335,510,00064,680,0005%157.97 28%Arvin Community Services District740,072,884667,768,50172,304,38310%157.97 28%Rosamond Community Service District719,200,000712,000,0007,200,0001%158.17 28%Golden State Water Company San Dimas3,063,589,9462,950,649,842112,940,1054%159.07 28%Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company4,101,713,2053,942,264,436159,448,7694%159.87 28%Hanford City of3,229,776,7002,793,029,816436,746,88414%160.07 28%Santa Paula City of1,218,270,5061,081,725,724136,544,78211%160.27 28%Morgan Hill City of2,262,311,0001,786,089,000476,222,00021%161.37 28%North Tahoe Public Utility District350,120,000332,141,00017,979,0005%161.77 28%Atascadero Mutual Water Company1,291,000,0001,056,900,000234,100,00018%163.07 28%Thousand Oaks City of3,106,634,9202,792,709,655313,925,26510%163.77 28%Victorville Water District4,985,852,6854,486,322,447499,530,23810%164.47 28%Fillmore City of482,079,202446,216,00035,863,2027%165.67 28%Nipomo Community Services District665,258,273527,032,098138,226,17521%165.67 28%Ramona Municipal Water District1,087,105,5311,049,746,66537,358,8663%165.97 28%Page 7 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.36
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionCeres City of1,985,969,0001,848,968,000137,001,0007%166.17 28%El Dorado Irrigation District10,044,044,3867,600,810,3862,443,234,00024%166.27 28%Newhall County Water District2,611,216,9272,326,139,289285,077,63811%166.57 28%California Water Service Company Willows364,301,895318,682,69645,619,20013%168.67 28%East Valley Water District5,405,695,9564,782,879,831622,816,12512%169.47 28%Joshua Basin Water District409,078,118382,604,64426,473,4736%169.57 28%Imperial, City of687,420,000671,127,00016,293,0002%171.68 32%Manteca City of3,844,580,0003,212,645,000631,935,00016%172.08 32%Ventura County Waterworks District No 12,688,665,2942,241,890,403446,774,89217%172.08 32%Dinuba City of1,126,830,000977,550,000149,280,00013%172.38 32%Madera City of2,268,235,0002,115,715,000152,520,0007%173.58 32%California Water Service Company Los Altos/Suburban3,714,706,2683,136,645,836578,060,43116%173.88 32%Hesperia Water District City of3,676,581,6513,538,094,794138,486,8564%174.68 32%Castaic Lake Water Agency Santa Clarita Water Division7,358,051,0736,493,567,237864,483,83612%174.88 32%Brentwood City of3,038,220,0002,663,210,000375,010,00012%174.98 32%San Jacinto City of756,372,530651,046,816105,325,71414%176.18 32%La Verne City of2,094,159,1411,955,656,970138,502,1717%176.58 32%Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District1,766,766,4371,514,883,284251,883,15314%179.28 32%Mission Springs Water District2,072,832,1661,979,439,88893,392,2775%179.48 32%Banning City of2,219,758,5742,058,002,667161,755,9077%179.48 32%Brawley City of1,842,390,0001,088,690,000753,700,00041%179.58 32%Cucamonga Valley Water District12,916,078,33512,778,430,872137,647,4631%180.08 32%Calaveras County Water District1,468,843,0001,200,100,000268,743,00018%180.18 32%Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District635,139,826675,206,517‐40,066,691‐6%181.68 32%Porterville City of3,123,277,4002,849,237,200274,040,2009%182.08 32%Sacramento County Water Agency9,991,675,1718,451,666,3951,540,008,77615%184.38 32%California‐American Water Ventura District4,397,006,5713,988,454,052408,552,5199%184.68 32%Blythe City of806,370,000811,680,000‐5,310,000‐1%186.18 32%Yreka, City of593,290,000519,800,00073,490,00012%186.48 32%Palmdale Water District5,291,175,4725,010,063,446281,112,0265%187.28 32%Yuba City City of4,215,490,0003,629,080,000586,410,00014%188.28 32%California Water Service Company Selma1,492,399,5361,239,212,977253,186,55917%189.28 32%Western Municipal Water District of Riverside5,887,379,3115,683,989,367203,389,9443%189.28 32%Riverbank City of860,786,846737,503,990123,282,85614%191.28 32%California Water Service Company Visalia8,033,215,2307,144,292,537888,922,69311%191.78 32%Hemet City of1,116,063,9471,045,970,04770,093,9006%192.88 32%Turlock City of5,571,505,1004,909,059,441662,445,65912%193.98 32%Corona City of8,699,410,0008,297,070,000402,340,0005%194.38 32%Page 8 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.37
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionTrabuco Canyon Water District764,121,596767,705,962‐3,584,3660%194.98 32%Triunfo Sanitation District / Oak Park Water Service687,285,830597,937,36989,348,46113%195.68 32%Lamont Public Utility District993,121,000914,688,00078,433,0008%197.48 32%California Water Service Company Bakersfield18,863,864,96016,841,305,1532,022,559,80711%197.68 32%Lemoore City of1,967,044,0001,783,354,000183,690,0009%198.98 32%Golden State Water Company Orcutt1,941,781,2391,705,636,709236,144,52912%199.88 32%Vacaville City of4,536,829,4183,868,833,993667,995,42515%199.98 32%Citrus Heights Water District3,723,178,4053,023,575,391699,603,01419%201.48 32%Poway City of2,984,245,1242,893,299,99190,945,1333%201.78 32%Livingston City of1,870,481,0001,810,513,00059,968,0003%204.28 32%Los Angeles County Public Works Waterworks District 4012,870,711,01811,980,791,220889,919,7987%205.58 32%Galt City of1,302,667,0001,052,546,000250,121,00019%207.18 32%Placer County Water Agency7,686,123,7716,395,079,1931,291,044,57817%207.28 32%Lee Lake Water District760,491,304738,717,75621,773,5483%208.18 32%San Bernardino County Service Area 70457,322,702431,251,33026,071,3736%209.68 32%California Water Service Company Chico District6,759,462,0025,680,893,7781,078,568,22316%210.48 32%Linda County Water District971,706,000880,037,00091,669,0009%211.08 32%West Valley Water District5,029,549,3614,747,557,536281,991,8256%212.38 32%Golden State Water Company Claremont2,873,781,4902,604,204,605269,576,8869%213.28 32%Folsom City of5,476,678,5144,592,545,306884,133,20816%213.78 32%Sierra Madre City of616,142,059546,575,11869,566,94111%214.58 32%Tulare, City of4,805,328,9004,324,313,800481,015,10010%214.88 32%Indio City of5,340,000,0005,006,100,000333,900,0006%215.79 36%Oakdale City of1,417,000,0001,139,000,000278,000,00020%215.99 36%Fallbrook Public Utility District3,340,661,4153,012,268,347328,393,06810%217.39 36%Kerman, City of880,465,000769,624,000110,841,00013%217.99 36%Exeter City of600,332,681535,287,40865,045,27311%218.89 36%Georgetown Divide Public Utilities District512,901,000410,416,000102,485,00020%219.79 36%Yorba Linda Water District5,380,523,9335,128,021,662252,502,2715%220.29 36%Rubio Canyon Land and Water Association561,116,157508,002,37553,113,7839%220.89 36%Sacramento Suburban Water District9,630,759,0008,318,514,0001,312,245,00014%222.59 36%Corcoran City of1,162,447,000950,206,000212,241,00018%223.79 36%Norco City of2,009,949,3571,856,691,656153,257,7028%224.29 36%Golden State Water Company Cordova4,051,962,4953,483,514,680568,447,81414%224.59 36%Monterey Park City of649,960,000594,880,00055,080,0008%224.99 36%Winton Water & Sanitary District432,243,000400,904,00031,339,0007%228.39 36%Montecito Water District1,577,349,003836,688,709740,660,29447%228.99 36%Camrosa Water District2,469,015,3652,141,221,863327,793,50213%229.39 36%Page 9 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.38
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionWasco City of1,096,680,000952,170,000144,510,00013%231.19 36%Olivenhain Municipal Water District5,326,497,7665,149,755,952176,741,8143%232.49 36%Upland City of5,523,683,6575,024,215,355499,468,3019%234.99 36%Clovis City of6,737,008,0006,080,852,000656,156,00010%235.29 36%Beverly Hills City of2,984,049,6132,900,957,49983,092,1143%235.99 36%Lodi City of Public Works Department3,904,230,0003,932,720,000‐28,490,000‐1%235.99 36%Los Angeles County Public Works Waterworks District 292,383,427,2292,356,081,77727,345,4521%236.09 36%Loma Linda City of *1,379,990,5691,323,839,52556,151,0444%236.09 36%Shafter City of1,350,000,0001,154,000,000196,000,00015%236.59 36%Fruitridge Vista Water Company1,000,084,300823,053,400177,030,90018%238.39 36%Paradise Irrigation District1,721,400,0001,355,900,000365,500,00021%240.89 36%Glendora City of3,108,798,0893,089,127,28419,670,8051%242.09 36%Carmichael Water District2,598,570,0002,107,250,000491,320,00019%242.59 36%Rainbow Municipal Water District3,976,593,0603,760,749,074215,843,9855%243.09 36%Modesto, City of15,589,770,18313,698,086,9251,891,683,25812%245.99 36%Pinedale County Water District267,792,348224,289,93243,502,41616%247.19 36%Lincoln City of2,592,190,0002,158,050,000434,140,00017%251.09 36%California Water Service Company Bear Gulch3,623,142,0173,228,861,790394,280,22711%252.59 36%Los Banos, City of2,053,870,0001,905,101,000148,769,0007%253.09 36%Redding City of7,109,010,0005,934,100,0001,174,910,00017%253.89 36%Riverside Highland Water Company971,591,200889,248,54482,342,6568%253.89 36%California Water Service Company Palos Verdes5,184,622,0554,979,661,507204,960,5484%255.49 36%Olivehurst Public Utility District1,161,641,529959,245,393202,396,13717%256.09 36%San Bernardino County Service Area 64758,722,238679,807,54078,914,69910%257.89 36%Anderson, City of572,342,000498,676,00073,666,00013%260.09 36%Rio Vista, city of641,312,000606,333,00034,979,0005%260.99 36%Golden State Water Company Ojai564,830,864487,636,66177,194,20314%261.09 36%Indian Wells Valley Water District1,861,884,0001,789,365,00072,519,0004%263.59 36%Yucaipa Valley Water District2,981,840,0002,837,629,000144,211,0005%265.19 36%Casitas Municipal Water District777,155,653678,096,82099,058,83413%265.79 36%Nevada Irrigation District2,750,729,0002,339,997,000410,732,00015%267.89 36%Beaumont‐Cherry Valley Water District3,172,199,4863,139,252,64832,946,8381%269.79 36%East Niles Community Service District2,504,168,2162,213,508,744290,659,47312%271.89 36%Fair Oaks Water District3,068,959,9782,450,034,519618,925,45920%274.19 36%Discovery Bay Community Services District986,000,000808,000,000178,000,00018%276.39 36%Rio Linda ‐ Elverta Community Water District770,017,391629,595,315140,422,07618%278.19 36%East Orange County Water District247,060,552225,554,35821,506,1949%278.29 36%Bakersfield City of11,705,594,68010,744,390,565961,204,1148%279.99 36%Page 10 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.39
Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use ReductionTotal WaterSavedPercent SavedSupplier Name2013(Jun ‐ Feb)2014/15(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013, gallons)(Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013)Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐GPCDTierConservation StandardTotal Water ProductionValley Center Municipal Water District6,829,813,3256,798,466,41731,346,9070%291.29 36%Red Bluff City of904,393,249764,891,212139,502,03715%294.39 36%California Water Service Company Antelope Valley186,061,165216,691,199‐30,630,034‐16%296.79 36%Merced City of6,872,130,0006,271,910,000600,220,0009%298.89 36%Bakman Water Company1,032,655,497893,235,946139,419,55114%302.29 36%Las Virgenes Municipal Water District5,714,163,2095,470,784,778243,378,4314%304.89 36%Oildale Mutual Water Company2,485,920,5372,317,129,497168,791,0397%306.49 36%California City City of1,192,746,5631,264,824,899‐72,078,336‐6%307.09 36%Atwater City of2,358,960,0001,821,770,000537,190,00023%308.19 36%Redlands City of7,033,861,4886,969,114,81064,746,6791%313.29 36%Ripon City of1,431,002,8331,223,409,134207,593,69915%316.19 36%Arcadia City of4,352,404,0274,033,916,843318,487,1857%318.59 36%Hillsborough Town of877,331,034658,647,771218,683,26225%324.59 36%Quartz Hill Water District1,430,054,3821,276,190,597153,863,78511%326.99 36%Madera County891,468,716660,496,910230,971,80626%328.19 36%Orange Vale Water Company1,274,470,1011,008,190,832266,279,26921%332.39 36%Kingsburg, City of1,009,319,000825,793,000183,526,00018%332.59 36%California Water Service Company Westlake2,085,449,1331,928,388,745157,060,3888%336.79 36%Rancho California Water District16,377,618,57216,074,902,597302,715,9762%349.19 36%Susanville City of560,250,000602,070,000‐41,820,000‐7%382.79 36%Bella Vista Water District3,596,422,2001,864,847,7171,731,574,48348%386.39 36%Valley Water Company999,093,060898,861,161100,231,89910%401.29 36%Golden State Water Company Cowan Heights703,676,157691,163,46212,512,6952%401.69 36%Desert Water Agency8,823,730,7928,310,188,943513,541,8496%416.09 36%South Feather Water and Power Agency1,435,400,0001,292,100,000143,300,00010%466.19 36%Coachella Valley Water District28,323,853,24927,188,261,0251,135,592,2234%475.19 36%San Juan Water District3,594,268,3242,773,624,539820,643,78523%476.89 36%Vaughn Water Company3,206,837,8582,989,389,519217,448,3397%507.09 36%Serrano Water District829,682,903749,230,18680,452,71710%539.29 36%Santa Fe Irrigation District2,820,156,1212,869,480,251‐49,324,131‐2%604.79 36%Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company757,700,108707,153,94450,546,1647%613.79 36%Page 11 R‐GPCD data current as of 4/23/15, certain data may be under review.40
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:06/01/2015
Subject:CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
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
meeting agenda.
Referral Update:
In developing transportation related legislative issues and proposals to bring forward for
consideration by TWIC, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors, references the
County's adopted Legislative Platforms, coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner
agencies and organizations, and consults with the Committee itself.
Recommendations are summarized in the Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s) section at the end of
this report and specific recommendations are underlined in the report below. This report includes
three sections, 1) LOCAL, 2) STATE, and 3) FEDERAL.
1) LOCAL
A) The Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) 2014 Countywide Transportation
Plan (CTP) and Proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) (This is a standing item
for the foreseeable future).
The CCTA is in the process of developing both the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP)
and a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). A TEP is a statutorily required component of a
transportation sales tax. As the TWIC has discussed at past meetings, the development of the CTP
resulted in a dialog regarding the need for additional revenue. The outcome of those discussions
was to initiate the process to go to the ballot in November 2016 with a new transportation sales
tax. The CCTA Board approved this activity at their March, 2015 meeting.
41
CCTA has recently released an updated schedule for the development of both the CTP and the
TEP (Attached and included below for convenience). Also released was supporting information
relative to the TEP process including:
Final "Principles for a New Transportation Expenditure Plan" document discussed at TWIC
in May
Structure and membership of an oversight body, the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee
(EPAC), and
A request for projects and programs for consideration in the development of a TEP.
All materials are attached for the consideration and discussion by TWIC.
Staff is developing an approach for internal, countywide coordination on this effort and will
discuss the approach at the June TWIC meeting.
The CTP/TEP schedule is as follows:
DATE TEP CTP
June -
November
2015
Work with EPAC, RTPCs and
other stakeholders to develop a
Discussion Draft TEP
Evaluate the
performance of large
projects and programs
using MTC’s
Performance Targets
November
2015
Authority releases Discussion
Draft TEP for public review
Revise CTP and SEIR
to
incorporate Discussion
Draft
TEP
November -
January
2016
Ongoing Outreach / TEP
Adjustments
Authority releases
Discussion Draft TEP
for public review
January
2016
CCTA approves Final Draft TEP
for review and approval by cities
and the County
CCTA releases Draft
SEIR and Draft CTP
for public review
February -
April 2016
Ongoing outreach / cities and
County approval of Final Draft
TEP
45 Day Public
Review Period
April 2016 Prepare responses to
comments and prepare
final
May 2016 CCTA Certifies Final CTP SEIR,
Adopts Final CTP, Adopts Final
TEP, and forwards final
Expenditure Plan and Ordinance
to cities/County for review and
approval.
May - June
2016
Cities and County approve final
Expenditure Plan and Ordinance
42
July 2016 CCTA forwards Final TEP to BOS
for consideration on the Nov
2016 ballot
Publish Final CTP
July -
November
2016
Educational Outreach
November
2016
Election Day
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss CCTA's CTP and TEP processes, internal coordination and
DIRECT staff as appropriate.
2) STATE
The June state report will be largely be verbal, legislative activities are currently too fluid to make a written report
practical.
As is our practice, a complete table of tracked legislation is attached to this report to facilitate any dialog necessary.
A high-priority subset of the complete list is also attached to this report.
Mark Watts, the County's legislative advocate, and County staff will be present at the meeting to provide the verbal
report.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee should DISCUSS state legislative activities of interest
to the County and take ACTION as appropriate.
3) FEDERAL
On Tuesday May 19th, the House of Representatives voted to extend MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century) by two months. MAP-21 is the primary funding and authorization
mechanism for surface transportation spending at the federal level. Without an extension,
MAP-21 will expire on May 31, 2015. If the Senate approves the extension, the President has
indicated that he will sign the bill in to law.
RECOMMENDATION:DISCUSS that status of federal transportation funding legislation and
take ACTION as appropriate.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and
take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the
report above.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
43
Attachments
CCTA Material Re TEP-CTP
Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2015
June 2015 TWIC Tracked Legislation
44
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2015
Subject Approval of Principles for Development of a Transportation
Expenditure Plan (TEP)
Summary of Issues Development of a TEP should be aligned with the Vision, Goals and
Strategies identified in the draft 2014 CTP, as well as reflect the values
that have governed cooperative planning over the life of Measures C
and J. Accordingly, staff has developed a proposed set of principles for
consideration by the Authority to help guide the TEP effort. A first draft
of the principles was presented by staff at the April 15, 2015 Authority
Board Meeting. Comments provided at that meeting have been
incorporated into an updated proposed set of principles.
Recommendations Staff seeks Authority approval of the Principles for Development of a
Transportation Expenditure Plan (Principles).
Financial Implications There is no cost to approve the Principles. However, development of
the TEP requires considerable staff and consult ant support, as well as
other anticipated costs such as the fees paid to the Registrar of Voters
and the County Clerk–Recorder. Staff and our consultant team continue
to develop a detailed work program and budget to finalize development
of a TEP for discussion at a future Authority meeting.
Options 1. Modify the proposed Principles.
2. Do not proceed with TEP effort.
Attachments A. Principles for Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan.
B. Principles for Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan
showing edits to the version discussed at the April 15 Authority
meeting.
Changes from
Committee
N/A
45
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 2 of 3
Background
Since 1989, the Authority has administered sales tax revenues collected through voter-
approved transportation improvement funding measures. Measure C, passed in 1988, created
the Authority, and established a half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years expiring in 2009.
In 2004, the voters of Contra Costa approved Measure J, which continued the half-cent
transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years through 2034. Together, the two measures
will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds. When leveraged with federal, State
and regional funds, the two measures will result in over $6.5 billion invested in transportation
projects and programs in Contra Costa.
The projects and programs that are advanced with these funds were defined in a TEP that was
developed by the Authority with input from many stakeholders. Each successful ballot measure
involved a complex development process that eventually led to approval by the voters of
Contra Costa.
The current Measure J half-cent transportation sales tax will expire in 2034. Approximately 58
percent of the overall revenues are used for "pay-as-you-go" programs and 42 percent for
capital improvement projects. During the first ten years of the measure, all of the major capital
improvement projects (SR-4 East, eBART, I-680 and I-80 corridor investments and others) will
be complete or in construction. Consequently by 2018, approximately 82 percent of the
Measure J project funds will have been expended, and any remaining project revenues will go
towards repayment of bonds.
Adoption of TEP Principles
At its meeting in March, the Authority directed staff to initiate the development of a TEP for a
possible November 2016 ballot measure. An initial step in this process is to adopt Principles for
Development of a TEP (Principles). Development of a new TEP should be guided by principles
that build on the Vision, Goals and Strategies identified in the 2014 CTP and that embrace the
values of collaboration between the Authority and its partner agencies. Development of a TEP
will require technical, political, public and stakeholder engagement. The Principles will help
guide the Authority through the TEP stakeholder engagement and development process and
the range of issues that will be part of the discussion leading to a TEP.
The proposed Principles for a new TEP include supporting the Authority’s vision and goals;
conducting a robust public participation effort; adopting a consensus-based approach; finding
46
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 3 of 3
the right balance for a healthy environment and strong economy for future generations;
maintaining the system; leveraging funds and continuing our commitment to growth
management and cooperative planning.
Draft Principles were presented for consideration at the Authority's April 15, 2015 meeting.
Comments were provided and staff was directed to revise the Principles to incorporate
comments. Attachment A is the proposed Principles for adoption. Attachment B is the same
document with the changes from the version discussed in April shown in "track changes"
format.
Staff and the Authority's consultant team are discussing the draft Principles at initial meetings
with Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and other stakeholders. Staff will
update the Authority on comments received from the RTPCs and other stakeholders.
47
Page 1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Principles for Development of a
Transportation Expenditure Plan
May 20, 2015
PREAMBLE
Since 1989, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority has administered sales tax revenues
collected through voter-approved transportation improvement funding measures, Measures C
and J. Together, the two measures will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds.
When these funds are combined with federal, State and regional funds, over $6.5 billion will be
invested in transportation projects and programs approved by voters as part of Measures C and
J. The two measures also include a Growth Management Program that requires new growth to
pay its own way and encourages cooperative planning to address growth and transportation
issues.
Measure C, passed in 1988, created a half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years expiring in
2009. In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J , with a 71 percent vote, to
continue the half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years beyond the original
2009 expiration date. All of the major projects identified in the Measure J Transportation
Expenditure Plan are either underway or completed with accelerated delivery strategies so the
benefits of the projects will be realized within the first 10 years of the enacted measure.
Through Measures C and J, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is reducing the impacts
of transportation on the environment, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, and
providing congestion relief, including:
BART extensions and improvements
Bus and ferry service improvements
Highway 4 improvements from Hercules to Discovery Bay
New Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore
Richmond Parkway
Highway 24 and Highway 242 corridor improvements
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
I-80 corridor improvements
I-680 corridor improvements
Transit service improvements for students, seniors and people with disabilities
Local street and road improvements
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Every 5 years, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority updates its Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan to provide a blueprint for future investment in Contra
Costa’s transportation system and identify projects, programs and policies anticipated to be
needed over the next 25 years. The update underway includes a comprehensive public
Attachment A
48
Page 2
outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the communities throughout Contra
Costa. The result is a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan that identifies goals for
bringing together all modes of travel, networks and operators to meet the diverse
transportation needs of Contra Costa County.
VISION AND GOALS FOR THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Measure J requires the development and regular update of a Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan.
As outlined in its “vision,” the Contra Costa Transportation Authority will:
Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promoting a healthy
environment and strong economy to benefit all people and areas of Contra Costa, through (1) a
balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network, (2) cooperative planning, and (3) growth
management. The transportation network should integrate all modes of transportation to meet
the diverse needs of Contra Costa.
To achieve this vision, the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies the
following goals:
1. Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all
available travel modes;
2. Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its environment , and
support its communities;
3. Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single occupant vehicle;
4. Maintain the transportation system; and
5. Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding.
The challenge now facing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is to prioritize $32 billion in
projects and programs, as our transportation needs significantly exceed available revenue. The
projected revenue from federal, State and regional sources is not sufficient and a $10.9 billion
shortfall is identified. Over the last two decades, local funds have become the driving force in
funding transportation improvements. Development and approval of a new countywide
transportation sales tax measure will be critical to help address the funding gap.
49
Page 3
PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will apply the following principles in developing a
new Transportation Expenditure Plan that will define the use of funds from a potential new
transportation sales tax measure for Contra Costa:
1. Vision and Goals. Support the vision and goals of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority.
2. Public Participation. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will conduct a
comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the
communities throughout Contra Costa about the transportation priorities important for
our communities.
3. Accountability. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue its commitment
to accountability and transparency.
4. Consensus‐Based Planning. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to
develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan that reflects consensus between the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority, the public, stakeholders, regional transportation
planning committees, cities, towns, Contra Costa County and transit agencies.
5. Balanced Approach. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to develop a
Transportation Expenditure Plan that provides widespread benefit for all people and
areas of Contra Costa, promotes a healthy environment and strong economy, results in
a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles travelled, supports
transportation for livable communities’ projects, and addresses future demographic and
technological change and innovation.
6. Public Health and Safety. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will ensure that
the Transportation Expenditure Plan promotes a policy that results in the reduction of
transportation impacts on the environment and provides complementary public health
and safety benefits.
7. Maintenance of the Existing System. Maintain the existing local roads, bicycle,
pedestrian and transit systems in a safe and operable condition.
8. Use of Local Dollars to Attract Other Funds. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
will continue to identify federal, State and regional funding opportunities that can
maximize the amount of overall funds available for transportation projects in Contra
Costa.
9. Commitment to Growth Management and Cooperative Planning. New development
should comprehensively address infrastructure improvement needs. The Transportation
50
Page 4
Expenditure Plan will carry forward Contra Costa’s Growth Management Program and
adherence to the Urban Limit Line Policy, as adopted.
10. Innovation and Technology. Embrace innovation and utilize technology to accelerate
and enhance transportation services.
51
Page 1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Principles for Development of a
Transportation Expenditure Plan
April 15, 2015
May 20, 2015
PREAMBLE
Since 1989, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority has administered sales tax revenues
collected through voter-approved transportation improvement funding measures, Measures C
and J. Together, the two measures will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds.
When these funds are combined with federal, State and regional funds, over $6.5 billion will be
invested in transportation projects and programs approved by voters as part of Measures C and
J. The two measures also include a Growth Management Program that requires new growth to
pay its own way and encourages cooperative planning to address growth and transportation
issues.
Measure C, passed in 1988, created a half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years expiring in
2009. In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J, with a 71 percent vote, to
continue the half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years beyond the original
2009 expiration date. All of the major projects identified in the Measure J Transportation
Expenditure Plan are either underway or completed with accelerated delivery strategies so the
benefits of the projects will be realized within the first 10 years of the enacted measure.
Through Measures C and J, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is reducing the impacts
of transportation on the environment, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, and
providing congestion relief, including:
BART extensions and improvements
Bus and ferry service improvements
Highway 4 improvements from Hercules to Discovery Bay
New Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore
Richmond Parkway
Highway 24 and Highway 242 corridor improvements
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
I-80 corridor improvements
I-680 corridor improvements
Transit service improvements for students, seniors and people with disabilities
Local street and road improvements
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Every 5 years, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority updates its Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan to provide a blueprint for future investment in Contra
Costa’s transportation system and identify projects, programs and policies anticipated to be
Attachment B
52
Page 2
needed over the next 25 years. The most recent update in 2014underway includesd a
comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the
communities throughout Contra Costa. The result is a Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan that identifies goals for bringing together all modes of travel, networks and
operators to meet the diverse transportation needs of Contra Costa County.
VISION AND GOALS FOR THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Measure J requires the development and regular update of a Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan.
As outlined in its “vision,” the Contra Costa Transportation Authority will:
Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promoting a healthy
environment and strong economy to benefit all people and areas of Contra Costa, through (1) a
balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network, (2) cooperative planning, and (3) growth
management. The transportation network should integrate all modes of transportation to meet
the diverse needs of Contra Costa.
To achieve this vision, the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies the
following goals:
1. Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all
available travel modes;
2. Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its environment , and
support its communities;
3. Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single occupant vehicle;
4. Maintain the transportation system; and
5. Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding.
The challenge now facing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is to prioritize $32 billion in
projects and programs, as our transportation needs significantly exceed available revenue. The
projected revenue from federal, State and regional sources is not sufficient and a $10.9 billion
shortfall is identified. Over the last two decades, local funds have become the driving force in
funding transportation improvements. Development and approval of a new countywide
transportation sales tax measure will be critical to help address the funding gap.
53
Page 3
PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will apply the following principles in developing a
new Transportation Expenditure Plan that will define the use of funds from a potential new
transportation sales tax measure for Contra Costa:
1. Vision and Goals. Support the vision and goals of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority.
2. Public Participation. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will conduct a
comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the
communities throughout Contra Costa about the transportation priorities important for
our communities.
3. Accountability. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue its commitment
to accountability and transparency.
4. Consensus‐Based Planning. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to
develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan that reflects consensus between the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority, the public, stakeholders, regional transportation
planning committees, cities, towns, Contra Costa County and transit agencies.
5. Balanced Approach. Balance the needs andThe Contra Costa Transportation Authority
will seek to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan that provides widespread
benefits for all people and areas of Contra Costa, to provide promotes a healthy
environment and strong economy, considering impact onresults in a reduction of vehicle
miles travelled and greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles travelled,
supportsing transportation for livable communities’ projects, while accounting forand
addresses future demographic and technological change and innovation.
6. Public Health and Safety. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will ensure that
the Transportation Expenditure Plan promotes a recognizes that transportation policy
can that results in thea reduction of transportation impacts on the environment and
provides complementary public health and safety benefits.
7. Maintenance of the Existing System. Maintain the existing highway, local roads, bicycle,
pedestrian and transit systems in a safe and operable condition.
8. Use of Local Dollars to Attract Other Funds. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
will continue to identify federal, State and regional funding opportunities that can
maximize the amount of overall funds available for transportation projects in Contra
Costa.
9. Commitment to Growth Management and Cooperative Planning. New development
should comprehensively address infrastructure improvement needs. The Transportation
54
Page 4
Expenditure Plan will carry forward Contra Costa’s Growth Management Program and
adherence to the Urban Limit Line Policy, as adopted.
10. Innovation and Technology. Embrace innovation and utilize technology to accelerate
and enhance transportation services.
55
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
56
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2015
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.2 - Brdltr.CTP Adoption Schedule.rev3.docx
Subject Approval of Revised Schedule for the 2014 Countywide Transportation
Plan (CTP) to Align with Proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan
(TEP) Schedule
Summary of Issues While the CTP and TEP involve separate approval processes, staff
recommends treating the CTP and the TEP as part of the same overall
CEQA “project” and analyzing their impacts together in one CEQA
document. The proposed process involves performing an analysis of
large projects using MTC's performance targets. The results of this
analysis will be provided to the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (RTPCs), the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC)
being created to assist in the development of a TEP, and other
stakeholders. The schedule for the 2014 CTP has been revised
accordingly for Authority review and approval.
Recommendations Review and approve the proposed revised schedule for the 2014 CTP.
Financial Implications The proposed revised CTP schedule entails additional staff time and
consultant costs, to be presented at the June 3 Planning Committee
meeting.
Options 1. Revise proposed CTP schedule
Attachments A. MTC’s Project Performance Targets
Changes from
Committee
N/A
57
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 2 of 3
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.2 - Brdltr.CTP Adoption Schedule.rev3.docx
Background
The previous 2014 CTP adoption schedule had the Authority finalizing the CTP in March 2015,
prior to commencing a TEP process. Based upon comments received, staff now recommends an
approach that would treat the CTP and the TEP as part of the same overall CEQA “project” and
analyze their impacts together in one CEQA document. Performing activities needed to
complete the CTP concurrently with development of a TEP will provide additional analysis of
project performance for consideration by the RTPCs and EPAC.
This would involve revising technical studies to account for the impacts of the recently revised
CTP project list and forthcoming TEP; evaluating projects and programs using MTC’s
performance targets (see Attachment A); identifying a financially constrained list (TEP +
potential other projects on a 2040 horizon year); analyzing differences in impacts between the
Comprehensive Transportation Project List (CTPL) and the financially constrained TEP list;
acknowledging any new potential significant impacts; and recirculating SEIR.
Anticipated Schedule
Following is a proposed schedule that aligns the CTP completion and TEP development
processes with the completion of CEQA review. Under this schedule, consideration and
potential certification of the SEIR and approval of the CTP and TEP could occur concurrently –
with a potential May 2016 certification/approval date.
Date TEP CTP
June – Nov 2015 Work with EPAC, RTPCs and
other stakeholders to develop a
Discussion Draft TEP
Evaluate the performance of
large projects and programs
using MTC’s Performance
Targets
Nov 18, 2015 Authority releases Discussion
Draft TEP for public review
Revise CTP and SEIR to
incorporate Discussion Draft
TEP
Nov – Jan 2016 Ongoing Outreach / TEP
Adjustments
58
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 3 of 3
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.2 - Brdltr.CTP Adoption Schedule.rev3.docx
Date TEP CTP
Jan 20, 2016 CCTA approves Final Draft TEP
for review and approval by cities
and the County
CCTA releases Draft SEIR and
Draft CTP for public review
Feb – April 2016 Ongoing outreach / cities and
County approval of Final Draft
TEP
45-day public review period
April 2016 Prepare responses to
comments and prepare final
May 18, 2016 CCTA Certifies Final CTP SEIR, Adopts Final CTP, Adopts Final TEP,
and forwards final Expenditure Plan and Ordinance to cities/County
for review and approval.
May – June, 2016 Cities and County approve final
Expenditure Plan and Ordinance
July 20, 2016 CCTA forwards Final TEP to BOS
for consideration on the Nov
2016 ballot
Publish Final CTP
July - Nov 2016 Educational Outreach
Nov 8, 2016 Election Day
59
PERFORMANCE TARGETS
PLAN BAY AREA – JULY 2013
Target No. Goal Description
1 Climate Protection Target #1: Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions from cars
and light-duty trucks by 15 percent.
2 Adequate Housing Target # 2: House 100 percent of the region’s projected
growth by income level (very-low, low, moderate,
above-moderate) without displacing current low-income
residents.
3 Healthy and Safe Communities
Reduce Particulate Matter
Target # 3a: Reduce premature deaths from exposure to
fine particulates (PM 2.5) by 10 percent.
Target # 3b: Reduce coarse particulate emissions (PM10)
by 30 percent.
Target # 3c: Achieve greater reductions in highly
impacted areas.
4 Reduce Injuries and Fatalities
from Collisions
Target # 4: Reduce by 50 percent the number of injuries
and fatalities from all collisions (including bike and
pedestrian).
5 Active Transport Target # 5: Increase the average daily time walking or
biking per person for transportation by 70 percent (for
an average of 15 minutes per person per day).
6 Open Space and Agricultural
Land
Target # 6: Direct all non-agricultural development
within the year 2010 urban footprint (existing urban
development and urban growth boundaries).
7 Equitable Access Target # 7: Decrease by 10 percentage points (to 56
percent from 66 percent) the share of low-income and
lower-middle income residents’ household income
consumed by transportation and housing.
8 Economic Vitality Target # 8: Increase gross regional product (GRP) by 110
percent – an average annual growth rate of
approximately 2 percent (in current dollars).
9 Transportation System
Effectiveness
Increase Non-Auto Mode Share
Target # 9a: Increase non-auto mode share by 10
percentage points (to 26 percent of trips).
Reduce VMT per Capita Target # 9b: Decrease automobile vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) per capita by 10 percent.
10 Transportation System
Effectiveness
Local Road Maintenance
Target # 10a: Increase local road pavement condition
index (PCI) to 75 or better.
Highway Maintenance Target # 10b: Decrease distressed lane-miles of state
highways to less than 10 percent of total lane-miles.
Transit Maintenance Target # 10c: Reduce the share of transit assets past
their useful life to 0 percent.
Attachment A
60
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.3 Staff Report- TEP revenue est and call for projects.docx
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2015
Subject Approval of the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
Sales Tax Revenue Estimate and Regional Transportation
Planning Committee (RTPC) Funding Targets, and Initiate
the TEP Call for Projects
Summary of Issues Section 180200 et seq. of the California Public Utilities Code
states that a transportation sales tax shall 1) provide the tax
rate, 2) specify the period during which the tax shall be
imposed, and 3) specify the purposes for which the revenue
derived from the tax will be used. To start the discussion,
staff recommends assuming a half-cent sales tax rate for a
period of 25 years that would take effect on April 1, 2017 if
passed in November 2016.
Using the recommended measure terms, staff is also
proposing to now initiate the TEP Call for Projects to the
RTPCs to collect information about candidate projects and
programs to be included in a draft TEP.
Recommendations Approve the time period of the proposed new tax, resulting
revenue estimate and initiate the TEP Call for Projects to
the RTPCs.
Financial Implications A new half-cent sales tax would generate approximately
$2.3 billion in current dollars over a 25-year period
Options Establish an alternative process for carrying out the Call for
Projects and/or approve different revenue scenario
Attachments A. Revenue estimates from a new half-cent sales tax
B. Draft TEP Call for Projects to the RTPCs
Changes from
Committee
N/A
61
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 2 of 4
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.3 Staff Report- TEP revenue est and call for projects.docx
Background
At its meeting of March 18, 2015, the Authority directed staff to undertake tasks to
develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for possible consideration on a ballot
as early as November 2016. The Authority asked staff to engage and seek input from all
affected stakeholders, including the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs), Authority standing advisory committees, a proposed Expenditure Plan Advisory
Committee (EPAC), and the general public on development of a Draft TEP.
New Measure Time Frame and Financial Constraints
To start the discussion, the Authority is assuming similar terms to Measure J where the
new measure would increase the sales tax by ½ percent for 25 years, starting on April 1,
2017 and ending on March 31, 2042 if the new measure is passed in November 2016.
Such a measure would be expected to raise approximately $2.3 billion in constant
dollars. Attachment A provides the revenue estimates for 17 years (to coincide with
expiration of Measure J), as well as 20, 25, and 30-year measures along with their
expiration dates. Staff's recommendation for a 25-year period is to provide additional
years beyond the expiration of Measure J.
The revenue estimate is based on the same financial assumptions proposed for the
development of the 2015 Measure J Strategic Plan, using the forecast updated in April
2015 by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), Inc. For a 25-year measure, the average
annual growth rate in constant dollars is forecasted at 0.9%, while the inflation rate is
assumed at 2.75% for this revenue estimate.
Under Measure J, each subregion share of projected revenues was based on its
population at the midpoint of the measure. Staff recommends the same methodology
be used for the proposed new measure. Based on ABAG’s Projection 2013, each
subregion population was estimated at 5-year intervals starting in 2015. For a new 25-
year measure starting in 2017 and ending in 2042, year 2030 represents the midpoint of
the new measure.
Population estimates for each subregion under different horizon years is shown in Table
1, while Table 2 shows each subregion share of revenues from a new 25-year measure.
62
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 3 of 4
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.3 Staff Report- TEP revenue est and call for projects.docx
Table 1: Population Estimates by Subregion*
Population 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
TRANSPLAN 305,125 318,025 331,425 345,875 361,275
TRANSPAC 314,225 322,525 340,925 359,575 379,675
WCCTAC 249,625 260,725 272,225 284,775 298,075
SWAT 216,725 222,225 228,025 234,175 241,275
TOTAL 1,085,700 1,123,500 1,172,600 1,224,400 1,280,300
* Based on ABAG Projection 2013.
Table 2: Revenue Targets By Subregion
Subregion
2030 Percentages
POPULATION
25-year New Sales Tax Measure
REVENUE ESTIMATE
( x 1,000 in constant $)
TRANSPLAN 28.25% $ 660,756
TRANSPAC 29.36% $ 686,929
WCCTAC 23.26% $ 544,032
SWAT 19.13% $ 447,366
TOTAL* 100.00% $ 2,339,083
* may not add up due to rounding
Call for Projects
The Authority is concurrently initiating a process to collect information for projects
proposed for inclusion in MTC’s 2017 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Consistent
with the Authority's past practice, the RTPCs are being asked to establish priorities
within the financial constraints of the RTP. This effort will allow each subregion to
identify its priority projects/programs that are not expected to be funded from existing
revenue sources during the 23-year RTP period (2018 – 2042) and are good candidates
to be funded from a new measure.
Since the Authority’s RTP submittal shall include all the projects, programmatic
categories, and programs that the Authority might include in a new TEP, staff proposes
to release a concurrent TEP Call for Projects where proposals for projects and programs
priorities for the creation of the draft TEP will be collected for consideration. A draft
Call for Projects is included in Attachment B.
63
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 4 of 4
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.3 Staff Report- TEP revenue est and call for projects.docx
The TEP Call for Projects requests each RTPC to provide by July 24, 2015 a list of priority
projects and programs along with funding requests for each. The funding requests shall
not exceed the RTPC revenue target shown in Table 2. The Authority will use input from
the RTPCs, transit operators, EPAC and other advisory committees to establish a
framework for a new TEP in Fall 2015.
Information about current allocations to Measure J programs, funding targets by RTPC,
known shortfalls on ongoing and upcoming Measure J projects, along with polling
results are included in the draft TEP Call for Projects.
64
REVENUE PROJECTIONS UNDER VARIOUS NEW MEASURE TERMS ($ 1,000)
Term Fiscal Year Growth Rate based
on YOE$
1/2 c Sales
Tax Rev.
YOE $
1/2 c Sales Tax
Rev.
Constant $
July 1 - June 30 ( $ x 1000 )( $ x 1000 )YOE$Constant $s YOE$Constant $s YOE$Constant $s YOE$Constant $s
2014
2015 80,417
2016 5.26%84,649 80,492
2017 4.99%88,872 82,286 22,218 20,571 22,218 20,571 22,218 20,571 22,218 20,571
1 2018 3.97%92,399 83,261 92,399 83,261 92,399 83,261 92,399 83,261 92,399 83,261
2 2019 3.97%96,066 84,249 96,066 84,249 96,066 84,249 96,066 84,249 96,066 84,249
3 2020 3.97%99,879 85,248 99,879 85,248 99,879 85,248 99,879 85,248 99,879 85,248
4 2021 3.84%103,717 86,155 103,717 86,155 103,717 86,155 103,717 86,155 103,717 86,155
5 2022 3.72%107,575 86,968 107,575 86,968 107,575 86,968 107,575 86,968 107,575 86,968
6 2023 3.72%111,576 87,789 111,576 87,789 111,576 87,789 111,576 87,789 111,576 87,789
7 2024 3.72%115,726 88,617 115,726 88,617 115,726 88,617 115,726 88,617 115,726 88,617
8 2025 3.72%120,030 89,453 120,030 89,453 120,030 89,453 120,030 89,453 120,030 89,453
9 2026 3.72%124,496 90,298 124,496 90,298 124,496 90,298 124,496 90,298 124,496 90,298
10 2027 3.72%129,127 91,150 129,127 91,150 129,127 91,150 129,127 91,150 129,127 91,150
11 2028 3.72%133,929 92,010 133,929 92,010 133,929 92,010 133,929 92,010 133,929 92,010
12 2029 3.72%138,911 92,878 138,911 92,878 138,911 92,878 138,911 92,878 138,911 92,878
13 2030 3.72%144,078 93,754 144,078 93,754 144,078 93,754 144,078 93,754 144,078 93,754
14 2031 3.70%149,402 94,617 149,402 94,617 149,402 94,617 149,402 94,617 149,402 94,617
15 2032 3.67%154,883 95,463 154,883 95,463 154,883 95,463 154,883 95,463 154,883 95,463
16 2033 3.67%160,567 96,318 160,567 96,318 160,567 96,318 160,567 96,318 160,567 96,318
17 2034 3.66%166,451 97,175 56,435 71,147 166,451 97,175 166,451 97,175 166,451 97,175
18 2035 3.66%172,551 98,040 172,551 98,040 172,551 98,040 172,551 98,040
19 2036 3.66%178,874 98,912 178,874 98,912 178,874 98,912 178,874 98,912
20 2037 3.66%185,428 99,793 139,071 74,844 185,428 99,793 185,428 99,793
21 2038 3.66%192,223 100,681 192,223 100,681 192,223 100,681
22 2039 3.66%199,267 101,577 199,267 101,577 199,267 101,577
23 2040 3.66%206,569 102,481 206,569 102,481 206,569 102,481
24 2041 3.66%214,139 103,393 214,139 103,393 214,139 103,393
25 2042 3.66%221,986 104,313 166,490 78,235 221,986 104,313
26 2043 3.66%230,121 105,241 98,899 230,121 105,241
27 2044 3.66%238,554 106,178 238,554 106,178
28 2045 3.66%247,295 107,123 247,295 107,123
29 2046 3.66%256,357 108,076 256,357 108,076
30 2047 3.66%265,752 109,038 199,314 81,779
SUM 2,061,012 1,529,945 2,661,524 1,827,769 3,686,570 2,339,083 4,913,707 2,873,559
Subregions Revenue Share From a 25-year Measure
CONSTANT $
2030 Percentages
POPULATION
25-year
Measure
REVENUE
TRANSPLAN 28.25%660,756$
TRANSPAC 29.37%686,929$
WCCTAC 23.26%544,032$
SWAT 19.13%447,366$
TOTAL*100.00%2,339,083$
* may not add up due to rounding
Coinciding with Measure J
1/2 cent (starting April 1, 2017
through March. 31, 2034)
20 years @ 1/2 cent (starting
April 1, 2017 through March 31,
2037)
25 years @ 1/2 cent (starting
April 1, 2017 through March 31,
2042)
30 years @ 1/2 cent (starting
April 1, 2017 through March 31,
2047)
Attachment A
Attachment A3.3-565
COMMISSIONERS
Julie Pierce, Chair
Dave Hudson,
Vice Chair
Janet Abelson
Newell Arnerich
Tom Butt
David Durant
Federal Glover
Karen Mitchoff
Kevin Romick
Don Tatzin
Robert Taylor
Randell H. Iwasaki,
Executive Director
2999 Oak Road
Suite 100
Walnut Creek
CA 94597
PHONE:
925.256.4700
FAX: 925.256.4701
www.ccta.net
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.3 Attachment B - TEP call for projects letter.docx
Date: May 21, 2015
To: Regional Transportation Planning Committees
From: Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director
RE: Request to Submit Candidate Projects and Programs for Consideration
in the development of a DRAFT Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
for a New Sales Tax Measure
At its meeting of March 18, 2015, the Authority directed staff to undertake tasks
to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for consideration on a
possible ballot as early as November 2016. The Authority asked staff to engage
and seek input from all affected stakeholders, including the Regional
Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs), Authority standing advisory
committees, a proposed Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC), and the
general public in development of a Draft TEP.
New Measure Time Frame and Financial Constraints
To start the discussion, the Authority is assuming the new measure would
increase the sales tax by ½ percent for 25 years, starting on April 1, 2017 and
ending on March 31, 2042. Such a measure would be expected to raise
approximately $2.3 billion in constant dollars. Exhibit A shows each subregion
share based on its population at the midpoint of the new measure.
Concurrent Activities
On May 8, 2015 the Authority released the call for projects for MTC’s Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). By aligning the TEP and RTP call for projects, each
subregion will be provided the opportunity to identify its priority projects and
programs that are not expected to be fully funded from existing revenue sources
over the RTP period (2018-2042) and are good candidates to be funded from a
new measure. Careful consideration should be given to existing Measure J
projects that are not fully funded and do not have plans to fully fund from other
existing revenue sources. A list of Measure J projects with funding shortfalls is
included in Exhibit B.
Attachment B
66
Regional Transportation Planning Committees
May 21, 2015
Page 2
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.3 Attachment B - TEP call for projects letter.docx
Specific Submittals
The Authority requests each RTPC to submit a Summary Memo and Information
Sheets by July 24, 2015 providing details on capital projects and programs it
would like to be considered for the new expenditure plan, while not exceeding
the RTPC funding target.
The Summary Memo should contain the following information:
1. Regional and/or Countywide Projects: A list of candidate projects or
project categories (including potential project concepts) of regional
and/or countywide significance, including estimated cost and prospective
sales tax funding sought;
2. Subregional and Local Projects: A list of candidate projects or project
categories (including potential project concepts) of sub-regional (i.e.
within central, east, southwest, and west county sub-areas) and local
significance, including estimated cost and prospective sales tax funding
sought;
3. Program Levels: Proposed annualized funding levels for new and ongoing
programs such as bus transit, paratransit, bicycle and pedestrian,
Transportation for Livable Communities, and local streets and roads
maintenance. Proposals should take into consideration infrastructure
condition and needs in each subregion. The RTPCs are encouraged to
invite transit operators, City County Engineers Advisory Committee of
Contra Costa (CCEAC), and other groups to help assess the various needs
in the county. For reference, Exhibit C contains percentages of annual
sales tax revenue that each Measure J programs receives, and specific
allocations in FY 2014-15.
In addition to the Summary Memo, an Information Sheet (Exhibit D) for each
candidate project and program is requested. Where specific capital projects
would be relatively small, or not well defined, aggregation of such individual
projects into project categories is recommended to increase future flexibility,
while still providing some specificity for the voters to consider. (For example,
Measure J included East County Corridors and Interchange Improvements on
Interstate 680 and SR 242.)
Polling results from a survey conducted by the Authority in March 2014 are
included in Exhibit E. This information should help to determine which projects
and programs resonate well with Contra Costa voters.
67
Regional Transportation Planning Committees
May 21, 2015
Page 3
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.3 Attachment B - TEP call for projects letter.docx
Transit Operators and other agencies should work with their respective RTPCs
during this effort. The Authority will use input from the RTPCs, transit operators,
EPAC and other advisory committees to establish a framework for a new TEP in
Fall 2015.
Authority staff is available to meet with RTPCs and RTPC Technical Advisory
Committees (TACs) to discuss this process and assist in initiating the call for
projects. Should you have any questions, please contact Hisham Noeimi at
925.256.4731 or Ross Chittenden at 925.256.4735.
Thank you in advance for your input .
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Funding Target By Subregion
Exhibit B: List of Measure J Project with Funding Shortfalls
Exhibit C: Measure J Allocations to Programs
Exhibit D: Information Sheet Form
Exhibit E: Polling Results from March 2014
68
CONSTANT $
2030 Percentages
POPULATION
25-year Measure
REVENUE (x 1,000)
TRANSPLAN 28.25%660,756$
TRANSPAC 29.37%686,929$
WCCTAC 23.26%544,032$
SWAT 19.13%447,366$
TOTAL*100.00%2,339,083$
* may not add up due to rounding
Funding Targets by Subregion
Exhibit A
Exhibit A3.3-969
MEASURE J CAPITAL PROJECTS
(YOE Dollars x 1000)
CALDECOTT TUNNEL FOURTH BORE
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
1001 Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore 125,264 0
Subtotal 125,264 0
BART - EAST CONTRA COSTA EXTENSION
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
2001 East Contra Costa Rail Extension (eBART)138,340 0
2002 Pittsburg Center Station 2,905 0
Subtotal 141,245 0
STATE ROUTE 4 EAST WIDENING
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
3001 SR 4 East Widening: Somersville Road to SR160 94,079 0
3003 SR4 East Widening: Loveridge Rd to Somersville Rd 30,643 0
Subtotal 124,674 0
CAPITOL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
4001 Hercules Rail Station 8,113 25000 *
4002 Martinez Intermodal Station - Phase 3 7,768 5000 *
Subtotal 15,979 30000
EAST COUNTY CORRIDORS
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
5002 SR4: Widen to 4 Lanes - Laurel Rd to Sand Creek Rd 4,111 0
5003 SR4: Sand Creek Interchange - Phase 1 13,786 0
5005 SR4: Balfour Road Interchange - Phase 1 37,997 13000
5006 Vasco Road Safety Improvements - Phase 1 (CC County)647 0
5010 SR4: Segments 1 and 3 25,001 0
Subtotal 102,184 13000
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT ON I-680 & STATE ROUTE 242
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
6001 I-680/SR4 Interchange Improvements - Phase 3 34,526 34000
6001 I-680/SR4 Interchange Improvements - Phase 1, 2, 4, 5 - 324000
6002/6004 SR242/Clayton Road Southbound Off-Ramp 4,940 46000
6006 State Route 4 Operational Improvements 4,616 255000 *
Subtotal 44,082 659000
I-80 CARPOOL LANE EXTENSION AND INTERCHANGE IMPROV.
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
7002 I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Improvements - Phase 1 12,282 0
7002 I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Improvements - Phase 2 - 71000
7003 I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvements 11,593 9000
7005 I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility 7,029 0
Exhibit B
70
Subtotal 30,904 80000
I-680 CARPOOL LANE GAP CLOSURE/TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPROV.
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
8001 I-680 Carpool Lane Completion/Express Lanes (Central County)32,007 0
8002 I-680 Southbound Carpool Lane Extension (Restripe)2,023 0
8003 I-680 Direct Access Ramps 20,600 90000
Subtotal 81,899 90000
RICHMOND PARKWAY
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
9001 Richmond Parkway Upgrade Study 136 0
9002 Richmond Parkway Maintenance/Upgrade 2,035 0
9003 Marina Bay Parkway Grade Separation 11,980 0
Subtotal 14,151 0
BART PARKING, ACCESS, and OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
10001 BART Parking, Access and Other Improvements - Central County 14,339 0
10002 BART Parking, Access and Other Improvements - West County 16,809 0
10003 BART Parking, Access and Other Improvements - Southwest County 3,990 0
10004 BART Parking, Access and Other Improvements - East County 2,000 0
Subtotal 37,138 0
ADDITIONAL BUS TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
19002 WestCAT Transit Capital Improvements 1,079 0
Subtotal 1,079 0
MAJOR STREETS: TRAFFIC FLOW, SAFETY, & CAPACITY IMPROV.
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
24001 Marsh Creek Road Upgrade (Clayton)1,188 0
24003 Pacheco Blvd Realignment and Widening (Contra Costa County) 5,930 19700
24004 Kirker Pass Road Truck Lanes - Northbound (Contra Costa County)6,165 4300
24005 Court Street Overcrossing - Phase 1 (Martinez)259 0
24006 Buskirk Avenue Widening - Phase 2 (Pleasant Hill)11,758 0
24007 Geary Rd. Widening - Phase 3 (Walnut Creek & Pleasant Hill)10,032 0
24008 Waterworld Parkway Bridge (Concord)3,135 0
24009 Danville Major Streets Improvements (Danville)3,552 0
24010 Olympic Blvd/Reliez Station Rd (Lafayette)2,102 0
24011 Traffic Operation and Congestion Improvements in Downtown Corridors (Lafayette)206 0
24012 Farm Bureau Road Safe Route to School Improvements 289 0
24014 St. Mary's Road/Rheem Blvd Roundabout (Moraga)450 7000
24015 Rheem Blvd Landslide Repair and Repaving (Moraga)709 700
24016 Canyon Road Bridge Replacement (Moraga)395 0
24017 Camino Pablo Pavement Rehabilitation (Orinda)2,060 0
24020 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Completion (County)1,006 0
24021 Alcosta Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation (San Ramon)2,514 0
71
24022 Crow Canyon Road Pavement Rehabilitation (San Ramon)1,414 0
24023 Norris Canyon Safety Barrier (County)1,307 0
24024 Downtown Alamo Pedestrian Safety Improvements (County)1,247 0
24025 Major Streets in East County 19,400 0
24026 Contra Costa Blvd Improvements (Pleasant Hill)1,262 0
24027 Ygnacio Valley Road Permanent Restoration - Phase 2 (Concord)2,542 0
24028 Clayton Rd/Treat Blvd/Denkinger Rd Intersection Capacity Improvements (Concord)2,368 1000 *
24029 Old Marsh Creek Road Overlay (Clayton)370 0
24030 Commerce Avenue Extension 940 0
24031 Alhambra Creek Bridge and Ferry Street Improvements (Martinez)10,041 0
Subtotal 92,641 32700
CAPITOL CORRIDOR RAIL STATION IMPROVEMENTS AT MARTINEZ
MEASURE J
TOTAL
FUNDING
SHORTFALL
27001 Capitol Corridor Rail Station Improvements at Martinez 2,892 0
Subtotal 2,892 0
Sum 904700
* Estimated actual amount may be different.
72
ALLOCATIONS TO EXISTING MEASURE J PROGRAMS IN FY 2013-14
Sales Tax Revenue (FY 2013-14)75,899,000$
% in Measure J FY 2013-14
Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements 18.0%13,661,820$
TLC 5.0%3,794,950$
Ped/Bike 1.5%1,138,485$
Bus Service 5.0%3,794,950$
Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities 5.0%3,794,950$
Express Bus 4.3%3,263,657$
Commute Alternatives 1.0%758,990$
Congestion Management, Transportation Planning, Facilities 3.0%2,276,970$
Additional Bus Transit Enhancements 3.425%2,599,541$
Additional Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities 1.150%872,839$
Safe Transportation for Children 4.545%3,449,610$
Ferry Service in West County 2.25%1,707,728$
Additional Streets and Roads Maintenance 2.09%1,586,289$
Additional TLC 0.4%303,596$
Additional Ped/Bike 0.04%30,360$
Subregional Transportation Needs 1.5%1,138,485$
Administration 1.0%758,990$
Sum 59.2%
Bold font highlights programs aimed to improve transportation services rather than capital improvements
Exhibit C
Exhibit C3.3-1373
PROJECT/PROGRAM INFORMATION FORM
ENTER NAME OF SUBREGION _____________
Subregional Priority
Project, Project Category or
Program Name
Brief Description
Eligible Components (address
degree of flexibility in Language)
Cost Estimate (specify year of
estimate)
Funding Requested (2015 $, % of
Subregion Share)
Other Likely Sources of Funding
Status in MTC 2017 RTP Specify
if project is shown in committed,
financially constrained or vision
lists)
Status of Environmental Review
and Conceptual Engineering
Exhibit D
74
SAMPLE
PROJECT/PROGRAM INFORMATION FORM
ENTER NAME OF SUBREGION: WCCTAC
Subregional Priority #1
Project, Project Category or
Program Name
I-80 Corridor High Capacity Transit Improvements
Brief Description Rail and/or bus capital and service improvements in
the I-80 and/or San Pablo Avenue Corridor
Eligible Components (address
degree of flexibility in Language)
Capital and incremental operating costs for
expansion of transit services in the I-80 and San
Pablo Avenue corridors, including feeder service to
regional routes. Components include, but are not
limited to: operational improvements to decrease
BART headways, extension of BART from Richmond
to Hercules, Light rail construction and service on San
Pablo Avenue, expansion of Capitol Corridor service,
express bus service enhancements on I-80,
expansion of local feeder service, park & ride lots
and other enhancements to transit service.
Cost Estimate (specify year of
estimate)
$XXX,XXX,XXX in 2015 $
Funding Requested (2015 $, % of
Subregion Share)
$XX,XXX,XXX
Other Likely Sources of Funding Bridge Tolls (capital), STIP, Regional Gas Tax
Status in MTC 2017 RTP Specify
if project is shown in committed,
financially constrained or vision
lists)
Included in the vision list
Status of Environmental Review
and Conceptual Engineering
A conceptual study is underway. No environmental
review has been completed.
75
5/13/2015
1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Contra Costa County Voter Research
2014 Survey 2
CCTA Projects by Region
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 2
Region Subgroups
21%
23%
32%
16%
8%
Exhibit E
3.3-1676
5/13/2015
2
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 3
Please note that due to rounding, some
percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.
Telephone survey of registered voters in Contra Costa County
Interviewing conducted March 3-10, 2014
606 total interviews countywide; Margin of Error = + 3.98 points
Weighted to reflect overall countywide likely November 2016 voter population using key
demographics
Interviewing started trained, professional interviewers
Where applicable, results compared with survey conducted January 21st – February 5th, 2014
(n=814; MoE: + 5.6 % points)
Methodology
Region Number of Interviews
(Unweighted n)
Margin of Error
(+/-)Unweighted % Weighted %
West 114 n 9.2 pts 19%17%
Central 174 7.4 29 33
San Ramon Valley 97 10.0 16 16
Lamorinda 79 11.0 13 10
East 142 8.2 23 25
Projects and Programs -
Overall
3.3-1777
5/13/2015
3
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 5
Projects/Programs - Top
Repairing of potholes is strongly supported by 2/3rds of voters.
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
68%
62%
59%
60%
55%
55%
52%
19%
24%
26%
24%
26%
26%
28%
87%
86%
86%
84%
81%
81%
81%
Q18. Repair potholes and road surfaces
Q20. Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities
Q39. Better maintain the roads and services we already
have
Q12. Fix roads
Q13. Improve highways
Q29. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to make
connections easier with less waiting
Q35. Smooth traffic flow on major roads by synchronizing
lights and adding turn lanes
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 6
Projects/Programs, cont.
Many projects and programs have support well in excess of 2/3rds.
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
56%
56%
53%
51%
54%
54%
52%
24%
24%
27%
29%
26%
25%
27%
80%
80%
80%
80%
79%
79%
79%
Q15. Reduce traffic congestion
Q16. Improve air quality
Q14. Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety
Q17. Smooth traffic flow on highways, streets, and roads
Q37. Improve major freeway intersections to smooth traffic
and reduce bottlenecks
Q11. Improve transit connections to jobs and schools
Q19. Improve parking and safety for BART riders
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
3.3-1878
5/13/2015
4
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 7
Projects/Programs, cont.
Many projects and programs have support well in excess of 2/3rds.
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
52%
47%
45%
51%
49%
46%
45%
44%
35%
36%
23%
30%
31%
23%
27%
29%
28%
28%
31%
24%
76%
76%
76%
75%
75%
75%
73%
73%
66%
60%
Q36. Install technology that keeps traffic flowing smoothly on major
roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q30. Increase parking at Contra Costa County BART stations
Q41. Improve and complete bike paths and sidewalks throughout the
county
Q10. Expand BART in Contra Costa County
Q38. Use technology to make real-time travel information more easily
available…
Q33. Improve BART stations to allow BART to accommodate more riders
and more frequent trains through the stations
Q31. Replace BART’s 40 year old rail cars
Q32. Allow more frequent BART trains to reduce waiting time on BART
platforms
Q40. Support new ferry service from points in Contra Costa County to
San Francisco
Q34. Support building housing near BART or transit stations to encourage
neighborhoods where people aren’t as dependent on their cars
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
Projects and Programs –
By Region
3.3-1979
5/13/2015
5
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 9
Top Projects and Programs By Region
West:
1. Better maintain the roads and services we
already have (91%)
2. Repair potholes and road surfaces (91%)
3. Enhance transit services for seniors and disabled
(90%)
4. Improve air quality (89%)
% Support
Central:
1. Enhance transit services for seniors and disabled
(88%)
2. Repair potholes and road surfaces (86%)
3. Fix roads (85%)
4. Better maintain the roads and services we
already have (84%)
San Ramon Valley:
1. Repair potholes and road surfaces (89%)
2. Better maintain the roads and services we
already have (85%)
3. Fix roads (82%)
4. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to
make connections easier with less waiting (81%)
Lamorinda:
1. Repair potholes and road surfaces (85%)
2. Better maintain the roads and services we
already have (84%)
3. Increase parking at Contra Costa County BART
stations (83%)
4. Fix roads (80%)
East:
1. Enhance transit services for seniors and disabled
(89%)
2. Repair potholes and road surfaces (86%)
3. Improve major freeway intersections to smooth
traffic and reduce bottlenecks (85%)
4. Reduce traffic congestion (85%)
Projects and Programs -
West
3.3-2080
5/13/2015
6
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 11
Projects/Programs – Top -West
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
61%
70%
60%
58%
56%
61%
54%
30%
20%
30%
31%
32%
26%
31%
91%
91%
90%
89%
88%
88%
85%
Q39. Better maintain the roads and services we already
have
Q18. Repair potholes and road surfaces
Q20. Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities
Q16. Improve air quality
Q15. Reduce traffic congestion
Q12. Fix roads
Q37. Improve major freeway intersections to smooth traffic
and reduce bottlenecks
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 12
Projects/Programs Continued -West
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
50%
53%
51%
55%
59%
53%
51%
47%
34%
31%
32%
28%
23%
29%
30%
32%
84%
84%
83%
82%
82%
81%
81%
79%
Q17. Smooth traffic flow on highways, streets, and roads
Q14. Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety
Q35. Smooth traffic flow on major roads by synchronizing
lights and adding turn lanes
Q19. Improve parking and safety for BART riders
Q29. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to make
connections easier with less waiting
Q11. Improve transit connections to jobs and schools
Q13. Improve highways
Q38. Use technology to make real-time travel information
more easily available…
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
3.3-21
81
5/13/2015
7
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 13
Projects/Programs Continued -West
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
54%
46%
44%
51%
52%
49%
43%
44%
40%
24%
31%
33%
24%
23%
25%
30%
28%
17%
78%
77%
77%
75%
75%
74%
73%
73%
58%
Q32. Allow more frequent BART trains to reduce waiting time on BART
platforms
Q41. Improve and complete bike paths and sidewalks throughout the
county
Q30. Increase parking at Contra Costa County BART stations
Q10. Expand BART in Contra Costa County
Q36. Install technology that keeps traffic flowing smoothly on major
roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q31. Replace BART’s 40 year old rail cars
Q33. Improve BART stations to allow BART to accommodate more riders
and more frequent trains through the stations
Q40. Support new ferry service from points in Contra Costa County to
San Francisco
Q34. Support building housing near BART or transit stations to encourage
neighborhoods where people aren’t as dependent on their cars
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
Projects and Programs -
Central
3.3-22
82
5/13/2015
8
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 15
Projects/Programs – Top -Central
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
60%
69%
63%
60%
53%
57%
55%
28%
17%
22%
25%
30%
25%
26%
88%
86%
85%
84%
83%
82%
82%
Q20. Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities
Q18. Repair potholes and road surfaces
Q12. Fix roads
Q39. Better maintain the roads and services we already
have
Q14. Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety
Q13. Improve highways
Q16. Improve air quality
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 16
Projects/Programs Continued -Central
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
57%
52%
51%
49%
43%
51%
54%
47%
23%
27%
28%
29%
35%
27%
23%
30%
80%
79%
79%
78%
78%
78%
77%
77%
Q29. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to make
connections easier with less waiting
Q11. Improve transit connections to jobs and schools
Q35. Smooth traffic flow on major roads by synchronizing
lights and adding turn lanes
Q38. Use technology to make real-time travel information
more easily available…
Q41. Improve and complete bike paths and sidewalks
throughout the county
Q17. Smooth traffic flow on highways, streets, and roads
Q36. Install technology that keeps traffic flowing smoothly
on major roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q19. Improve parking and safety for BART riders
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
3.3-23
83
5/13/2015
9
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 17
Projects/Programs Continued -Central
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
46%
53%
51%
48%
43%
45%
44%
32%
36%
30%
22%
24%
27%
32%
28%
27%
35%
24%
76%
76%
75%
75%
75%
74%
71%
67%
60%
Q33. Improve BART stations to allow BART to accommodate more riders
and more frequent trains through the stations
Q15. Reduce traffic congestion
Q37. Improve major freeway intersections to smooth traffic and reduce
bottlenecks
Q10. Expand BART in Contra Costa County
Q30. Increase parking at Contra Costa County BART stations
Q31. Replace BART’s 40 year old rail cars
Q32. Allow more frequent BART trains to reduce waiting time on BART
platforms
Q40. Support new ferry service from points in Contra Costa County to San
Francisco
Q34. Support building housing near BART or transit stations to encourage
neighborhoods where people aren’t as dependent on their cars
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
Projects and Programs –
San Ramon Valley
3.3-24
84
5/13/2015
10
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 19
Projects/Programs – Top –San Ramon Valley
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
60%
53%
48%
45%
51%
41%
46%
29%
32%
34%
36%
28%
38%
32%
89%
85%
82%
81%
79%
79%
78%
Q18. Repair potholes and road surfaces
Q39. Better maintain the roads and services we already
have
Q12. Fix roads
Q29. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to make
connections easier with less waiting
Q15. Reduce traffic congestion
Q33. Improve BART stations to allow BART to accommodate
more riders and more frequent trains through the stations
Q17. Smooth traffic flow on highways, streets, and roads
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 20
Projects/Programs Continued –San Ramon Valley
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
51%
51%
49%
50%
49%
50%
41%
44%
27%
27%
29%
27%
28%
26%
34%
30%
78%
78%
78%
77%
77%
75%
75%
74%
Q20. Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities
Q13. Improve highways
Q35. Smooth traffic flow on major roads by synchronizing
lights and adding turn lanes
Q14. Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety
Q16. Improve air quality
Q19. Improve parking and safety for BART riders
Q31. Replace BART’s 40 year old rail cars
Q37. Improve major freeway intersections to smooth traffic
and reduce bottlenecks
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
3.3-2585
5/13/2015
11
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 21
Projects/Programs Continued –San Ramon Valley
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
47%
45%
41%
36%
39%
45%
45%
32%
33%
28%
28%
32%
34%
30%
24%
22%
30%
28%
74%
73%
72%
70%
69%
69%
67%
62%
62%
Q36. Install technology that keeps traffic flowing smoothly on major
roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q11. Improve transit connections to jobs and schools
Q41. Improve and complete bike paths and sidewalks throughout the
county
Q32. Allow more frequent BART trains to reduce waiting time on BART
platforms
Q38. Use technology to make real-time travel information more easily
available…
Q30. Increase parking at Contra Costa County BART stations
Q10. Expand BART in Contra Costa County
Q34. Support building housing near BART or transit stations to encourage
neighborhoods where people aren’t as dependent on their cars
Q40. Support new ferry service from points in Contra Costa County to
San Francisco
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
Projects and Programs –
La Morinda
3.3-2686
5/13/2015
12
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 23
Projects/Programs – Top –Lamorinda
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
61%
62%
55%
64%
51%
54%
44%
24%
22%
28%
17%
29%
24%
33%
85%
84%
83%
80%
80%
78%
77%
Q18. Repair potholes and road surfaces
Q39. Better maintain the roads and services we already
have
Q30. Increase parking at Contra Costa County BART stations
Q12. Fix roads
Q35. Smooth traffic flow on major roads by synchronizing
lights and adding turn lanes
Q20. Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities
Q13. Improve highways
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 24
Projects/Programs Continued –Lamorinda
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
50%
50%
48%
50%
50%
49%
54%
45%
27%
26%
26%
25%
24%
24%
20%
28%
77%
76%
75%
75%
74%
74%
73%
73%
Q37. Improve major freeway intersections to smooth traffic
and reduce bottlenecks
Q11. Improve transit connections to jobs and schools
Q14. Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety
Q29. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to make
connections easier with less waiting
Q10. Expand BART in Contra Costa County
Q33. Improve BART stations to allow BART to accommodate
more riders and more frequent trains through the stations
Q19. Improve parking and safety for BART riders
Q17. Smooth traffic flow on highways, streets, and roads
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
3.3-27
87
5/13/2015
13
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 25
Projects/Programs Continued –Lamorinda
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
48%
47%
49%
50%
36%
51%
40%
31%
31%
23%
23%
22%
21%
33%
16%
25%
28%
23%
71%
71%
70%
70%
69%
67%
65%
59%
54%
Q15. Reduce traffic congestion
Q31. Replace BART’s 40 year old rail cars
Q36. Install technology that keeps traffic flowing smoothly on
major roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q16. Improve air quality
Q32. Allow more frequent BART trains to reduce waiting time
on BART platforms
Q38. Use technology to make real-time travel information
more easily available…
Q41. Improve and complete bike paths and sidewalks
throughout the county
Q40. Support new ferry service from points in Contra Costa
County to San Francisco
Q34. Support building housing near BART or transit stations to
encourage neighborhoods where people aren’t as …
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
Projects and Programs -
East
3.3-28
88
5/13/2015
14
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 27
Projects/Programs – Top -East
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
76%
71%
65%
65%
63%
61%
59%
14%
15%
21%
20%
22%
24%
26%
89%
86%
85%
85%
85%
85%
84%
Q20. Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities
Q18. Repair potholes and road surfaces
Q37. Improve major freeway intersections to smooth traffic
and reduce bottlenecks
Q15. Reduce traffic congestion
Q13. Improve highways
Q39. Better maintain the roads and services we already
have
Q17. Smooth traffic flow on highways, streets, and roads
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 28
Projects/Programs Continued -East
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
61%
59%
56%
65%
57%
51%
60%
50%
23%
24%
27%
17%
25%
29%
19%
28%
83%
83%
82%
82%
82%
80%
79%
78%
Q12. Fix roads
Q35. Smooth traffic flow on major roads by synchronizing
lights and adding turn lanes
Q19. Improve parking and safety for BART riders
Q11. Improve transit connections to jobs and schools
Q29. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to make
connections easier with less waiting
Q30. Increase parking at Contra Costa County BART stations
Q10. Expand BART in Contra Costa County
Q41. Improve and complete bike paths and sidewalks
throughout the county
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
3.3-2989
5/13/2015
15
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 29
Projects/Programs Continued -East
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
58%
55%
62%
55%
46%
49%
45%
36%
37%
19%
22%
15%
21%
29%
25%
27%
31%
27%
78%
77%
77%
76%
75%
74%
72%
67%
64%
Q14. Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety
Q38. Use technology to make real-time travel information more easily
available…
Q16. Improve air quality
Q36. Install technology that keeps traffic flowing smoothly on major
roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q32. Allow more frequent BART trains to reduce waiting time on BART
platforms
Q33. Improve BART stations to allow BART to accommodate more riders
and more frequent trains through the stations
Q31. Replace BART’s 40 year old rail cars
Q40. Support new ferry service from points in Contra Costa County to
San Francisco
Q34. Support building housing near BART or transit stations to encourage
neighborhoods where people aren’t as dependent on their cars
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 30
Contacts
Alex Evans
alex@emcresearch.com
510.550.8920
Sara LaBatt
sara@emcresearch.com
510.550.8924
Jenny Regas
jenny@emcresearch.com
510.550.8929
3.3-30
90
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2015
Subject Approval of the Formation of the Expenditure Plan Advisory
Committee (EPAC) and Appointment of Initial Membership
Summary of Issues At its meeting in April, the Authority directed staff to develop a proposal
for the formation of an Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) for
a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) process. The EPAC will be one
component of a comprehensive stakeholder outreach program
necessary to gain consensus on a TEP for a potential 2016 revenue
ballot measure.
Recommendations Staff recommends the Authority approve the creation of the EPAC, and
appoint individuals to establish the initial membership of the EPAC.
Financial Implications Costs associated with professional EPAC meeting facilitator will later be
determined. A separate EPAC series of meetings will incur additional
Authority and consultant staffing and reproduction costs. The
anticipated costs, when determined, will be incorporated into an
amendment for Authority Agreement No. 366 with Gray Bowen Scott.
Approximately $600,000 to $700,000 of the $1.8 million budget remains
for continued consultant support. The total cost of developing a TEP and
placing it on the ballot is likely to exceed the remaining budget. Staff
and the consultant team continue work on developing a comprehensive
work program and budget, including an EPAC meeting facilitator, for
discussion by the Authority at a future meeting.
Options 1. Instead of a formal Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee, use public
testimony at each Authority meeting to gather TEP stakeholder
input.
Attachments A. Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) Membership
Categories.
Changes from
Committee
N/A
91
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 2 of 6
Background
At its April meeting, the Authority Board directed staff to make a recommendation for the
creation of an Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) for a new Transportation
Expenditure Plan (TEP) process. The EPAC will be one component of a comprehensive
stakeholder outreach program necessary to gain consensus on a TEP for a potential 2016 sales
tax ballot measure. An EPAC was created in 2003 to advise the Authority in its development of
the TEP for the 2004 Measure J extension, contributing to the success of the ballot measure.
Formation and Purpose of the EPAC
Pursuant to its Administrative Code, the Authority may from time to time establish advisory
committees as it deems necessary or advisable. The purpose of the proposed EPAC is to advise
the Authority regarding the development of a TEP. As proposed, the EPAC represents a broad
range of stakeholders in Contra Costa and helps fills the need for outreach and ongoing contact
with key groups that have a stake in development of a TEP and subsequent transportation sales
tax measure. While there are many ways that the Authority will be initiating and maintaining
important discussions with key stakeholders, the use of the EPAC is an efficient way to host the
extensive discussion, necessary for creating a new TEP.
Advantages of establishing and engaging an EPAC include:
Providing a single committee where multiple and varied interests can express their
opinions and priorities.
Serving as a forum for the multiple points of views regarding transportation in Contra
Costa and how to spend potential transportation sales tax revenues.
Creating a process to involve a diverse set of stakeholders that are not regularly or
formally involved in the Authority processes, or those of the Regional Transportation
Planning Committees (RTPCs) and other Authority advisory committees.
Providing structure by being staffed with a professional facilitator with a goal of
developing consensus around the transportation projects and programs that can be
included in the TEP.
Promoting a consensus building process through a formally recognized group that could
provide future support for the TEP.
Proposed Charter/Ground Rules for the EPAC
Experience dictates that the organization and conduct of the EPAC should be through an open
and transparent process built upon the Authority's culture of inclusiveness, accountability and
92
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 3 of 6
transparency. Since it is expected that members of the EPAC will have divergent opinions on a
variety of policy and investment considerations needed to develop the TEP, a well facilitated,
consensus based process is recommended. Staff proposes that the EPAC conduct its business in
an open, public forum, and that a neutral facilitator be retained to organize meetings, facilitate
a professional discussion and report findings and recommendations to the Authority Board.
Staff and the consultant team recommend that the Authority, in its formation of the EPAC,
adopt the following ground rules for organization and conduct of EPAC business:
Membership in the EPAC is open to key stakeholder groups working in Contra Costa on
the many issue areas identified by the Authority. The Authority will solicit the Contra
Costa stakeholder community for interest in participating on the EPAC and when
identified, appoint members to the EPAC committee.
Meetings will be open to the public and held at the Authority offices. Meetings will
follow a format similar to other advisory committees: publically posted on the Authority
web page, streamed live and recorded for archive purposes. In the event that facilities
at the Authority cannot accommodate the number of attendees for EPAC meetings,
arrangements will be made to hold the meetings at an alternative location that is
convenient and accessible. Members of the public and RTPCs and other advisory
committees who are not EPAC members will be encouraged to attend the meetings and
provide input through a “public comment” agenda item and on individual items.
The EPAC is an advisory body only. It will not make final decisions on its own; rather, it
will forward recommendations to the Authority through its facilitator.
As an advisory body, the EPAC will not take formal votes. Instead, it will work to develop
a consensus regarding the issues it addresses. Where no consensus emerges, varying
points of view will be presented to the Authority.
It is anticipated that the EPAC will meet from June through November or December
2015. Additional meetings will be proposed if needed.
In order to ensure continuity in EPAC discussions, EPAC members and their alternates,
will be asked to make a commitment to attend all EPAC meetings, unless they are
unable to do so due to unforeseen circumstances. Other individuals who cannot commit
to regular attendance are welcome to attend the EPAC meetings as members of the
public, but will not be considered members of the EPAC.
A professional facilitator will be retained to help organize and conduct EPAC meetings.
The facilitator will be responsible for meeting logistics and for making reports to the
Authority on EPAC deliberations.
The EPAC will not, as a body, undertake studies or take positions on issues beyond those
covered by the EPAC's charter. Individual EPAC members may contact the Authority or
93
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 4 of 6
other entities on other issues as individuals. However, the role of the EPAC as a whole
will be limited to the advisory function stipulated by the Authority.
EPAC Committee Composition
A proposed EPAC membership category list is included as Attachment A. A list of the specific
individuals for each category is not available as of the date of mail-out for the May Authority
meeting.
Staff proposes that the Authority approve the appointments to the committee as members are
identified. The makeup of the committee membership will be based on the level of interest and
availability of stakeholders (stakeholder categories and ultimately, the individuals that would
represent each category). The overall membership is intended to be a balanced representation
of key stakeholders representing a broad range of issues and interests in Contra Costa. It is
envisioned that the EPAC would include 15 -20 members (and a similar number of alternates),
however, this could increase based on the interest and availability of key stakeholders .
The Authority could amend the membership of the EPAC throughout the TEP development
process if needed.
At the May 20, 2015 Authority meeting, staff intends to nominate specific individuals who have
made a commitment to participate in the EPAC process for the categories listed in Attachment
A.
Existing Authority Standing and Advisory Committees
In addition to the EPAC, the Authority has multiple existing advisory committees that will also
provide input to the Authority, and ultimately the investments identified in a TEP. These other
committees include representatives from throughout the county, with interests in various
modes of travel. The additional standing and advisory committees include:
Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs);
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC);
Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC);
Bus Transit Coordinating Committee (BTCC);
Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC); and
Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CBPAC).
94
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 5 of 6
Established groups such as the Conference of Mayors, Public Managers Association (PMA) and
the Contra Costa Engineers Advisory Committee (CCEAC), among others, will likely develop
positions and provide input into the TEP process.
Schedule
The following general schedule details EPAC related milestones:
May
Authority approves creation of the EPAC, initial stakeholder categories and appointment
of the identified individual representatives for those categories
June
First EPAC meeting
July to November
Meetings would occur about once a month and last for approximately two hours each.
Meetings are proposed to occur until a Draft TEP is developed
95
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 6 of 6
Attachment A
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) Membership Categories
EPAC Membership Categories *:
Business
Labor
Social Justice
Environmental
Taxpayers
Goods Movement
Disability
Public Health
Elderly
Transit
Development
Bike/Pedestrian
Faith-based Groups
Youth Advocacy
Education
* Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and their Technical Advisory
Committees (TACs), Contra Costa County, cities, existing Authority advisory committees, and
transit agencies would provide input through their own independent processes, including
council and board meetings, Mayors Conference, Public Managers Association (PMA), Contra
Costa Engineers Advisory Committee (CCEAC) etc.
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Adopted Positions on Legislation of Interest – 2015 (Information Updated from Last Month is in bold/italics) Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes AB 2 (Alejo) Community Revitalization Authority Staff Recommendation: Watch Pending Support AB 148 (Holden) School Facilities: General Obligation Bond Measure Pending SB 8 (Hertzberg) Taxation Pending Watch AB 4 (Linder) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service Watch Watch Support & Seek Amendment AB 6 (Wilk) Bonds: Transportation: School Facilities Watch Watch AB 8 (Gatto) Emergency Services: Hit-and-Run Incidents Pending Watch AB 21 (Perea) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit: Scoping Plan Staff Recommendation: Watch Pending Watch AB 23 (Patterson) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Staff Recommendation: Watch Staff Recommendation: Oppose Pending Watch AB 33 (Quirk) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Scoping Plan Pending Watch AB 157 (Levin) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Watch Support & Seek Amendment SB 1 (Gaines) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Staff Recommendation: Watch Staff Recommendation: Oppose Pending Watch SB 5 (Vidak) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Staff Recommendation: Watch Staff Recommendation: Oppose Pending Watch SB 9 (Beall) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Seeking more information Watch Watch 107
Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes SB 16 (Beall) Department of Transportation Support Support SB 32 (Pavley) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit Support Pending Watch SB 39 (Pavley) Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Watch Watch Oppose SB 40 (Gaines) Air Quality Improvement Program: Vehicle Rebates Pending Watch SB 114 (Liu) Education facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016 Staff Recommendation of Watch Watch SB 16 (Beall) Transportation funding Support Support SB 632 (Cannella) Vehicles: prima facie speed limits: schools. Support Support Watch Legislation based on CCC proposal SB 654 (De Leon) Hazardous waste: facilities permitting Watch Watch CA ACA 4 (Frazier) Local government transportation projects: special taxes: voter approval Pending/Support Support SB 313 (Galgiani) Local government: zoning ordinances: school districts Support Watch Watch AB 1344 (Jones) County office of education: charter schools Staff Recommendation of Oppose Oppose Oppose AB 194 (Frazier) High-occupancy toll lanes Watch Watch AB 227 (Alejo) Transportation funding Pending Watch AB 518 (Frazier) Department of Transportation Watch Watch AB 1284 (Baker) Bay Area state-owned toll bridges: Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee Watch G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2015.docx 108
Status actions entered today are listed in bold.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
1. CA AB 2 Community Revitalization Authority
Authorizes certain local agencies to form a community
revitalization authority with a community
revitalization and investment area to carry out
provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law in
that area for infrastructure, affordable housing, and
economic revitalization and to provide for the issuance
of bonds serviced by tax increment revenues.
04/22/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on LOCAL
GOVERNMENT: Do pass
to Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
2. CA AB
148
K14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016
Reduces the minimum amount that a school district
must set aside for ongoing and major maintenance of
school buildings in a fiscal year. Authorizes a grant for
new construction or modernization to be used for
seismic mitigation. Requires an interagency plan to
streamline the school facilities construction application
and review process. Enacts the K14 School
Investment Bond Act of 2016 to provide funds for the
construction and modernization of education facilities.
03/26/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on
EDUCATION with
author's amendments.
03/26/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time and
amended. Rereferred to
Committee on
EDUCATION.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
3. CA AB
325
Community Development Block Grant Program:
Funds
Requires the Department of Housing and Community
Development, after notifying an applicant for a
community development block grant, to enter into a
grant agreement with the applicant. Requires the
Department to provide the applicant with a complete
and final list of activities to complete to receive a
disbursement of funds. Requires the Department to
notify the grantee has approved a disbursement or
provide the grantee with a complete and final list of all
remaining activities to be completed.
04/16/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT with
author's amendments.
04/16/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time and
amended. Rereferred to
Committee on HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
4. CA AB
1362
Local Government Assessments Fees and
Charges
Defines stormwater for purposes of the Proposition
218 Omnibus Implementation Act to mean any
system of public improvements or service intended to
provide for the quality, conservation, control, or
conveyance of waters that land on or drain across the
natural or manmade landscape.
03/23/2015
To ASSEMBLY
Committee on LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
5. CA SB 8 Taxation
Expands the Sales and Use Tax Law to impose a tax
on the gross receipts from the sale in the State or, or
the receipt of the benefit in the State of services at a
specified percentage rate.
02/19/2015
Rereferred to SENATE
Committee on
109
GOVERNANCE AND
FINANCE.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
6. CA AB 4 Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt
Service
Prohibits weight fee revenues from being transferred
from the State Highway Account to the
Transportation Debt Service Fund, 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 weight fee revenues to the General
Fund.
01/16/2015
To ASSEMBLY
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
7. CA AB 6 Bonds: Transportation: School Facilities
Provides that no further bonds shall be sold for high
speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, Reliable
HighSpeed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st
Century. Requires the net proceeds of other bonds to
be made available to fund construction of school
facilities for K12 and higher education.
04/20/2015
In ASSEMBLY
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION:
Failed passage.
04/20/2015
In ASSEMBLY
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION:
Reconsideration granted.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
8. CA AB 8 Emergency Services: HitAndRun Incidents
Authorizes a law enforcement agency to issue a
Yellow Alert if a person has been killed or has suffered
serious bodily injury due to a hitandrun incident and
the law enforcement agency has specified information
concerning the suspect or the suspect's vehicle.
03/23/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION: Do
pass to Committee on
PUBLIC SAFETY.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
9. CA AB 21 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Emissions Limit
Requires the State Air Resources Board to prepare and
approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum
technologically feasible and costeffective reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions.
04/13/2015
In ASSEMBLY
Committee on NATURAL
RESOURCES: Not heard.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
10. CA AB
23
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Compliance
Exempts categories of persons or entities that did not
have a compliance obligation under a marketbased
compliance mechanism from being subject to that
marketbased compliance mechanism.
03/23/2015
In ASSEMBLY
Committee on NATURAL
RESOURCES: Failed
passage.
03/23/2015
In ASSEMBLY
Committee on NATURAL
RESOURCES:
110
Reconsideration granted.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
11. CA AB
28
Bicycle Safety: Rear Lights
Requires that a bicycle operated during darkness upon
a highway or a sidewalk be equipped with a red
reflector, a solid red light, or a flashing red light on the
rear that is visible for a specified distance to the rear
when directly in front of lawful upper beams of
headlamps on a motor vehicle.
04/22/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION with
author's amendments.
04/22/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time and
amended. Rereferred to
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
12. CA AB
33
Global Warming Solutions Act: Climate Council
Establishes the Climate Change Advisory Council.
Requires the Council to develop an analysis of various
strategies to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas
emissions limit. Requires the State Air Resources
Board to establish consistent metrics to accurately
quantify reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
quantify public health benefits, and measure the cost
effectiveness of the various strategies identified by
the Council.
04/06/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on NATURAL
RESOURCES with
author's amendments.
04/06/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time and
amended. Rereferred to
Committee on NATURAL
RESOURCES.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
13. CA AB
157
RichmondSan Rafael Bridge
Requires the lead agency to complete the design work
for the project simultaneously with the environmental
review conducted pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act if the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the Department of
Transportation develop a project to open the third
lane on the RichmondSan Rafael Bridge to
automobile traffic on the eastbound level and to
bicycle traffic on the westbound level.
03/26/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
third time, urgency
clause adopted. Passed
ASSEMBLY. *****To
SENATE.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
14. CA AB
227
Transportation Funding
Retains weight fee revenues in the State Highway
Account. Deletes the provisions relating to the
reimbursement of the State Highway Account for
weight fee revenues and relating to the making of
loans to the General Fund, thereby providing for the
portion of fuel excise tax revenues that is derived
from increases in the motor vehicle fuel excise tax in
2010 to be allocated to the State Transportation
Improvement Program, to the State Highway
Operation Program, and to city and county roads.
04/15/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time and
amended. Rereferred to
Committee on BUDGET.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action111
15. CA AB
323
Environmental Quality Act: Exemption
Amends the California Environmental Quality Act that
exempts a project or an activity to repair, maintain, or
make minor alterations to an existing roadway, if the
project of activity is carried out by a city or county
with a specified population to improve public safety
and meets other specified requirements, to extend
the that exemption to a specified date.
04/22/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time. To Consent
Calendar.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
16. CA AB
327
Public Works: Volunteers
Deletes that repeal date provision of existing law that
governing public works does not apply to specified
work performed by a volunteer, a volunteer
coordinator, or a member of the California
Conservation corps or a community conservation
corps.
02/23/2015
To ASSEMBLY
Committee on LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
17. CA AB
464
Transactions and Use taxes: Maximum
Combined Rate
Amends existing law that authorizes cities and
counties, and if specifically authorized, other local
government entities, to levy a transactions and use
tax for general purposes, in accordance with the
procedures and requirements set forth in the
Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a
requirement that the combined rate of all taxes
imposed in the county to not exceed a specified
percentage. Increases the maximum combined rate.
04/13/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on REVENUE
AND TAXATION: Do pass
to Committee on LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
18. CA AB
518
Department of Transportation
Amends existing law authorizing a local agency to
enter into an agreement with the appropriate
transportation planning agency to use its own funds
to develop, and construct a project within its own
jurisdiction. Deletes a provision requiring the
department to compile information and report to the
Legislature.
03/05/2015
To ASSEMBLY
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
19. CA AB
1088
Education Facilities: Bond Act: Greene Act
Requires, for purposes of determining existing school
building capacity, the calculation to be adjusted as
required for first priority status, relating to multitrack
yearround schools. Requires the existing school
building capacity for a high school district to be
calculated without regard to multitrack yearround
school considerations.
04/22/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on
EDUCATION with
author's amendments.
04/22/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time and
amended. Rereferred to
Committee on
EDUCATION.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
20. CA AB
1119
Public Utilities: Rights of Way
Specifies the terms municipal corporation and
municipality include a county. Requires a municipal
corporation, before using any street, alley, avenue, or
04/16/2015
Rereferred to
112
highway within any other municipal corporation, to
request of the municipal corporation that has control
over the street, alley, avenue, or highway to agree
with it upon the location of the use and the terms
and conditions to which the use shall be subject.
ASSEMBLY Committee
on LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
21. CA AB
1284
Bay Area StateOwned Toll Bridges
Provides that the Toll Bridge Program Oversight
Committee is subject to the BagleyKeene Open
Meeting Act.
04/08/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time and
amended. Rereferred to
Committee on LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
22. CA AB
1344
County Office of Education Charter Schools
Extends the authorization of a governing board of a
school district to render a city or county zoning
ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of school
district property, except when the proposed use is for
nonclassroom facilities to the governing board of a
county office of education. Prohibits a county office
from rendering such ordinance inapplicable to a
charter school facility, unless the school is physically
with the jurisdiction of the office.
04/22/2015
In ASSEMBLY
Committee on
EDUCATION: Not heard.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
23. CA AB
1347
Public Contracts Claims
Establishes for state and local public contracts a claim
resolution process applicable to all public entity
contracts. Defines a claim. Provides the procedures
that are required of a public entity, upon receipt of a
claim sent by registered mail. Provides an alternative
claim procedure if the public entity fails to issue a
statement. Requires the claim deemed approved in its
entirety. Authorizes nonbinding mediation. Provide a
public works contractor claim procedure.
04/21/2015
From ASSEMBLY
Committee on
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW with author's
amendments.
04/21/2015
In ASSEMBLY. Read
second time and
amended. Rereferred to
Committee on
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
24. CA ACA
4
Local Government Transportation Projects:
Special Taxes
Provides that the imposition, extension, or increase of
a special tax for the purpose of providing funding for
local transportation projects requires the approval of
55% of its voters voting on the proposition.
04/06/2015
To ASSEMBLY
Committees on
TRANSPORTATION,
REVENUE AND
TAXATION and
APPROPRIATIONS.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
113
25. CA SB 1 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Compliance
Amends the State Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006. Authorizes the State Air Resources Board to
include the use of marketbased compliance
mechanisms. Exempts categories of persons or
entities that did not have a compliance obligation
under a marketbased compliance mechanism from
being subject to that marketbased compliance
mechanism. Requires all participating categories of
persons or entities to have a compliance obligation
beginning on a specified date.
01/15/2015
To SENATE Committee
on ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
26. CA SB 5 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Compliance
Relates to the State Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006. Authorizes the State Air Resources Board to
include the use of marketbased compliance
mechanisms. Exempts categories of persons or
entities that did not have a compliance obligation
under a marketbased compliance mechanism from
being subject to that marketbased compliance
mechanism through a specified date.
04/15/2015
In SENATE Committee
on ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY: Failed
passage.
04/15/2015
In SENATE Committee
on ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY:
Reconsideration granted.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
27. CA SB 9 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund:
Transit/Intercity Rail
Modifies the purpose of the Transit and Intercity Rail
Capital Program. Provides for the funding of defined
large, transformative capital improvements. Updates
project selection criteria under the program to
projects that reduce greenhouse emissions. Requires
estimates of funding available under the program.
Allows the issuance of a no prejudice letter to allow an
applicant to utilize its own funds on a project subject
to reimbursement from program funds for eligible
expenditures.
04/15/2015
From SENATE
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING with author's
amendments.
04/15/2015
In SENATE. Read second
time and amended. Re
referred to Committee
on TRANSPORTATION
AND HOUSING.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
28. CA SB
16
Transportation Funding
Creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Program and a related fund for deferred highway and
local road maintenance. Provides for an increase in
motor vehicle fuel tax, a vehicle registration fee,
commercial vehicle weight fees. Transfers a portion of
the diesel fuel tax increase to the Trade Corridors
Investment Fund. Increases the vehicle license fee
over a specified time period for transportation bond
debt service. Relates to allocation for supplemental
project allocation requests.
04/15/2015
From SENATE
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING with author's
amendments.
04/15/2015
In SENATE. Read second
time and amended. Re
referred to Committee
on TRANSPORTATION
AND HOUSING.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
114
29. CA SB
32
Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006:
Emissions Limit
Requires the State Air Resources Board to approve a
specified statewide greenhouse gas emission limit that
is equivalent to a specified percentage below the 1990
level to be achieved by 2050. Authorizes the Board to
adopt interim emissions level targets to be achieve by
specified years.
03/16/2015
From SENATE
Committee on
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY with author's
amendments.
03/16/2015
In SENATE. Read second
time and amended. Re
referred to Committee
on ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
30. CA SB
39
Vehicles: HighOccupancy Vehicle Lanes
Increases the number of vehicle identifiers that the
Department of Motor Vehicle is authorized to issue for
HOV lane usage.
04/21/2015
From SENATE
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING: Do pass to
Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
31. CA SB
40
Air Quality Improvement Program: Vehicle
Rebates
Requires incentives for qualifying zeroemission,
batteryelectric passenger vehicles under the Clean
Vehicle Rebate Project of the Air Quality Improvement
Program to be limited to vehicles in that category with
a manufacturer's suggested retail price of a specified
amount. Requires the rebate for certain vehicles to be
a specified sum, subject to the availability of funds.
04/06/2015
From SENATE
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING with author's
amendments.
04/06/2015
In SENATE. Read second
time and amended. Re
referred to Committee
on TRANSPORTATION
AND HOUSING.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
32. CA SB
114
Education Facilities: Kindergarten Through
Grade 12
Revises the definition of modernization under the
Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 to
include replacement of certain facilities. Requires a
school district to certify that is has a certain school
facilities master plan that is consistent with a certain
sustainable communities strategy. Makes changes
concerning evaluation of certain costs, eligibility, a
statewide school facilities inventory, grants for seismic
mitigation purposes, funding of jointuse facilities, and
the use of certain bonds.
04/22/2015
From SENATE
Committee on
GOVERNANCE AND
FINANCE: Do pass to
Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
33. CA SB
119
Protection of Subsurface Installations
Relates to excavation. Provides for certain training
requirements, fines, and license suspension. Makes 04/20/2015
115
changes relating to a regional notification center and
subsurface installations. Provides for delineation of
areas to be excavated, preservation of certain plans,
damages, an exemption for certain residential
property owners, occupational safety and health
standards for excavators, and the use of moneys
collected as a result of the issuance of citations.
Creates a relates complaint authority.
From SENATE
Committee on
JUDICIARY with author's
amendments.
04/20/2015
In SENATE. Read second
time and amended. Re
referred to Committee
on JUDICIARY.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
34. CA SB
194
Vehicles: HighOccupancy Vehicle Lanes
Makes technical, nonsubstantive changes to existing
law that authorizes local authorities and the
Department of Transportation to establish exclusive or
preferential use of highway lanes for highoccupancy
vehicles on highways under their respective
jurisdictions.
02/19/2015
To SENATE Committee
on RULES.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
35. CA SB
313
Local Government: Zoning Ordinances: School
Districts
Conditions the authorization to render a city or
county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed
use of school district property upon compliance with a
notice requirement regarding a schoolsite on
agricultural land. Requires the governing board of a
district to notify a city or county of the reason the
board intends to take a specified vote at least a
certain number of days prior to that vote.
04/22/2015
From SENATE
Committee on
EDUCATION: Do pass as
amended to Committee
on GOVERNANCE AND
FINANCE.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
36. CA SB
321
Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes: Rates: Adjustments
Relates to motor fuel tax rates. Requires the State
Board of Equalization to adjust the rate in a manner
as to generate an amount of revenue equal to the
amount of revenue loss attributable to an exception
that reflects the combined average of the actual fuel
price over previous fiscal years and the estimated fuel
price for the current fiscal year. Relates to revenue
neutrality.
04/23/2015
In SENATE. Read second
time and amended. Re
referred to Committee
on APPROPRIATIONS.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
37. CA SB
564
Vehicles: School Zone Fines
Requires that an additional fine be imposed if a certain
violation occurred when passing a school building or
school grounds and the highway is posted with a
standard warning sign and an accompanying sign
notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for
traffic violations that are committed within that
school zone. Requires the funds from additional fines
be deposited in the State Highway Account for
funding school zone safety projects within the Active
Transportation Program.
04/14/2015
From SENATE
Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING: Do pass to
Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS.
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
38. CA SB
595
Vehicles: Prima Facie Speed Limits: Schools
Makes technical nonsubstantive changes to existing
law concerning the prima facie speed limit when
approaching or passing a school.
03/12/2015
To SENATE Committee
on RULES.116
Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action
39. CA SB
632
Vehicles: Prima Facie Speed Limits: Schools
Allows a city or county to establish in a residence
district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30
miles per hour or slower, a 15 miles per hour prima
facia limit when approaching at a distance of less than
500 feet from, or passing, a school building or the
grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted
with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit
of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or
leaving the school, either during school hours or
during the noon recess period.
04/14/2015
In SENATE Committee
on TRANSPORTATION
AND HOUSING: Not
heard.
117
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:06/01/2015
Subject:Grant Application for the Action Transporation Program
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 2
Referral Name: Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be
prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development
Departments
Presenter: Mary Halle, Associate Civil Engineer Contact: Mary Halle
(925)313-2327
Referral History:
In 2014, the committee authorized submittal of applications for the first cycle of the Active
Transportation Program, (hereafter ATP). Similar to last year, the PWD provides a staff report
with recommendations for candidate projects and requests authorization to submit these
applications to compete for both Statewide and Regional funding awards.
Referral Update:
The call for projects for the ATP was released on March 26, 2015 for Cycle 2 funding. The ATP
program consists of State and Federal funds that represent a consolidation of programs including
Safe Route 2 School, Bicycle Transportation Account, Transportation Alternatives Program, and
several other programs packaged into one call for projects. Cycle 1 of this program was highly
competitive with 771 applications submitted statewide and less than 20% awarded funding.
The competitive rating criteria for the ATP program emphasizes the following goals:
Increased proportion of trips accomplished through walking and biking,
Increased safety and mobility for non-motorized users,
Advance active transportation efforts to achieve green-house gas reduction goals,
Enhance public health,
Ensure that disadvantage communities fully share in the benefits of the program, and
Provide a broad spectrum of benefits to many types of users.
Competitive projects must also demonstrate the ability to deliver the project within the required
time constraints and must provide the California Conservation Corps with an opportunity to
partner on the project during the construction phase. Grant applications are due to the State and
MTC on June 1, 2015.
118
RECOMMENDED CANDIDATE PROJECTS:
The following candidate projects were considered and evaluated for competitiveness and the
ability to deliver the project prior to the funding deadline. The most critical milestone in project
delivery corresponds to the date when Caltrans’ authorization to proceed with construction must
be achieved. For this cycle, the deadline for Authorization to Proceed with Construction will be
March 2018.
Fred Jackson First Mile/Last Mile Connection Project
Fred Jackson Way First Mile/Last Mile Pedestrian Connection Project will remove barriers to
pedestrians and provide access to affordable housing, transit, schools, employment, shopping,
regional trails, senior center, and community facilities. The existing sidewalks in this area of
North Richmond represent barriers to mobility impaired users as the sidewalk width is only three
feet with power poles located in the middle of the sidewalk. The proposed First Mile/Last Mile
Pedestrian Connection Project will eliminate this barrier and utilize excess lane width and parking
width to narrow the road and expand the sidewalks to eight feet wide. The widening of sidewalks
on Fred Jackson Way will extend approximately 1,400 feet from Grove Street to the Wildcat
Creek Trail. The project may extend an additional 1,400 feet north of Wildcat Creek and Verde
Elementary School to connect to the proposed Urban Tilth Project which is scheduled to begin
construction in 2016.
The Urban Tilth Project is an Organic Farm to Table, non-profit organization which trains and
employs local youth in organic farming techniques. Extension of the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements to Brookside Drive will help residents commute to work or travel a short distance
to purchase fresh produce. Staff is still evaluating the addition of this element to the current
project scope.
North Richmond is identified as a Community of Concern and a Priority Development Area. The
proposed project will provide residents with improved access to safely walk their first mile and
last mile of their commute. Mode choices will reduce impacts to the environment such as
green-house gas emissions and at the same time improve public health by fighting obesity with an
active lifestyle.
Appian Way Complete Streets Project
Staff has worked over the years with the community of El Sobrante and the City of Pinole in
developing planning studies for Appian Way. Staff is currently developing the complete streets
concept for Appian Way that was first identified in a study conducted by Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) in collaboration with the County and the City of Pinole, and
approved by the Board in December of 2013, as part of a General Plan Amendment in the El
Sobrante area. Preliminary engineering plans have been prepared to determine the scope and
location of bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Appian Way. The plans were presented at
two public workshops and to the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council in the fall of last year.
The planning efforts have included the full extent of Appian Way from San Pablo Dam Road to
the City of Pinole; however, this grant application is focused on improvements on Appian Way,
from San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Road. This proposed project would formalize
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure which includes closing the many gaps in sidewalk along this
119
stretch of Appian Way and also proposes countermeasures for past pedestrian collisions. The
project includes installation of bulb outs at major crossing locations to minimize the crossing
distance for pedestrians which will also calm traffic. Consistent with complete streets policies,
this project would assure that the transportation corridor is accessible for all modes and all users
with an emphasis on a pedestrian friendly environment and ADA access. This projects is located
adjacent to a Priority Development Area. Staff will continue to work with the El Sobrante
Municipal Advisory Council in moving these planning efforts forward.
Pacheco Boulevard Pedestrian Bridge/culvert extension east of Las Juntas Elementary
This segment of Pacheco Boulevard is the last remaining gap in pedestrian facilities along the
unincorporated portion of Pacheco Boulevard, west of Arthur Road. School administrators and
the parent community at Las Juntas Elementary School requested this improvement because the
secondary access through the adjacent residential neighborhood has been closed. Currently, the
sidewalk and road shoulder terminates on each side of Vine Hill Creek and students must walk on
the narrow road shoulder adjacent to high volume vehicle and truck traffic. The project will
require several permits from various state and federal regulatory agencies in order be allowed to
work in the streambed to extend the culvert. The CTC criteria for Disadvantaged Communities
was changed this last year so this area now qualifies as a Disadvantaged Community.
Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project
Similar to other projects considered, this proposed project would close the last remaining gap in
pedestrian and bike facilities on Pacifica Avenue between Driftwood Drive and Port Chicago
Highway in Bay Point. Completing the proposed section near Rio Vista Elementary School and
Inlet Drive will satisfy all of the goals established with the ATP program as the improvements
will encourage a mode shift towards non-vehicular travel, benefit a community of concern and
serve all three public school within a quarter mile of the project: Riverview Middle School, Shore
Acres Elementary, and Rio Vista Elementary School. This project rated well in Cycle 1 for ATP
and was listed on the contingency list of projects.
Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project
Over the past several years, County staff has been working in close collaboration with Caltrans to
improve safety and circulation of pedestrians and bicyclists along Bailey Road through the State
Route 4 (SR4) Interchange. The Bay Point community has indicated that the existing pedestrian
tunnel under the SR4 westbound loop off-ramp is significantly underutilized. The project
proposes to remove the existing pedestrian tunnel and install sidewalk and Class II bike lanes
along Bailey Road where the off-ramp currently rests. This will allow pedestrians and bicyclists to
travel in a direct path along Bailey Road between Canal Road and the nearby Bay Point/Pittsburg
BART Station.
The intersection of Bailey Road, the BART station entrance, and the SR4 eastbound loop
off-ramp will also be augmented to provide safer circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists. The
existing free flow right turn lanes will be removed from the off-ramp and BART entrance to
eliminate conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians on Bailey Road. The Bay Point community will
benefit from better pedestrian and bicycle access through the interchange to nearby Bel Air
Elementary School, the Delta De Anza Regional Trail, and the Bay Point/Pittsburg BART
Station.
PROJECTS CONSIDERED:
All of the projects considered were assessed based upon the scoring rubric established by the
CTC (below):
120
CTC (below):
Demonstrate the project will successfully shift mode choice, 30 points
Reduce rate of injury, 25 points
Project developed through a community based process, 15 points
Ability to improve public health for targeted users, 10 points
Benefits a disadvantaged community, 10 points
The project is cost effective, 5 points
Local funds are leveraged, 5 points
Projects were also assessed on their ability to meet the project delivery schedule. The projects
determined to be the most competitive are identified on the list of recommended projects. All of
the remaining projects represent important infrastructure needs in our area; however, it is
important to narrow the list of candidates so that quality applications can be prepared as it an
extensive grant application.
The following projects will be further developed and considered for future cycles of ATP grant
funding:
Danville Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements
Through a series of four workshops with the Alamo community, pedestrian improvements on
Danville Boulevard through downtown Alamo were identified as a community priority along with
various pedestrian safety improvements at school sites. The overall vision is to minimize conflict
locations between vehicles and pedestrians along Danville Boulevard in the downtown area. This
includes considerations to install a roundabout at Orchard Lane and extend curbs to create wider
sidewalks and bulb outs to reduce crossing distance, along with increased signage and traffic
calming measures. This “key” project for Alamo will require extensive community based design
efforts that may be conducted prior to submittal of applications for ATP Cycle 3.
San Miguel Drive Pedestrian Improvements
This project would include expansion of road shoulder along San Miguel Drive to provide an area
adjacent to the traveled way for pedestrians to walk from home to school, shopping, medical
offices, a regional trail and community facilities. The proposed project would extend
approximately 5,000 feet through relatively steep terrain which would require segments of
retaining walls to support an expanded shoulder. The project would require removal of
approximately 20 trees adjacent to the roadway. The community has shown interest in the project;
however, they are currently researching how they might be able to work together to provide a less
formal access area that will minimize impact to the area. Accordingly, staff will not move forward
with an application for this cycle of ATP but continue to work with the community as their plans
move forward.
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Connection between IHT and Lafayette-Moraga Trail
The County has been working with the cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette over the last two
years to develop a trail connection concept plan to join two regional trails: Iron Horse Trail and
the Lafayett/Moraga Trail. With the assistance of a consultant, several workshops have been
conducted and a formal review process completed this year. DCD Staff is working with the
consultant to identify a first phase project and potentially prepare an ATP application.
Pedestrian Improvements at I-680/Treat Overcrossing
County staff and CCTA have been working together over the past year to conduct community
121
workshops and identify potential infrastructure improvements to serve bicyclists and pedestrians
using the Treat Boulevard/I-680 corridor between the Iron Horse Trail, through the Interstate-680
(I-680) over-crossing ("over-crossing") near the Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART station
area, and extending west to Geary Road/North Main Street in the City of Walnut Creek. The
I-680/Treat Boulevard over-crossing is one of the main arteries into the Contra Costa
Centre/Pleasant Hill BART station area from areas of Walnut Creek west of the freeway.
The Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART Area Specific Plan identifies a need for a future
bicycle and pedestrian circulation route along this segment of Treat Boulevard. The Contra Costa
Centre/Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan contains policies and recommendations that encourage
improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation access to, through, and from the Specific Plan area.
The proposed Plan would support and help implement these policies and recommendations. In
addition, the City of Walnut Creek adopted policies in their General Plan 2025 that support this
project.
The concept plan should be adopted within the coming months. Although the improvements
identified through this planning process would be ideal for shifting travel modes to bicycle and
pedestrian, it was determined the project status is not ready for the timeline required for an ATP
award. Staff will continue working to further scope this project and ready it for the next cycle
opportunity through ATP or Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC).
Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure
Significant progress has been made over the last five years to construct a bike lane and shoulder
on Camino Tassajara. This project proposes to finish the four remaining gaps in bike lane
improvements north of Windemere Parkway. The completion of an extensive bike lane project
would be a significant accomplishment to finally link all the pieces together. Past projects were
funded through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) which focuses funding
towards locations with a collision history.
The segments already completed were those segments with the highest collision rate. Completing
these gaps in one extensive project would represent a large project cost but also represent an
overall cost savings as compared to completion of a separate environmental processes for each of
the individual segments. It would be beneficial to have NEPA studies underway for this project
prior to submittal of a grant application in order to assure project delivery on time.
Port Chicago Highway at Willow Pass Bike & Ped improvement Project
The proposed improvements include closing a gap in pedestrian and bicycle improvements within
a hub in the center of Bay Point. The improved access proposed for pedestrians and bicyclists
links immediately to the Delta De Anza Trail which connects to the BART station within a mile
of the project. The Trail links the project to schools on Pacifica Avenue and also improves access
to transit. The project is located in a Community of Concern and supported by adjacent school
communities, the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee, and the project was initiated by the
Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council. NEPA and preliminary engineering are already
underway with authorization to proceed through Caltrans from a Safe Route 2 School grant. This
project also scored well in Cycle 1 of the ATP process and was placed on the contingency project
list. MTC has indicated that there are funds remaining from Cycle 1 and this project was selected
from the contingency list to receive funding. For this reason, this project was shifted from the
Recommended Project List to the list of considered projects.
NEXT STEPS:
122
If authorized to proceed, staff will prepare preliminary designs and cost estimates for the
application package. As described in past years, Staff maintains a data base of past grant
applications, categorized by specific program and Supervisorial District. We will continue to
monitor geographic equity in grant opportunities. Some funding opportunities are aimed towards
disadvantaged communities or Priority Development Areas which focuses project selection to
those areas; however, we strive to reach geographic equity as we balance opportunities through
other available grant programs which allow a more broad geographic selection.
Staff will continue to develop the remaining projects with the intent of becoming more
competitive in future cycles.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to
submit to Caltrans and MTC grant applications for the Active Transportation Program (ATP),
Cycle 2.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The ATP program no longer requires a local match for funding; however, one of the scoring
categories is based upon leverage of local funds. In order to be competitive, the County should
pledge local funds in the range of 10-15%, using Area of Benefit Funds when applicable. During
preparation of the grant application, staff will determine the appropriate local match that can be
financially supported by the road fund account to create a competitive application package.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
123
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:06/01/2015
Subject:AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, to submit grant applications to
Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 7
funding cycle.
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 2
Referral Name: Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be
prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development
Departments.
Presenter: Angela Villar, Associate Civil
Engineer
Contact: Angela Villar
(925)313-2016
Referral History:
The review of transportation grants is a standing referral item of TWIC.
Referral Update:
The Public Works Department has historically submitted grant applications for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) Program. On July
6, 2012, the new federal surface transportation act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st
Century (MAP-21), was signed. MAP-21 established the HRRR Program as part of the HSIP
Program, making it no longer a separate set-aside as in the previous federal surface transportation
act.
This is the seventh cycle of the HSIP and includes the federal funding intended for the High Risk
Rural Road (HRRR) eligible projects. HSIP is a core federal-aid program to the States for the
purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs)
and must be identified on the basis of crash history.
Changes to Funding Selection Process
HSIP funds are eligible for work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian
pathway or trail with the goal of improving the safety for its users. Greater emphasis is being
placed on low cost safety projects that can be designed and constructed expeditiously. Projects
should not require the acquisition of significant rights of way, nor should they require extensive
environmental review and mitigation. Also, typical road projects, such as shoulder widening and
curve realignment projects, are now being required to show an incremental approach of lower
124
cost improvements that have been installed and have not proved to be effective before higher cost
improvements will be considered for funding.
Examples of eligible type of projects may include, but are not limited to, the following list:
Intersection safety improvements
Pavement and shoulder widening
Installation of rumble strips or other warning devices
Installation of a skid-resistant surface
Improvement for bicycle or pedestrian safety
Elimination of hazards at a railway-highway crossing
Traffic calming features
Elimination of roadside obstacles
Highway signage and pavement markings
Traffic control or other warning devices
Installation of guardrails, barriers, and crash attenuators
The minimum request for federal funds still remains at $100,000, however, the maximum request
amount has been increased to $10 million, with a maximum amount of federal funds to any one
agency also set at $10 million.
Project selection is awarded solely on the benefit/cost (B/C) ratio calculated for each project based
on the value of benefits calculated from the volume and type of injuries that have occurred within
a project’s limits and the cost of the proposed project improvements. Last year, there was no
minimum B/C ratio required for submittal of a HSIP grant application. This year, applications
must have a minimum B/C ratio of 5 or greater to be considered in the selection process.
Public Works Staff utilized the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) maintained by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS) published through the University of California, Berkeley to identify the
list of roadway segments and intersections within unincorporated Contra Costa County with the
highest number of collisions.
The County roadways with the highest volume of collisions from 2009-2014 are identified below:
Kirker Pass Road1.
Marsh Creek Road2.
Bailey Road3.
Vasco Road4.
San Pablo Dam Road5.
Highland Road6.
Camino Tassajara7.
Danville Boulevard8.
Deer Valley Road9.
Treat Boulevard10.
The County intersections with the highest volume of collisions from 2009-2014 are identified
below:
Bailey Road/Canal Road1.
Treat Boulevard/Oak Road2.
San Pablo Dam Road/Appian Way3.
4.125
Treat Boulevard/Jones Road4.
Byron Highway/Camino Diablo5.
Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue6.
Vasco Road/Camino Diablo7.
Evora Road/Willow Pass Road8.
Treat Boulevard/Cherry Lane9.
Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road10.
The CHP collision reports were reviewed to determine the typical cause of collisions and
potential countermeasures. Many of the roadways and intersections listed already have funding
identified for projects to address safety improvements. Staff utilized the collision data, requests
from the community, and discussions with the County Traffic Engineer to evaluate potential
safety improvement projects that would compete well for funding.
Project Recommendations
The Public Works Department recommends the following projects as candidates for Cycle 7 of
HSIP funding. If authorized to proceed, staff will prepare preliminary designs and cost estimates
for the application package. If during project research prior to the application deadline, staff
discovers a critical constraint that would result in the project being cost prohibitive or will not
meet the eligibility requirements of the funding program, staff will hold the application for further
study to increase project readiness for the following grant cycle.
The five projects recommended (in no particular priority order), based upon collision history and
initial project scoping, include:
Byron Highway/Byer Road Intersection Improvements1.
This project is located along Byron Highway near Byer Road, adjacent to Excelsior Middle
School, Byron Area (Supervisorial District 3). The project proposes to widen the roadway to
provide a left-turn pocket from southbound Byron Highway onto eastbound Byer Road to
facilitate school traffic entering Excelsior Middle School on Byer Road. The project will also
widen the roadway to provide a paved pedestrian pathway along the east side of Byron Highway
and will require utility relocation, fence relocation, and right-of-way acquisition along the
frontage of the school. The Principal of Excelsior Middle School has requested the project and the
Byron Union School District is also supportive of the project.
San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Closure2.
This project is located along San Pablo Dam Road between Appian Way and May Road, El
Sobrante Area (Supervisorial District 1). The project proposes to fill gaps in the sidewalk along
San Pablo Dam Road to create a continuous pedestrian pathway along both sides of the roadway.
Gaps in sidewalk force pedestrians to walk in the roadway next to fast moving vehicles. The
project will also look at installing additional street lighting to increase visibility and safety of
pedestrians walking along the roadway at night.
Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements3.
This project is located along Byron Highway between Byron Hot Springs Road and the Contra
Costa/Alameda County Line, Byron Area (Supervisorial District 3). The project proposes to
restripe the centerline of the roadway with no passing lanes and install centerline rumble strips to
reduce collisions caused by crossing over the centerline of the roadway.
126
The project will also replace existing regulatory and warning signs with high reflectivity signs to
increase visibility at night. A number of collisions along this segment of Byron Highway have
occurred in 2015 causing severe injuries and road closures contributing to congestion along the
roadway.
Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements4.
This project is located along Marsh Creek Road between Pine Lane and Camino Diablo, Clayton
and Brentwood Areas (Supervisorial District 3). The project proposes to install centerline rumble
strips along the existing centerline of the roadway to avoid illegal passing and drifting over the
centerline. To increase awareness and visibility at night, the project will also replace existing
regulatory and warning signs with high reflectivity signs and install an advance flasher at the
Deer Valley Road intersection.
Bay Point Sign Reflectivity Upgrades5.
This project is located on various County roadways located in the Bay Point area (Supervisorial
District 5). The project proposes to replace existing regulatory and warning signs to meet new
retroreflectivity standards on various roadways. Signs can degrade over time due to sunlight,
weather, and environmental damage; decreasing their visibility to drivers. New sign
retroreflectivity standards have been adopted to provide fluorescent sheeting to increase visibility
at night. The project proposes to conduct a roadway safety signing audit to inventory the existing
signs along the selected roadways, measure the retroreflectivity of existing signs, and determine
which signs need to be upgraded to current standards.
Grant Distribution
Staff maintains a data base of past grant applications, categorized by specific grant programs and
Supervisorial District. We will continue to monitor geographic equity in grant opportunities.
Some funding opportunities are aimed towards disadvantaged communities or Priority
Development Areas which focuses project selection to those areas; however, we strive to reach
geographic equity as we balance opportunities through other available grant programs which
allow a more broad geographic selection. Staff will continue to develop the remaining projects
with the intent of becoming more competitive in future cycles.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit grant applications to
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) Cycle 7 funding cycle .
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The applications for HSIP funds require a 10% local match. The maximum grant amount for any
single project is $10,000,000. Any funding received from an HSIP grant would be combined with
other funds, such as Measure J, Area of Benefit funds, other grants, or local road funds.
The projects recommended for submittal are in the cost range of $250,000 to $1,500,000. For each
of these projects, Public Works will apply for the unfunded project costs, up to $10,000,000,
which is the maximum amount HSIP will award to any single agency project.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.127
No file(s) attached.
128
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:06/01/2015
Subject:AUTHORIZE Grant applications to the US Department of Transportation for
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program funds
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 2
Referral Name: Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be
prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development
Departments.
Presenter: Nancy C. Wein, Senior
Civil Engineer
Contact: Nancy C. Wein, (925) 313-2275,
nwein@pw.cccounty.us
Referral History:
The review of transportation grants is a standing referral item of TWIC.
Referral Update:
The newly issued Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2015 appropriated
$500 million in Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant funds
to be awarded by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) for National Infrastructure
Investments. This appropriation is similar, but not identical to previous TIGER grant programs
funded in past years pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. TIGER
grant funds are awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant impact on
the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region.
Program Description
Since the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program was first created, $4.1 billion has been awarded
for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure over six rounds of competitive
grants. The TIGER Discretionary Grant Program seeks to award projects that advance the DOT’s
long term priorities for the nation’s transportation system found in DOT’s FY2014-2018 Strategic
Plan. The selection criteria (based on the DOT Strategic Plan goals) are as follows:
Primary Selection Criteria
State of Good Repair
Economic Competitiveness
Quality of Life
Environmental Sustainability
129
Safety
Secondary Selection Criteria
Innovation
Partnership
In addition, project applications are required to provide a Benefit Cost Analysis to quantify the
project benefits in respect to the total project costs. Throughout the TIGER program, grant awards
have supported innovative projects, including multimodal and multijurisdictional projects that are
difficult to fund through traditional Federal programs. Successful TIGER projects leverage
resources, encourage partnership, catalyze investment and growth, fill a critical void in the
transportation system, or provide a substantial benefit to the nation, region or metropolitan area in
which the project is located.
TIGER grants may not be less than $10 million or more than $200 million, except for projects in
rural areas where the minimum grant size is $1 million. No more than 25% of the funds made
available will be awarded to projects in a single state. Not less than 20% of the funds are for
projects located in rural areas. TIGER funds may be used for up to 80% of the costs of a project
and only non-federal funds are eligible as the local match. Eligible projects include highway or
bridge projects (bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be included), passenger and freight rail
transportation projects, port infrastructure investments and intermodal projects.
The 2015 TIGER program gives consideration to projects that seek to improve access to reliable,
safe, and affordable transportation for disconnected communities in urban, suburban or rural
areas. The Public Works Department has submitted grant applications for safety improvements to
the TIGER grant program in the past and has not been successful.
Project Recommendations
The Public Works Department recommends the following two projects as candidates for the 2015
TIGER Discretionary Grant Program:
1. Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project - Phase 2
2. Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lane Project
Both of the recommended projects are located in rural areas and are regional roadways benefiting
multiple jurisdictions. Design of both these projects is already underway and significant funding
shortfalls exist in order to construct the projects.
If authorized to proceed, Staff will submit TIGER grant applications on June 5 to the DOT.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has selected the Vasco Road Safety
Improvements Project - Phase 2 to receive MTC regional endorsement, in addition to other
candidate projects from the nine bay area counties. The Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lane
Project was not chosen.
The two projects are described in more detail below.
130
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project - Phase 2 (Supervisor District III)
Vasco Road is a rural arterial extending from the State Route 4 south of Brentwood to Interstate
580 in Alameda County. With driver speeds ranging from 50-80 miles per hour and limited sight
distance, Vasco Road has a long history of collisions from vehicles crossing the centerline into
oncoming traffic. Collisions that occur are severe, causing road closures and significant delays to
users.
Phase 1 of the project was completed in 2011. Phase 2 is the next phase of the project and will
continue the concrete median barrier in the northerly direction through the existing 3-lane
segment (approximately 1.5 miles). Phase 2 will widen the existing roadway to provide the space
necessary to construct a median barrier while maintaining the current number of travel lanes.
Associated signing, striping, turn pockets, retaining walls, drainage improvements, wildlife
mitigation, bridge widening, and barrier end-treatments will be constructed as necessary to
accommodate the installation of the median barriers.
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lane Project (Supervisor District IV, V)
Kirker Pass Road is an interregional route between Central and East Contra Costa County. The
roadway is used by commuters and approximately 1,200 trucks each day. The mountainous terrain
features a number of sustained grades greater than 8%. With a high volume of passenger cars, the
truck traffic along the roadway contributes to significant congestion during peak hours. The
addition of truck lanes along the roadway would reduce congestion and improve safety along the
roadway.
The project will improve safety and reduce congestion along Kirker Pass Road by constructing a
truck climbing lane in the northbound direction. The project is approximately 1 mile in length,
beginning at the Concord Pavilion and ending at the northern Hess Road intersection. Pavement
widening is proposed on the east side of the roadway to provide a 12-foot truck lane and 8-foot
paved shoulder. Widening will require significant retaining walls due to the existing slopes and
drainage adjacent to the roadway.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit the two grant
applications to DOT for the TIGER Discretionary Grant program.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Applications for TIGER grant funds require a 20% local match. Public Works Staff recommends
requesting $11.3 million in TIGER funds for the Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project –
Phase 2 as shown below. Measure J sales tax and Gas Tax would be used as the local match in the
total amount of $3.7 million.
131
Funding Plan - Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project - Phase 2
Public Works Staff recommends requesting $6.6 million in TIGER funds for the Kirker Pass
Road Northbound Truck Lanes Project as shown below. Measure J sales tax and Gas Tax funds
would be used as the local match in the amount of $8.1 million.
Funding Plan - Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Project
Rural
TIGER
funds
requested
(Federal)
Measure J
Sales Tax
(Local)
STIP
(Regional)
Gas Tax
(Local)Total
Total
Construction
Cost
(millions)
$ 6.6 $ 6.2 $ 2.7 $ 1.9 $17.4
Percentage (%)38%36%16%10%100%
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Rural
TIGER
funds
requested
(Federal)
Measure
J
Sales Tax
(Local)
Gas Tax
(Local)Total
Total
Construction
Cost (millions)
$ 11.3 $ 1.5 $ 2.2 $15.0
Percentage (%)75%10%15%100%
132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9.
Meeting Date:06/01/2015
Subject:Pedestrian-Rail Safety
Submitted For: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 14
Referral Name: Freight transportation issues, including but not limited to potential increases
in rail traffic such as that proposed by the Port of Oakland and other possible
service increases, safety of freight trains, rail corridors, and...
Presenter: Robert Sarmiento, Planner Contact: Robert Sarmiento
(925)674-7822
Referral History:
At the April 3, 2014 TWIC meeting, Supervisor Andersen and Supervisor Piepho directed the
Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff to review the issue of pedestrian-rail
safety in the County and report back with information regarding the current state of pedestrian-rail
safety in the County and any improvements that could be made. At the October 9, 2014 TWIC
meeting, Robert Sarmiento, DCD staff, reported on educational, enforcement, and engineering
efforts that could be undertaken to prevent pedestrian-rail incidents. The Supervisors responded to
the report with recommendations, specifically to:
1. Pursue the Operation Lifesaver Grant and other safety-related grants,
2. Coordinate with Contra Costa Television (CCTV) to broadcast safety outreach on its TV
channel, and
3. Approach the local refineries for assistance for safety outreach and efforts.
Referral Update:
1. Pursue the Operation Lifesaver Grant and other safety-related grants;
DCD staff is monitoring the Operation Lifesaver website for upcoming safety grant opportunities
and will apply when available. In the meantime, DCD staff is pursuing a safety grant opportunity
with the Union Pacific Railroad Company that is due by August 14.
2. Coordinate with CCTV to broadcast safety outreach;
DCD staff met with CCTV staff on April 23 to discuss outreach opportunities. DCD staff
133
DCD staff met with CCTV staff on April 23 to discuss outreach opportunities. DCD staff
presented a draft Pedestrian-Rail Safety Public Safety Announcement (PSA) (Attachment A) that
would be used on the CCTV channel. CCTV will look at similar outreach efforts from other
jurisdictions and transit agencies and mirror them. CCTV will provide DCD staff with a number
of outreach options, with varying magnitude, along with their costs. CCTV and DCD staff will
continue to work together on this outreach effort.
3. Approach the local refineries for assistance for safety outreach and efforts;
DCD staff contacted the local refineries to determine if they can provide any pedestrian-rail safety
enhancements on the railroad tracks that go to or are in proximity to their refinery, but the
refineries responded that since the tracks are not within their jurisdiction, they cannot implement
any enhancements. DCD will follow up with the refineries to see if they can provide some
funding assistance for any forthcoming safety outreach efforts that the County will undertake.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE update on Pedestrian-Rail Safety issues and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Current activities are accommodated within the existing budget. As the County moves to specific
implementation steps, any fiscal impacts will be disclosed.
Attachments
Attachment A Pedestrian Rail Safety PSA
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142