HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 12072015 - TWIC Agenda Pkt
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
December 7, 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. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and
Development)
4. REVIEW record of meeting for November 2, 2015, Transportation, Water and
infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better
Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be
attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and
Development).
5. RECEIVE Report on PG&E Coordination with Cities and County for Street
Light Maintenance and on PG&E Implementation of Letter of Understanding
(Susan Cohen, Department of Public Works).
6. RECEIVE yearly update on the County’s IPM Program from the IPM
Coordinator, receive report on status of public comment/concerns and take
ACTION as appropriate. (Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator)
7. ACCEPT report on I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan and take
ACTION as appropriate. (Jamar Stamps, Department of Conservation and
Development)
8. CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham,
Department of Conservation and Development).
9. CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the Committee
for 2015. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
10. REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2016 Calendar (John
Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).
11. CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2016, and take
ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and
Development)
12.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, January 4th, 2016.
13.Adjourn
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff
person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 96 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
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
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:Administrative Items. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development).
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD 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.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for November 2, 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, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each
County Body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must
accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting.
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:
http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the November 2, 2015
Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
11-2-15 TWIC Sign-In Sheet
Nov 2015 TWIC Meeting Record
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
November 2, 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: Peter Engel, CCTA
Matt Slattengren,CC County Agriculture,Weights/Mea
Steve Reymann,CC County Agriculture, Weights/Mea
Gil Rocha, CC County Agriculture,Weights/Mea
Stephen Kowaleski, CC County Public Works Dept
Carrie Ricci, CC County Public Works Dept
Julie Bueren, CC County Public Works Dept
Robert Sarmiento, CC County DCD,Transportation Div
Kristine Solseng, CC County DCD, GIS Mapping
Rich Seithel, CC County DCD, Economic Dev
Maureen Toms, CC County DCD, Transportation Div
John Cunningham, CC County DCD, Transportation Div
1.Introductions
Please see attached sign-in sheet, hand-outs and "Attendees" section, above.
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda. (speakers may
be limited to three minutes)
3.Administrative Items, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the September 8, 2015 Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
After correcting the September 8, 2015 meeting record to reflect Supervisor Piepho's absence, the Committee
unanimously approved the record.
5.ACCEPT a report on the status of implementing a regional taxicab permitting process in Contra Costa
County; AUTHORIZE staff to continue working with the regional taxicab work group to evaluate the
feasibility of establishing a joint taxicab permitting process, including, but not limited to, delegating the
County’s permitting authority to a new or existing legal entity; DIRECT staff to return to the Committee
once the regional workgroup has developed final options for consideration by County jurisdictions. (Tim
Ewell, Department of Public Works)
The Committee unanimously approved the recommendations with the following comments: 1) consider the
The Committee unanimously approved the recommendations with the following comments: 1) consider the
pros/cons of a Joint Powers Agreement vs. a Memorandum of Understanding in the context of how many
taxi's operate in the County, 2) how will new ride sharing services will be affected by a new local regulatory
structure, and 3) identify areas where the state may preempt local jurisdictions, and 4) communicate with the
constituent that originally raised the issue.
6.ACCEPT report on the implementation of Measure WW Park Project List and Expenditure Plan for the
Unincorporated Areas of the county and RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution
providing Authorization to apply for local grand funds from the East Bay Regional Park District under
Measure WW Park Bond Extension. (Kristine Solseng, Department of Conservation and Development)
The Committee accepted the report and unanimously approved the staff recommendations with the comment
that staff should broadcast the role of the county in the projects through signage, district newsletters and any
other available forms of communication.
Don Mount, County Resident, commented that these positive projects should be promoted in a newspaper
article.
7.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. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
(John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
The Committee received the State report from Mark Watts (update on the Special Session/Conference
Committee, Iron Horse Corridor issues), and County staff (Contra Costa Transportation Authority -
Transportation Expenditure Plan).
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, December 7, 2015.
9.Adjourn
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the
staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 96 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
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
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the
maintenance of PG&E street lights in Contra Costa County.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 13
Referral Name: MONITOR implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the
maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa County.
Presenter: Susan Cohen, Department of Public
Works
Contact: Susan Cohen
(925)313-2160
Referral History:
Board of Supervisors accepted 2014 status report on street light maintenance by PG&E in
coordination with Cities (Countywide) on June 16, 2015.
Referral Update:
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) requested Public Works staff to
report annually on the status of street light maintenance coordination efforts with PG&E. Staff
reported at the December 4, 2014 meeting regarding this item.
Background:
The Letter of Understanding (LOU), dated February 2008, between PG&E and the County, states
the commitment of PG&E for open communication and responsive service levels and actions in
resolving issues related to street light performance. Communication channels have continued to
remain open by conducting regular discussions at street light coordination meetings with the
County and its constituent Cities and Towns. However, in 2015, there was a change in the
frequency of these meetings at the request of PG&E.
Continuing the effort initiated in May 2008 and since reporting to TWIC on December 4, 2014,
the County Public Works Department, PG&E and the Cities met in January, March and April
2015. The July meeting was cancelled at the request of PG&E and the October meeting was also
cancelled. City attendance was high at the March 2015 meeting when PG&E rolled out the plan to
do LED installations countywide.
Because of the generally low City attendance at the meetings, Public Works assembled a City
survey which was reviewed by PG&E. The goal of this survey is to determine if Cities and the
County should continue to meet to discuss street light issues and if so, to determine the best way
to conduct the meetings, who should attend, how often should meetings be held, identify topics to
discuss that would be of value, etc. The plan is to poll the Cities on what topics of interest they
would like to hear as well as if the meetings are necessary and/or productive.
The LOU with PG&E was established in 2007/8 and partial implementation has occurred over the
past seven years. Staff recommends that it would be desireable review results and revise the
PG&E LOU in 2016.
Ongoing concerns by the County including the following:
1. Reporting of outages and request for status/update
With the improvements in the notification process, PG&E’s Streetlight Maintenance Department
now sends emails to County staff when street lights are repaired but only when requests on
outstanding repairs are sent to PG&E. Staff would recommend an automatic response system,
whereby when a light is repaired, the County is notified. County staff continues to assist PG&E
by providing a list of outstanding cases and requests their status.
2. Light Emitting Diode (LED) Financing and related legislation, specifically AB 719 update
AB 719, approved by the Governor on October 7, 2013 and now a chaptered law, requires the
PUC to order electrical corporations to submit tariffs by July 2015 to be used to fund energy
efficiency improvements in street light poles owned by the electrical corporations. PG&E has
been asked to present updates at the PG&E City/County Street Light Coordination meetings;
however, a complete report about this legislation and the plan to implement has not been
forthcoming.
3. CPUC updates
The CPUC approved a tariff for the conversion of PG&E-owned (LS-1) high pressure sodium
vapor (HPSV) lights to LED throughout the state in 2012. As of August 2014, PG&E has an
approved rate schedule for doing the conversions of HPSVs to LEDs and that work is underway
in Contra Costa County and its Cities.
4. Letter of Understanding (LOU) with PG&E
PG&E plans to do LED replacements on LS-1 (PG&E owned lights) over a three-year period.
Starting with the pilot project in Bay Point in Spring 2015, the unincorporated area work
continues and is expected to be completed in 2016.
The summary of goals and target dates for the street light service level commitment per the LOU
indicated that some of the goals have been achieved and others are now out of date. Website
updates and responsiveness to repair requests should also be addressed. New product choices, e.g.
decorative lights, would be a desirable item for the new goals per the LOU. PG&E repair rates
over the past four years could be reviewed, as well as development of a capital replacement plan
for older equipment including street light poles (wood or painted). The review of the LOU should
be a cooperator, joint PG&E/County effort.
Conclusion:
The County, Cities, and PG&E are committed to continue the well-organized and efficient system
for street lights. PG&E’s reorganization and relocation of the call center in 2012 continues to
provide ongoing program improvements in the timeliness and reporting of street light repairs.
Another step forward would be if PG&E would routinely report on work done, rather than
needing a list requesting updates on repairs.
In light of the LED replacements being installed and the review of summary of goals and target
dates as per the 2008 LOU, it is suggested that the County and PG&E review and revise the
document so that it’s in line with current efforts.
By working together to develop improvements in street lighting, Cities, the County and PG&E are
able to improve the delivery of excellent quality street lighting throughout the County.
Next Steps:
1. PG&E and the County should continue to coordinate on the LED replacement projects
throughout the County.
2. PG&E, Cities and the County should coordinate on and pursue changes to the LOU to reflect
the challenges of 2015 and beyond.
3. PG&E Street Light Coordination meetings should be reconsidered in light of the results of the
polling of Cities which will be done in early 2016. Based on the results of the poll, County will
identify meeting preferences from Cities and return to TWIC to present a plan going forward.
There may be other ways that City and County staff can collaborate on street light issues,
assuring cost effective methods for providing energy efficient street lighting and safety for the
residents and visitors to the County and City.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE Report on PG&E Coordination with Cities and County for Street Light Maintenance
and on PG&E Letter of Understanding (LOU) and provide DIRECTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No impact on the general fund. All costs for street lights are funded by County Service Area
L-100 or Community Facilities District 2010-1.
Attachments
BO-LOU with PGE streetlights 4-8-08
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:Integrated Pest Management Report
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 8
Referral Name: Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management Policy.
Presenter: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator Contact: Tanya Drlik
(925)335-3214
Referral History:
The TWI Committee has asked the Integrated Pest Management Coordinator to update the
Committee yearly on the County's integrated pest management program.
Referral Update:
The IPM Coordinator will present the IPM Annual Report to TWI (see attached report).
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT Integrated Pest Management report, and take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
NONE.
Attachments
td2015-11-20 IPM Annual Report-Final
td2015-11-20 County Staff Responses to PfSE Concerns
td2000-2015 CCC Operations Pesticide Use Data Spreadsheet
2015 IPM Annual Report 1
Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee
2015 Annual IPM Program Status Report
to the
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
History of the IPM Advisory Committee ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Background on the IPM Advisory Committee .......................................................................................................................... 4
IPM Advisory Committee Priorities for 2015 ............................................................................................................................. 4
2015 Accomplishments of the IPM Advisory Committee and the IPM Coordinator ............................................. 5
2015 Department IPM Program Highlights and Challenges ............................................................................................ 8
Pesticide Use by Contra Costa County Operations ............................................................................................................ 23
Departmental Integrated Pest Management Priorities For 2016.................................................................................. 29
Attachment A. Pest Management Decision Making Document .................................................................................... 31
Using Grazing Animals for Vegetation Management ......................................................................................................... 31
Attachment B. Subcommittee Reports ...................................................................................................................................... 37
Attachment C. Pesticide Use Reporting ................................................................................................................................... 49
2015 IPM Annual Report 2
2015 IPM Annual Report 3
Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee
2015 Annual IPM Program Status Report
to the
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
Executive Summary
Work of the IPM Advisory Committee
This year, the IPM Advisory Committee explored
• How pest management decisions are being made in the County,
• Sustainable landscaping for County buildings,
• Reducing turf around County buildings, and
• Bed bug issues in the County.
In 2012, the Committee developed a form for documenting pest management decisions. Since then, the
Departments have been using this form to document decisions for various pests. This year, the Public Works
Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division developed a document for grazing as a vegetation
management tool. The Committee recommends that the Departments continue to use the form to document pest
management decisions in the Departments.
In this fourth and historically worst year of drought in California, the IPM Advisory Committee made
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on increasing the use of sustainable landscaping and reducing turf
around County buildings. The Grounds Division undertook a pilot turf conversion at the Pittsburg Health Center
where about 70% of the turf was removed and replaced with drought-tolerant and mulched landscaping. This
project is estimated to save one million gallons of water per year.
The IPM Committee researched bed bug legislation in other jurisdictions around the U.S. and drafted a County
ordinance based on California Assembly Bill 551. AB 551 may be passed next year, in which case the work of the
Committee will inform the implementation of the law in Contra Costa. If AB 551 fails to pass, the County will
have the draft of an ordinance that can comprehensively address many of the legal questions surrounding bed bug
treatment.
Pesticide Use Reduction by County Operations
Since FY 00-01, County operations have reduced their pesticide use by 72 %. During the same time period, they
have reduced their use of “Bad Actor” pesticides by 84%.
Departmental IPM Programs
The Department of Agriculture has revised its noxious weed program and will be concentrating efforts on
contracted work for parkland and municipalities within the County.
Because of the drought, Argentine ants were a particular problem for the Facilities Division. The lack of food and
water outside forced ants indoors in large numbers. Pestec, the County’s structural IPM Contractor, used baits
coupled with education for County staff to combat the ant invasions.
The Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division continues to incorporate grazing into its vegetation
management program. This year it used goats to abate weeds on approximately 436 acres and is increasing its
knowledge and experience with this management tool. Drought conditions continue to select for weedier and
more difficult to control species along the roads and flood control channels. The extremely dry soil conditions
have prevented the growth of some weeds, and without competition, the hardier weeds have more room and
freedom to grow.
2015 IPM Annual Report 4
History of the IPM Advisory Committee
From 2002 to 2009, an informal IPM Task Force met to coordinate implementation of the IPM Policy that was
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November 2002. The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Advisory
Committee, a formal body, was created by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. This report is the sixth
annual status report from the IPM Coordinator and the IPM Advisory Committee.
Background on the IPM Advisory Committee
Purpose of the IPM Advisory Committee
The purpose of the Committee is to
1. Protect and enhance public health, County resources, and the environment;
2. Minimize risks and maximize benefits to the general public, staff, and the environment as a result of
pest control activities conducted by County staff and contractors;
3. Promote a coordinated County-wide effort to implement IPM in the County in a manner that is
consistent with the Board-adopted IPM Policy;
4. Serve as a resource to help the Agriculture and Public Works Departments and the Board of
Supervisors review and improve existing pest management programs and the processes for making
pest management decisions;
5. Make policy recommendations upon assessment of current pest issues and evaluation of possible IPM
solutions; and
6. Provide a forum for communication and information exchange among members in an effort to
identify, encourage, and stimulate the use of best or promising pest management practices.
Members of the IPM Advisory Committee
Currently the Committee has a total of 13 seats consisting of voting and non-voting members.
The 8 voting members include
• One representative from Contra Costa Health Services,
• One representative from the County Storm Water Program,
• One representative from the County Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board,
• One representative from the County Fish and Wildlife Committee,
• One representative from an environmental organization, and
• Three at-large members of the public.
The 4 non-voting members include
• A representative from the Agriculture Department,
• Two representative from the Public Works Department (Facilities Division and Maintenance
Division), and
• One representative from the County’s pest management contractor
The Committee also has one public member alternate who only votes if one or more of the three at-large public
members, the PEHAB representative, or the Fish and Wildlife representative is absent from a meeting.
IPM Advisory Committee Priorities for 2015
The IPM Advisory Committee focused on the following three IPM program features:
A. IPM decision-making—documenting pest management decisions in County IPM programs
B. Grounds Division weed management and sustainable landscaping—preparing recommendations for the
Board of Supervisors
C. Bed bug management in the County—researching legislation in other jurisdictions and preparing a
recommendation for the Board of Supervisors regarding a County ordinance
The Committee formed two subcommittees to work on these priorities, the Weed subcommittee and the Bed Bug
subcommittee.
2015 IPM Annual Report 5
2015 Accomplishments of the IPM Advisory Committee and the IPM Coordinator
Accomplishments of the IPM Committee
The IPM Advisory Committee (the Committee) held 6 regular meetings in 2015. The subcommittees held a total
of 9 meetings to address the above priorities. The IPM Coordinator serves as staff to the Committee and the two
subcommittees. The accomplishments of the IPM Committee and its subcommittees are as follows:
Through the work of the Weed subcommittee, the IPM Advisory Committee
Priority A: IPM Decision-Making
1. Gained a detailed understanding of the complexities involved in making pest management
decisions about grazing for weed control and the degree to which these decisions are site specific
and require highly specialized experience and knowledge, and
2. Reviewed and provided suggestions for improvement to a decision-making document from Public
Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division on when and how to use goats
for weed management.
This detailed text document follows a form devised by the IPM Coordinator and the former
Decision-Making subcommittee. Decision-making documents are considered current as of the
date on the document and may be updated in the future.
See Attachment A for the decision making document and see Attachment B for the Weed
subcommittee’s final report.
Through the work of the Weed subcommittee, the IPM Advisory Committee
Priority B: Grounds Division Weed Management and Sustainable Landscaping
1. Reviewed the workings of the Grounds Division, including funding and staffing issues, learned
about problematic properties owned by the County, and heard a description of the Grounds
Manager’s plan to convert turf on County grounds to drought-tolerant landscaping to save water
and comply with the Governor’s mandate;
2. Gained an understanding of the complexities of managing County landscapes and the challenges
faced by the Grounds Division; and
3. Developed the following recommendations for the Board of Supervisors
a. Develop a Countywide policy to convert existing turf to drought-tolerant, low-
maintenance landscaping;
b. Provide funding for sustainable landscaping projects;
c. Develop a policy that facilitates funding of projects that might save money in the future
but require upfront costs; this will allow the Grounds Division to make long-range plans
for County landscapes;
d. Make changes in the wording of the County’s Landscape Standards to facilitate long-
range planning and reinforce the minimal use of turf and the maximal use of drought-
tolerant and native plants; and
e. Require landscape designs to be reviewed and approved by the Grounds Division with
regard to sustainable maintenance and long-term viability of the landscape.
See Attachment B for the Weed subcommittee final report and details of the recommendations.
Through the work of the Bed Bug subcommittee, the IPM Advisory Committee
Priority C: Bed Bug Management in the County
1. Researched bed bug legislation across the country;
2. Compiled a list of the best provisions of legislation in other jurisdictions;
3. Reviewed a current bed bug bill in the California legislature; and
2015 IPM Annual Report 6
4. Prepared a draft ordinance for the consideration of the Supervisors in the Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Committee.
See Attachment B for the Bed Bug subcommittee’s final report and draft ordinance.
Accomplishments of the IPM Coordinator
In addition to staffing the IPM Advisory Committee and working on the three subcommittees, the IPM
Coordinator accomplished the following:
Bed Bugs
The common bed bug continues to be one of the most serious pests in the County, a pest that has provoked
citizens to misuse pesticides to an alarming extent. Pesticides do not solve the problem, and in many cases
make the problem worse. We increasingly see bed bugs affecting the citizens of Contra Costa who have the
fewest resources to combat them.
Continued increase in bed bug calls
There is a sense that the bed bug problem is increasing in the County, but this is anecdotal since there is no
coordinated effort in the County to collect data. The IPM Coordinator records each call for advice, but it is
unclear how many calls other staff in the County are receiving that are not forwarded to the IPM Coordinator.
We also have no way of knowing how many calls city staff receive. In 2015, the IPM Coordinator
investigated by telephone (with the help of the Bed Bug Task Force) 73 bed bug complaints (compared to 42
last year).
A substantial number of complaints continue to come from West County. There are increasing numbers of
complaints from Pittsburg and Antioch, as well as Walnut Creek, and it is generally acknowledged that there
are numerous apartment complexes in Concord with severe infestations throughout the buildings. Some of
these complexes have been infested for 5 or more years.
Research to help low income residents of apartment complexes
The County continues as a cooperator on the U.C. research grant to compare the efficacy of IPM methods and
conventional methods of bed bug management in multi-unit dwellings. Among the collaborators in this
research are the University of California Cooperative Extension, U.C. Riverside Department of Entomology,
the Los Angeles and the San Francisco Housing Authorities, the Monument Impact in Concord, three pest
management companies, and the Contra Costa IPM Coordinator. Two field study sites have been selected in
Contra Costa County: Pestec (the County’s structural IPM contractor) will be working in an apartment
complex in Concord and Orkin will work in a complex in Bay Point. U.C. researchers inspected all units in
each apartment complex to gather baseline data for the study. Both pest management companies have also
completed inspections of all the units in their apartment complexes and have begun treatments. Each company
designed its own plan for managing bed bugs in its apartment complex. At the end of the study, U.C.
researchers will evaluate the effectiveness of each program.
Nati Flores of Monument Impact and U.C. Urban IPM Advisor Andrew Sutherland have provided at least one
education session to tenants in the two Contra Costa apartment complexes, but the pest management
companies are free to provide additional education.
To educate County staff and the public about bed bugs, the IPM Coordinator
• Continued to organize and staff the County’s Bed Bug Task Force; the Task Force meets every two
months and advocates for increasing public awareness of bed bug problems and for developing sound bed
bug management policy throughout the County;
• Accompanied Environmental Health Inspectors on a bed bug investigations at Love a Child Mission in
Pittsburg;
• Worked extensively with Supervisor Andersen’s office and members of the County Mental Health
Commission on a serious and long-standing bed bug infestation in Riverhouse, a senior and disabled
residence in Martinez (the issues are still unresolved);
2015 IPM Annual Report 7
• Met with Sandy Rose, Mental Health Housing Services Coordinator, to discuss bed bug prevention
measures for their offices and their staff;
• Created additional bed bug fact sheets in English and in Spanish for the County’s bed bug website and
made improvements to the website that were suggested by the Bed Bug subcommittee;
• Provided a bed bug awareness and prevention training in March to around 20 staff members at Shelter,
Inc in Martinez; toured their facility and made suggestions about bed bug prevention;
• With Pestec staff, provided a bed bug awareness and prevention training for 23 Contra Costa Adult
Protective Services (APS) staff in November; and
• Prepared fact sheets and gathered other information specifically for APS staff and their clients.
Advice and Outreach on IPM
The IPM Coordinator
• Worked with County Facilities Division staff on an unusual
termite infestation in a ground floor hallway at 597 Center in
Martinez (see photo at right). The termites entered through a
crack in the slab and built tubes up into the air in the middle
of the hallway. There was no wood for them to eat nearby, so
this was an exploratory mission for the termites. The
infestation was treated with spot applications of Altriset®
(chlorantraniliprole) that were injected into holes drilled into
the concrete slab surrounding the termite tube;
• Provided an educational session on fleas for staff at 1220
Morello;
• Provided on-going advice along with review of educational
materials for IPM training in child care settings as part of a
project of the Center for Environmental Research and
Children’s Health at U.C. Berkeley;
• Worked with the City of El Cerrito and Beth Baldwin of the
Contra Costa Clean Water Program to complete a
comprehensive IPM guidance document for Contra Costa
municipalities (see http://www.cccleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IPM-Guidance-Manual-
Final-June-2015-print-ready-w-bookmarks-blue-links.pdf) and provided an IPM training session in June
for municipal staff from around the County;
• Met with the Alameda County IPM Coordinator to provide advice on his program;
• Attended regular meetings of the Head Start Health and Nutrition Services Advisory Committee to report
on IPM issues; and
• Responded to a number of requests for pest management information from County staff and citizens.
Conferences and Trainings Attended
• Bed Bug Global Conference
• Two EPA bed bug webinars
• An EPA webinar on managing vertebrates
• County Advisory Body Training
Subterranean termite tube emerging from a
crack in the slab under the carpeting of a
ground floor hallway at 597 Center in Martinez
2015 IPM Annual Report 8
Rangeland infested with artichoke thistle
2015 Department IPM Program Highlights and Challenges
Each Department maintains an IPM Plan that covers their pest management goals, sites under management,
decision making processes, key pests and best management practices, environmental stewardship, and training
requirements.
General Information about the Departments
In order to help new IPM Committee members understand the working of each department, the IPM Coordinator
has developed Department Overviews that cover department responsibilities in general and pest management
responsibilities in particular, funding sources and budget, pests under management and the methods used to
manage them, and department challenges.
Each of the County’s pest management programs must keep records of pesticides used and submit a report
monthly to the Agriculture Department for transmission to the state Department of Pesticide Regulation. Once a
year, the IPM Coordinator collates and analyzes this information for the annual report.
IPM Program Highlights
Agriculture Department
• The Department attended all Weed subcommittee meetings
•
.
For more than 30 years, the Department has actively helped ranchers in Contra Costa County control
artichoke thistle and purple starthistle on privately owned rangeland. This past season the Department
began to concentrate their efforts on contracted work for parkland and municipalities within the County.
The Department has successfully reduced artichoke thistle and purple starthistle to a level at which
private landowners can now manage these weeds on their own. The Department continues to advise
landowners who lease property to cattlemen to include noxious weed control in their lease agreements to
encourage ranchers to maintain a weed management program.
Changes in the Department’s noxious weed program
The Department ’s noxious weed program now involves 5 target terrestrial species. This year the
Department surveyed 63,663 acres and treated a total of 152 net acres.
Treatment involved hand removal, mechanical removal and targeted treatment with low toxicity
herbicides. With rare exception, pesticide treatment involved highly focused spot spraying using
backpack sprayers. Approximately 40-50% of staff time
was spent in surveying and monitoring, with the
remainder being spent on treatment actions.
•
The Department surveys and treats properties under
contract for East Bay Regional Park District and Contra
Costa Water District. This year staff surveyed 61,547
acres and treated 113 net acres for artichoke thistle at 56
sites.
Artichoke Thistle (Cynara cardunculus)
Artichoke thistle is a highly invasive, non-native
perennial weed that displaces herbaceous plants and
annual grasses, decreasing the value of agricultural land,
open space, and wildlands. Horses and cattle will not
consume this thistle, and at high densities, the formidable spines on the leaves and stems and on the bracts
around the flowers make it impossible for animals or people to walk through stands of the weed.
In 1979 Contra Costa County was identified as one of the most heavily infested counties in the state. At
that time, at least 100,000 acres of land were infested with artichoke thistle to one degree or another. In
that year, the Department began their management program in cooperation with property owners by using
ground rigs and helicopters to spray large swaths of land. The artichoke thistle infestation has been
2015 IPM Annual Report 9
Red Sesbania
Purple Starthistle
reduced so much that staff primarily spot treat individual plants using a backpack sprayer. Because
seedlings form deep, fleshy taproots within the first year, mechanical or hand removal (digging out the
plants) is cost-effective only in a very limited area with a small number of very young plants. Mowing
and burning are neither practical nor effective.
• Japanese dodder (Cuscuta japonica)
Staff surveyed 32 historically infested sites and hand
removed Japanese dodder from one site.
Japanese dodder is an aggressive parasitic plant that
has the potential to severely alter the composition and
function of riparian areas. It also affects ornamental
plantings and agricultural crops. Japanese dodder is
native to Southeast Asia and was first discovered in
the county in 2005.
•
This was the tenth year of red sesbania removal at the
primary infestation site of Kirker Creek, Dow
Wetlands. Staff surveyed 10 acres there and removed
475 plants by hand.
Red sesbania (Sesbania punicea)
Red sesbania is a small tree that has a high potential
for environmental damage by displacing native plants
and wildlife in riparian areas. Red sesbania is native to
South America and is poisonous to humans, livestock,
and many native vertebrates. It is invading riparian
areas locally, and in the American River Parkway in
Sacramento County, about $300,000 has been
dedicated to its control. Red sesbania was first
detected in California about ten years ago.
•
Under contract to the East Bay Regional Park District, the Department surveyed 2,086 acres and treated
35 acres for purple starthistle at 15 sites.
Purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa)
This weed is a highly invasive non-native biennial that
displaces annual grasses, desirable vegetation, and
wildlife and decreases the production value of agricultural
land. The plant also has allelopathic properties, which
means it produces chemicals that inhibit the growth of
other vegetation. Its large spines and high densities can
form an impenetrable barrier to wildlife and livestock in
open rangeland as well as to horses and hikers in
parkland. Seed can remain viable in the soil for ten or
more years.
Purple starthistle in Contra Costa County is not as
widespread as artichoke thistle. However, being a prolific seed producer, it has the potential to become as
large scale a problem as artichoke thistle. Early identification and eradication of isolated populations is
key to preventing its establishment in uninfested agricultural lands.
First Japanese dodder find in CCC, 2005
2015 IPM Annual Report 10
•
Under contract, the Department surveyed 30 acres of East Bay Regional Park land and treated 4 acres at
one site.
Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens)
Russian Knapweed can grow in very dense monocultures. It displaces
native vegetation and takes rangeland out of production. The root system
is extensive and aggressive, and small root fragments can sprout to form
new plants. Seed is short-lived and does not appear to be viable for more
than three or four years. Russian knapweed is poisonous to horses
causing “chewing disease” and liver failure. Hand removal is ineffective.
•
The Department continues to protect critical infrastructure including
levees, earthen dams, railroad beds, and roadways from damage by
ground squirrels. This is a management program, and the Department is
not seeking to eradicate ground squirrels from Contra Costa County. The
goal is to maintain a 100 foot wide buffer around the infrastructure,
including along sections of road, by treating a swath about 15 feet wide.
Ground squirrel burrowing is the single biggest threat to California
levees. Burrowing can compromise earthen embankments and create pathways for water leakage that can
undermine the structural integrity of levees, as well as earthen dams and railroad embankments.
Burrowing and the resulting pathways for water erosion can also cause damage to, or sudden failure of,
roadsides and other structures.
Critical infrastructure protection
The Department continues to use its modified ground squirrel treatment procedure. Staff work in teams of
two for safety and efficiency. They apply untreated rolled oats on a Friday to areas that have been treated
in the past and to areas around infrastructure where there is suitable habitat. Over the weekend, ground
squirrels find and begin to eat the untreated grain. On Monday when staff return to the pre-baited areas, it
is obvious where ground squirrels are actually foraging. Only those areas are treated with poison grain.
One staff member drives while the other operates the bait spreader to apply bait more precisely and only
where ground squirrel activity is observed. On Wednesday the team returns to treat a second time, and on
Friday they survey treated areas again and remove any ground squirrels that have died above ground. It is
rare that the Department finds carcasses above ground, something that has been confirmed by research
and other ground squirrel baiting programs.
In Fiscal Year 2014-15, the Department surveyed and treated a total of 137 sites, 62 of which are owned
by the County. The total amount of untreated grain used was 10,500 lbs, and 6,365 lbs was used on
County property. The Department used a total of 27,369 lbs of diphacinone treated grain, of which 15,370
lbs were used on County sites. The grain contains either 0.005% or 0.01% diphacinone, a first generation
anticoagulant. The Agriculture Department used a total 2.72 lbs of the active ingredient diphacinone
throughout the County.
•
The Agriculture Department is the County’s first line of defense against invading pests including insects,
plants, and plant diseases. Every day staff perform inspections on incoming shipments at destination
points, including nurseries, the post office, and express carriers (UPS, FedEx and others) to look for
quarantined plants as well as pests that can hitchhike unnoticed on plant material and other items such as
household goods.
Exotic pest prevention
In 2006, the Department was the first in the state to incorporate dog teams into parcel inspection. Since
then a number of other counties have followed Contra Costa’s lead. The dogs greatly speed inspections
and have significantly increased detections of quarantined plants and exotic pests. The dog teams are a
shared resource with other Bay Area counties that do not have the expertise or resources to maintain an
active surveillance program; therefore, as a result of Contra Costa’s initiative, pest detections in those
counties have increased.
Russian knapweed at Discovery Bay
2015 IPM Annual Report 11
This year the Department inspected 47,556 shipments and rejected 245 after finding various pests.
The Department also deploys and services numerous traps for the purpose of early detection of more than
17 different serious insect pests. This year the Department deployed 5,417 traps, and staff serviced those
traps 60,817 times.
•
This year the Department has changed the way it reports pesticide use. Since the Department acts
primarily as a contractor to apply pesticide for other County departments, park districts, and
municipalities, the Department has issued a permit number or operator identification number (OID) to
those entities. On the Pesticide Use Reports, the Agriculture Department will be listed as the applicator
and the pesticide use will be entered under the permit number or OID number for the entity.
Pesticide use reporting
Agriculture Department Challenges
•
The department continues to search for alternatives to treated grain bait. Unfortunately, raptor perches and
live trapping of ground squirrels have proved to be ineffective and/or too costly. Ground squirrels are
native to this area and will never be eradicated. Since the Department aims to create a fairly narrow buffer
zone around infrastructure, it is inevitable that in areas with ground squirrels pressure outside of the 100 ft
buffer, ground squirrels will eventually move back into the burrows left vacant by the squirrels that have
been killed, although this happens quite slowly. This leads to a yearly management program. Altering the
environment to prevent ground squirrel burrowing is difficult because the squirrels favor human-built
infrastructure as sites for their burrows.
Ground squirrel control alternatives
•
The Department will work with landowners over the next few years to help them transition to managing
their own noxious weeds instead of relying on the County.
Noxious weed control on private land
IPM Program Highlights
Public Works Facilities Division
•
•
A representative from Pestec sat on the Bed Bug subcommittee and the County’s Bed Bug Task Force.
In April of 2014, Pestec installed metal flashing to the exterior of the loading dock where there was a
large gap near the wall. Roof rats were suspected of entering the building there and traveling up into the
ceiling above the medical units. There had also been rat sightings in the kitchen, and Pestec was removing
rats from snap traps and glue boards weekly. (Glue boards were used in the kitchen because inmates work
there, and the Sherriff will not allow snap traps where inmates have access to them.)
Rodent-proofing at the Martinez Detention Facility
Since April 2014, rodent activity has completely ceased inside the building. Pestec has removed all glue
boards from inside the building because they are no longer needed.
•
No pests have been found at the hospital for many months. When Pestec began working for the County in
2010, there were rats on a number of floors, but because of Pestec’s successful trapping program, rodent
activity in the buildings has ceased.
No pests at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center
•
Dry soil and cut backs in irrigation forced ants into buildings to look for both food and water. A number
of County buildings experienced serious and repeated Argentine ant infestations, especially in the late
summer and early fall. At the West County Detention Facility, the persistent invasions required granular
baits around the exterior of the building, gel baits in the cracks on the interior, and large liquid boric acid
bait stations on the perimeter of some of the buildings where inmates had no access. These bait stations
were constructed from covered buckets that were stuffed with a matrix for the ants to crawl on and filled
Increased ant infestations in County buildings
2015 IPM Annual Report 12
with a sugar solution containing 1% boric acid. The buckets had holes near the lids for ants to access the
bait, and the buckets were buried in the ground up to the holes. These large bait stations pulled in huge
numbers of ants from the surrounding area, so colonies were wiped out for some distance from the
Detention Facility buildings.
•
When the floor around a drain in the kitchen was opened for repairs, numerous small flies began
appearing in the kitchen. Soil was exposed when portions of the concrete floor were removed, and most
likely there had been a leak in the drain, and flies had been breeding in the soil that was contaminated
with the drain water. To solve the problem, Pestec used InVade® Bio Foam, a product that contains
microbes that consume organic scum that grows in and around drains, and they also sealed off the drain
area until the concrete was replaced.
Drain flies at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center
•
Early in the year, many staff members at 1220 Morello were complaining of flea bites. Pestec followed
their standard protocol of inspecting the offices, educating staff about the problem, monitoring with flea
traps, and treating with a cedar oil that kills fleas on contact and with an insect growth regulator that
prevents flea larvae from maturing into adult fleas. It could not be determined definitively where the fleas
were coming from, but Pestec believed they could have been coming in on rats. After the pesticide
treatment, Pestec closed a hole in the exterior, and the building staff had no further complaints.
Serious flea infestation at 1220 Morello in Martinez
•
In FY 14-15, 15.8 lbs of pesticide active ingredients were used in approximately 2.75 million square feet
of County buildings. This is 10 lbs more than last fiscal year and is entirely due to the severity of the ant
infestations in the County. The pesticides used by Pestec are primarily deployed as baits in bait stations or
in cracks and crevices. Pestec continues to successfully manage rats and mice exclusively with traps,
sanitation, and pest proofing.
Structural IPM program pesticide use
•
Because of staff and client vigilance, a strict intake protocol, and special cleaning procedures, neither the
Concord nor the Brookside homeless shelter has experienced a bed bug infestation this year. The chances
of new introductions of bed bugs to a shelter are very high with the daily influx of clients who sleep at the
facility, but with alert staff, any new introductions will be quickly found. Strict adherence to the
prevention procedures will make it unlikely that either shelter will experience a large or prolonged
infestation.
Bed bugs in County buildings
Other County buildings, such as the hospital and offices with waiting rooms, are at risk for bed bug
infestations, and County staff must continue to be vigilant. Over the past several years staff at a few
County buildings have reported seeing bed bugs. Pestec was called and the areas carefully inspected but
none were found. To date we have not found evidence of bed bugs at any building except the Concord
Homeless Shelter.
•
In November, Pestec and the IPM Coordinator provided a workshop on bed bug awareness for Adult
Protective Services (APS). APS staff are encountering more and more bed bug problems among the
population they serve, and they want to know how best to help their clients. 23 number of people attended
the training. Pestec and the IPM Coordinator met with the APS acting manager to discuss informational
aids for staff including a fact sheet tailored to APS clients.
Bed bug training for Adult Protective Services staff
Facilities Division Challenges
•
This continues to be a challenge, but the Facilities Division is doing what they can with their staffing and
schedule. As we saw this year at the Martinez Detention Facility, pest proofing has a significant impact
on reducing pest problems.
Pest exclusion in County buildings
2015 IPM Annual Report 13
Pittsburg Health front lawn before turf conversion Pittsburg health front lawn after turf conversion
•
Bed bugs are particularly difficult and costly to control. As bed bugs become more prevalent, it becomes
more likely that people will bring bed bugs into County buildings. At this point, awareness, education,
and prevention are critical.
Bed bugs in County buildings
IPM Program Highlights
Public Works Grounds Division
•
The Grounds Division provided research, information, and analysis to the committee on funding issues
for the Division and the limitations that the funding structure places on making long term investments in
sustainable landscaping around County buildings. Grounds Division staff also provided information to the
committee on turf conversion in the County and feedback on the committee’s sustainable landscaping
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
The Division participated in the work undertaken by the Weed subcommittee of the IPM Advisory
Committee
•
This is the fourth and most severe year of drought in California. The continuing drought presents the
perfect opportunity to convince departments to convert their lawns to drought-tolerant landscaping with
widely spaced plants surrounded by wood chip mulch. Turf conversion
Turf conversion projects around County buildings
Saves water;
Allows the County to be an example for its citizens;
Saves on maintenance costs since turf requires a high level of maintenance;
Allows maintenance staff to spend the time saved on turf on other crucial maintenance tasks
including managing weeds by physical means, such as hand pulling, as opposed to herbicide
applications;
Reduces herbicide use in the landscape since reduced irrigation and mulch will greatly suppress
weed growth;
Reduces other pesticide use since turf is susceptible to many pests and diseases;
Reduces the possibility of citizen exposure to pesticides since the risk of exposure is greater in
landscaping than for example, along roadsides;
Reduces greenhouse gas emissions from turf maintenance equipment and from pumping water to
irrigate the turf; and
Moves County landscapes in the direction of greater sustainability.
The Grounds Division chose the Pittsburg Health Center at 2311 Loveridge in Pittsburg as the pilot
project. About 70% of the turf was removed and replaced with drought-tolerant landscaping and mulch.
The conversion is projected to save one million gallons of water per year.
2015 IPM Annual Report 14
After turf was removed, the ground was covered with permeable
weed barrier fabric to prevent weed growth, drip irrigation lines
were laid on top of the weed fabric, and plants were installed
through holes cut in the weed barrier. When planting was
complete, the whole area was mulched with several inches of
woodchips to conserve moisture and reduce weed growth on top
of the weed barrier.
“Saving Water for Contra Costa” signs were placed
around the property to inform citizens and staff.
Festuca glauca
At the Pittsburg Health Center, squirrels had for years been drinking from small puddles created by the
lawn sprinklers, and when the sprinklers and lawn were removed, the squirrels began chewing through the
drip irrigation lines to get water. Staff arrived early one morning to find geysers shooting up in the newly
landscaped areas. Lines had to be replaced and staff began setting out bowls of water so the squirrels
would stop chewing on the drip lines.
The Board of Supervisors has approved two contracts with local landscaping firms for $2 million each to
install drought-tolerant landscaping around County buildings from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018.
•
This spring, John Gularte in the Grounds Division worked with
Juvenile Hall youth to replace 5,500 sq ft of lawn with Festuca glauca,
a clump forming ornamental grass. This fine leafed grass can tolerate
drought, neglect, and poor soils.
Juvenile Hall turf conversion
The Grounds staff removed the existing turf and prepared the soil. The
youth then installed a weed barrier, dug 700 holes, and planted the F.
glauca plugs. Grounds staff brought in 60 cu yds of woodchip mulch,
and the kids spread the mulch over the planting area. The youth are
involved in the ongoing maintenance of the newly planted area, and
regularly hand pull weeds.
•
Two years ago, the Division met the governor’s current mandate for watering only two days a week, and
staff continue to fix irrigation problems, change sprinkler heads, remove excessive vegetation, and mulch
as much as possible. This year when the Division cut off all water to turf areas, staff noticed that nearby
ornamentals were suffering from lack of water. Although the irrigation to the ornamentals had been off
for years, the plants were being sustained by the overspray from watering the turf. In order to keep the
plants alive, staff had to repair the ornamental irrigation lines and begin watering the plants once a week.
Drought and water use
The Division is finding many drought stressed plants because of the water restrictions. Trees in particular
are suffering. The Division is seeing many dying trees and has been removing them and replacing them
with more drought-tolerant species wherever replacement is feasible. Redwood trees all around the
County are particularly vulnerable and will slowly die. Since they grow best in the fog belt, they should
not be replanted outside that area.
2015 IPM Annual Report 15
Logs ready for chipping
Pallets ready for chipping
Pallets being ground into mulch
Finished mulch piles
•
In June, the Grounds Division created 600 cu yds of woodchips from trees that were downed in the winter
storms. The Grounds’ tree removal contract includes transport back to the Grounds Corporation Yard so
the logs can be easily chipped. In August, Grounds chipped pallets from the County’s solar projects and
logs from the Public Works tree removal program
and produced 700 cu yds of premium mulch.
Considering that high quality wood chips cost
$32/cu yd delivered, the Division created $22,400
worth of mulch for the $4200 it cost to chip the
wood. The Grounds manager has arranged with
Davey Tree to deliver logs to the Corporation Yard
that are too big for Davey Tree’s chipper and is
working with waste haulers to divert to the County
some of the pallets from their pallet routes for a
continuing supply of high quality, low cost wood
chips.
High quality mulch from pallets and dead trees
•
Currently the Division has 18 full time permanent employees, and is asking for 5 temporary employees.
Division staff numbers are slowly rising, which means that as funding available for landscape
maintenance increases at County buildings, the Division can provide the increased maintenance that is
budgeted.
Division staffing has increased
2015 IPM Annual Report 16
The Eliminator for managing gophers
•
Several years ago the Division used the Rodenator to remove gophers that were beginning to undermine
the foundation at the Public Works Administration building on Glacier Drive in Martinez. This device
creates an explosion underground and the concussion
kills any nearby gophers. This treatment worked very
well and no new gophers have been seen at the
Administration building. However, this device sounds
like a gunshot and can be quite disturbing to building
occupants and nearby County residents.
Managing gophers with CO2
Because of understaffing and underfunding, the
Division has for many years largely ignored gophers.
Last year the Division hired a contractor with a device
that suffocates gophers by injecting CO2 into their
burrows. This treatment worked well but cost about
$300/application; consequently, the Division
purchased its own CO2 device, called the Eliminator, and has been using it for the past year. Its
limitations are 1) it works best in moist soil so that the CO2 doesn’t leak out and 2) it does not collapse the
burrows so that neighboring gophers have moved into the areas that have been cleared.
•
Five years ago, the Grounds Division consciously decided not to use any insecticides, miticides,
fungicides, or rodenticides in their work. The Division has chosen to manage arthropod pests and plant
diseases in County landscapes solely with good horticultural practices. If plants are severely affected, they
are removed.
Pesticide use decreased in FY 14-15
Herbicides are the only pesticide used by the Division, and this year, staff used 154 fewer pounds than in
FY 13-14. As noted last year, the Division is continuing to try to improve the condition of many of the
County’s properties in order to move away from crisis management and back to preventive maintenance.
For a number of years the lack of funding made it impossible to properly manage weed problems around
County buildings and in the Special Districts the Division is responsible for. This is now changing, but
weeds that went unmanaged for years left huge amounts of seed that will produce large crops of weeds for
many years to come.
Grounds Division Challenges
•
Grounds now has 18 permanent employees, which has made it possible for the Division to accomplish
much more of the work they have funding for. The Division still needs 5 more temporary employees.
These employees were requested in July, but have not been hired yet because understaffing at the
County’s Human Resources Department continues to cause hiring bottlenecks throughout out the County.
Staffing needs
•
The Division is dealing with a large number of diseased, stressed, and dying trees. Many redwoods in the
County are partially dead and it could take from 5 to 10 years for them to die completely. Unless failing
trees pose a hazard, the Division will take them down over time since it will be easier aesthetically and
financially. It has been challenging to try to drought-proof landscapes, but the woodchips the Division is
producing play an important role.
Drought stress in the County
2015 IPM Annual Report 17
IPM Program Highlights
Public Works Department Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division
•
Staff prepared a decision-making document on when and how to use goats for weed management (see
Attachment A). The subcommittee reviewed the document and made suggestions for additions and
changes to the final document. This document makes the Division’s goat grazing program more
transparent, will serve as part of the Division’s institutional memory, and can be used as a training
document.
The Division participated in the work undertaken by the Weed subcommittee of the IPM Advisory
Committee
•
This year, 51 Public Works Maintenance employees attended the annual refresher training in habitat
assessment for endangered and threatened species in order to comply with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Routine Maintenance Agreement (RMA). The RMA stipulates that before
work can commence in an area, an assessment must be conducted to identify endangered species habitat.
In FY 14-15 crews that were trained to identify potential habitat spent a total of 792 hours performing
habitat assessments. As endangered species are identified, they are reported to CDFW, which then
provides County staff with guidelines to move forward with work. These guidelines may include full time
monitoring of the jobsite by a professional biologist.
Annual habitat assessment refresher training
•
The County Flood Control District is partnering with The
Restoration Trust, an Oakland-based non-profit organization
promoting habitat restoration and stewardship, in a native
planting experiment along Clayton Valley Drain (near Hwy 4
adjacent to Walnut Creek). The study is examining the survival
of several California natives: Santa Barbara sedge, (Carex
barbarae), common rush (Juncus effusus), Baltic rush (Juncus
balticus), field sedge (Carex praegracilis), and creeping wild rye
(Leymus triticoides). Planting occurred in December 2013 and
December 2014. Santa Barbara sedge, common rush, Baltic
rush, and field sedge were planted on the lower terrace near the
creek and the creeping wild rye was planted on the slopes of the channel.
Flood control vegetation and erosion management using California natives
This spring, at the request of The Restoration Trust, the Division treated the area for broadleaf weeds to
reduce competition and provide the native plants with an advantage.
The native species that were planted spread from underground
rhizomes that anchor the soil and provide erosion control.
They are perennial species that stay green year around and
thus are resistant to fire. The plants are compatible with flood
control objectives since they do not have woody stems, and
during flood events, they lie down on the slope which reduces
flow impedance. They are not sensitive to broadleaf-specific
herbicides, and unlike non-native annuals, they provide carbon
sequestration and remove as much as ½ ton of carbon per acre
per year.
The Restoration Trust will monitor these plots until 2018 to
assess native plant survival and the degree to which they
compete with the non-native annual species. The County Flood Control District managed and funded
watering throughout the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 winters. Without this effort, the plants would likely
have died. The Restoration Trust again monitored the area in spring and summer of 2015 and found that
given the lack of rainfall, the site is still doing adequately. The creeping wild rye planted along the
Carex barbarae
Juncus effusus
2015 IPM Annual Report 18
channel slope is performing particularly well and has begun to spread. A normal rainfall year will bring
much needed relief to the site and will allow for a better analysis of native plant survival.
•
The Division continues to fine tune its use of grazing to improve the tool’s effectiveness and economic
viability. Using grazing as a management tool is complicated and very dependent on site-specific
conditions. Grazing is not appropriate in all situations and
could not, for instance, be used on the side of County roads
without endangering both the animals and motorists. Many
factors raise or lower the cost per acre for grazing,
including the size of the parcel (at larger sites the cost of
moving the goats in and out is spread over a number of
acres), whether the animals can easily enter the site, the
amount of fencing necessary, how many times the animals
must be moved within the job site coupled with the ease
with which that can be done, whether water is available or
must be trucked in, and the season in which the animals are
being used (costs are lower when demand is lower, e.g., in
fall and winter).
Grazing as a vegetation management tool
•
The Division has found that the following situations are
ideal for meeting fire prevention standards with grazing:
Ideal grazing situations for fire prevention
1. Sensitive sites with endangered or threatened
species where mowing could kill animals and
where herbicides are restricted;
2. Sites where access is difficult for people or
machines;
3. Sites with steep slopes or uneven terrain that
would have to be mowed by hand and that present
dangerous working conditions for staff; and
4. Sites that are too wet for either hand or machine
mowing.
•
1. One to two acre sites are not economical because of the cost of getting the animals in and out.
Areas not suited for grazing
2. Unfenced areas along roadsides are not appropriate because of safety issues and because of the
cost of fencing off a narrow band of land and continually moving animals along the road.
3. In the winter, grazing animals cannot be used on the rain softened creek banks and the ground
adjacent to the banks because of the danger of causing erosion.
•
The Division is taking better advantage of the time after a site has been grazed. When goats remove
vegetation, staff can inspect flood control facilities much more effectively. Staff have always monitored
the integrity of the slopes and the presence of invasive and other problematic weeds, but when vegetation
is very low, it is much easier to see the condition of the flood control facilities and easier to spot treat for
hard to control weeds. This combination of grazing and herbicides is proving very effective.
Advances in grazing strategy
In the last few years, the Division has coordinated with the grazing contractor to use County land as
staging areas for goat herds in late summer and early fall. The County contracts for grazing on a certain
portion of a creek, and then the contractor is allowed to use that area and the surrounding area as needed,
with the approval of the Division, to stage animals between jobs for the County or other clients. The
County is central to the area covered by the grazer so that animals need not be trucked back to their farm
between each job. The County gains the benefit of free grazing on various creeks or detention basins.
Pine Creek (City of Walnut Creek) before grazing
Pine Creek (City of Walnut Creek) after grazing
2015 IPM Annual Report 19
•
By using goats in the off season (late summer through winter) and allowing the grazer to use County land
for staging herds, the County has been able to bring down the overall cost per acre for the year Not all
sites are appropriate for these strategies, and while late season grazing has been beneficial for both the
Division and the grazer, it does not mean that just any location can be grazed in the off season at a
reduced price.
Grazing costs
Peak season grazing is used mainly for fire prevention, but off season grazing in flood control channels
has goals and benefits that are somewhat different. The reduction of vegetation
1. Lessens the late-season fire danger in the channels,
2. Allows for a more thorough inspection of the channels to comply with Army Corp of Engineers
maintenance standards,
3. Allows staff to more easily see and treat invasive and other problematic weeds,
4. Reduces obstacles in the channels that could impede the flow of water during a rain event, and
5. Reduces cover and thus discourages homeless encampments.
Off season grazing benefits both the County and the grazer. It is less costly for the County because
demand for grazing is low in the off season, and the grazing contractor has forage for the animals, which
must be fed in the off season as well.
Cost of Peak Season Grazing for Fire Prevention
Fiscal
Year
Acres
Grazed
Total Cost for All
Acres Grazed Cost/Acre
12-13 74 $88,100 $1190
13-14 113 $123,660 $1094
14-15 190 $161,700 $854
Cost of Off Season Grazing
Fiscal
Year
Acres
Grazed
Total Cost for All
Acres Grazed Cost/Acre
13-14 162 $37,302 $230
14-15 209 $35,802 $171
15-16 246
(estimated) $72,002 $292
•
Grazing is now one of the Division’s established tools for vegetation management. Grazing is not
appropriate in every situation, but its use by the Division has been expanding and evolving to include
quite a number of different objectives. In the years to come, the Division will continue to refine the
decision making process for deploying grazing in order to increase effectiveness and economy.
Grazing a permanent tool in the IPM toolbox
•
Fire prevention weed abatement is time-sensitive, and historically the deadline was July 1. If weed
abatement was not completed by that date, the County could incur fines from the fire districts. In FY 13-
14, the dry weather forced the deadline to mid-May through June 1. This year fire districts were requiring
weed abatement to be completed in some areas by May 1. The Routine Maintenance Agreement with the
state Department of Fish and Wildlife stipulates that no work can begin in Contra Costa flood control
channels prior to April 15. This year it was impossible for staff to complete all the mowing in the two to
four week window mandated by the fire districts. Because some areas were mowed so early in the season,
crews had to return to mow them a second time because vegetation had grown back.
Fire fuel reduction challenges in 2015
2015 IPM Annual Report 20
The unpredictable and spotty rainfall this past winter caused pre-emergent herbicides to perform poorly,
which meant the Division had to spend more time and herbicide on spot treatments of weeds throughout
the season. Pre-emergent herbicides are used to suppress germination of weeds so that less herbicide is
needed for control the rest of the year.
•
Winter storms and drought killed or injured many trees this year. The Division chips prunings and dead
trees into mulch that is being used more extensively along fencelines above flood control channels and in
empty County parcels. Logs that are too large for the Division’s chipper go to the Grounds Division for
chipping and use on County landscapes.
Use of mulching has increased
•
Several lawsuits brought by environmental organizations against the EPA have been temporarily settled
by the delineation of buffer zones in and around habitat for a number of endangered or threatened species
in the Bay Area. The Department continues to work within the guidelines of the injunctions to assess
work sites and implement buffer zones before using any of the enjoined pesticides.
Buffer zones for certain pesticides enjoined by the courts
Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division Challenges
•
Drought conditions continue to select for the tougher and weedier species along the roads and flood
control channels. The extremely dry soil conditions have prevented the growth of some weeds, and
without competition, the hardier weeds have more room and freedom to grow. Crews are seeing an
increase in stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), Russian thistle (Salsola spp.), and mare’s tail (Conyza
canadensis), all weeds that are difficult to control.
Results of four years of drought
•
Compliance with RMA requirements has considerable effect on the cost of operations. As mentioned
above, work within CDFW jurisdiction requires a habitat assessment prior to start of work so that
endangered species are not harmed. Crews again identified endangered species at a couple of job sites and
consultation with CDFW resulted in using alternative work methods that were more costly.
Cost implications of regulations
•
In FY 14-15, 69% of the Division’s expenditures on vegetation management was spent on non-chemical
treatment methods, while the number of acres treated non-chemically was 39% of the total acres treated
(see the chart below for details).
Cost implications of various management techniques
Chemical treatments for creek banks in FY 14-15 were $523/acre compared to $176/acre last year. This is
because the majority of the FY 14-15 treatments were spot applications, which are considerably more
costly.
This year the safety requirements for mowing have increased. These measures will help prevent fires and
injuries to workers but will increase the cost of mowing. The following are the new safety mandates from
CalFire:
1. Crews must have access to a water truck or a 5 gallon backpack type water fire extinguisher.
2. A worker trained in using the fire-fighting equipment on the truck must be added to a mowing
crew to continuously monitor the weather and serve as a lookout.
3. If the height of the vegetation requires that a worker scout the ground ahead of the mower, a
separate person must be assigned to perform that function.
4. If the ambient air temperature reaches 80° F, the relative humidity is 30% or lower, or if wind
speeds reach 10 mph or higher, mowing cannot begin or must stop immediately.
2015 IPM Annual Report 21
A Cost* Comparison of Vegetation Management Methods for Roadsides and Flood Control Channels
Fiscal Year 2014-2015
Vegetation Management Method
Acres
Treated
% of
Total
Acres
Treated
Total Cost
for all acres
treated Cost/Acre
% of Total
Cost for all
acres
treated
Chemical Treatment - Roads 1091 49% $163,322 $150 18%
Right of Way Mowing 410 18% $339,516 $828** 37%
Chemical Treatment – Creek Access Roads 126 6% $36,695 $291 4%
Chemical Treatment – Creek Banks 57 3% $38,851 $523§ 4%
Grazing – Peak and Off Season 436 20% $233,702 $536 26%
Chemical Treatment - Aquatic Applications 69 3% $46,318 $671 5%
Mulching 16 1% $55,917 $3,495 6%
Totals 2222
$914,321
* The cost figures above for each method include labor, materials, equipment costs, contract costs (for grazing), and overhead, which
includes training, permit costs, and habitat assessment costs. Licensing costs for staff members are paid by the individual and not by the
County. The cost of the Vegetation Management Supervisor when he supervises work is not included in any of the figures, but is
com parable among the various methods.
** The cost of right of way mowing increased this year due to the new fire prevention regulations (FY13-14=$762/A; FY14-15=$828/A).
§ The cost per acre for chemical treatment on creek banks is far greater this year than last ($523 vs $176) because the majority of the work
was spot treatments, which are much more costly.
With limited budget, staff, and equipment, the Division must make strategic decisions about where to deploy their
resources in order to meet their mandates of managing vegetation for fire and flood prevention and for road
safety. The Division is managing weeds in a biological system, and factors such as weather, rainfall, weed growth
patterns, timing for optimum weed susceptibility to the treatment method, and threatened and endangered species
issues must also be factored into management decisions. The pie charts below further illustrate the cost of various
management techniques and show how the Division has allocated resources.
Note: The legend to the right of each pie chart identifies slices starting from 12 o’clock and continuing clockwise.
•
Mowing, as well as the application of herbicides, is highly dependent upon weather conditions. Weather
can affect when herbicides can or must be applied and can also affect when mowing can or should occur.
Weather can substantially alter the size and type of the weed load or its distribution over time and space.
Weather
18.4%
5.7%
3.3%
3.1%
49.1%
0.7%
19.6%
FY14-15 Vegetation Management
Methods Mowing
Chemical - Creek
Access Roads
Chemical - Creek
Banks
Chemical - Aquatic
Applications
Chemical - Roads
Mulching
Grazing - Goats &
Sheep
$828 $291
$523
$671
$150
$3,495
$536
FY14-15 Vegetation Management
Cost / Acre Mowing
Chemical - Creek
Access Roads
Chemical - Creek
Banks
Chemical - Aquatic
Applications
Chemical - Roads
Mulching
Grazing - Goats &
Sheep
2015 IPM Annual Report 22
The Department has a limited capacity to use mowing because of a number of factors including vacancies
in vegetation management staff, the Department’s limited budget for weed abatement, and the limited
number of tractor mowers (two). The Department faces a continued challenge of balancing the use of
herbicides to control weed growth with the Department’s capacity to mow or to graze with goats or sheep
within the confines of the budget and the timeline to prevent fires.
Using mowers during hot, dry weather also poses a hazard of its own: sparks caused by the metal mower
blades striking rocks or metal debris can ignite tinder-dry grass.
•
The Vegetation Management crew is still understaffed with only three personnel as compared to a staff of
six in 2009.
Staffing
2015 IPM Annual Report 23
Pesticide Use by Contra Costa County Operations
Starting in FY 00-01, the IPM Task Force annually reported pesticide use data to the Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure Committee for the County departments involved in pest management. The IPM Coordinator has
continued this task. Below is a bar chart of pesticide use over the last 6 years. For information on pesticide use
reporting and for more detailed pesticide use data including total product use, see Attachment C and the separate
County Pesticide Use Spreadsheet.
CCC Operations Pesticide Use by Program
FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Facilities 17 5 9 16 6 16
PW Special Dist. 10 45 7 7 2 0.003
Grounds 46 113 378 377 492 338
Agriculture 687 795 539 529 498 153
Public Works 8,165 6,439 5,713 6,565 4,688 4,780
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000 Lbs. of Active Ingredient
2015 IPM Annual Report 24
Increase in Pesticide Use by the Facilities Division
In FY 14-15 Pestec used 10 more pounds of active ingredients in and around County building due to the
numerous Argentine ant infestations. Argentine ants feed on honeydew produced by insects such as aphids and
scales. The sustained drought has reduced the vegetation that harbors these insects, and watering restrictions have
eliminated much of the soil moisture available in the summer. These two factors forced Argentine ants indoors
earlier in the year and more often as they searched for food and water.
Concern about “Bad Actor” Pesticides
There has been concern among members of the public and within the County about the use of “Bad Actor”
pesticides by County departments. “Bad Actor” is a term coined by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and
Californians for Pesticide Reform to identify a “most toxic” set of pesticides. These pesticides are at least one of
the following: known or probable carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants, cholinesterase inhibitors,
known groundwater contaminants, or pesticides with high acute toxicity.
Parents for a Safer Environment has requested that additional pesticides be reported as “Bad Actors”, but in 2013
after studying this request and consulting Dr. Susan Kegley, who was instrumental in developing the PAN
pesticide database, the IPM Advisory Committee decided that the County will report as “Bad Actor” pesticides
only those that are designated as such in the PAN database.
The County’s use of these particular pesticides has decreased dramatically since FY 00-01 as shown in the chart
below. Of the 31 “Bad Actor” pesticides used by the County since 2000, 22 have been phased out and one more is
in the process of being phased out. In addition, two other pesticides that are not designated as “Bad Actors” by the
Pesticide Action Network are being phased out because the County feels they are particularly problematic.
CCC Operations Total Pesticide Use vs. ‘Bad Actor’ Use
FY 00-
01
FY 04-
05
FY 07-
08
FY 08-
09
FY 09-
10
FY 10-
11
FY 11-
12
FY 12-
13
FY 13-
14
FY 14-
15
Total Use 18,939 14,396 12,669 11,106 8,925 7,397 6,646 7,495 5,685 5,287
Total Bad
Actors 6,546 3,183 3,494 2,899 2,556 1,596 1,126 1,353 1,043 1,021
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000 Lbs. of Active Ingredient
2015 IPM Annual Report 25
Pesticide Applied by the Agriculture Department
Since the Department acts primarily as a contractor to apply pesticide for other County departments, park
districts, and municipalities, in February 2015, the Department began separating its pesticide use by the entity that
contracts the work.
The chart below shows the amounts applied for these various jurisdictions since February compared to the total
amount of pesticide applied by the Department.
Pesticide (in pounds of active ingredient—“a.i.”) Applied by the Agriculture Department for Other Jurisdictions
Clarity Milestone Pro-Tron (Adjuvant) Roundup Pro Concentrate Stalker Telar Diphacinone 0.01% Diphacinone 0.005% In-Place (Drift mgmt.) TOTALS
Jurisdiction Lbs a.i. Lbs a.i. Lbs a.i Lbs a.i. Lbs a.i. Lbs a.i. Lbs a.i. Lbs a.i. Lbs a.i. Lbs a.i.
Mt. Diablo State Park 3.37 0.47 0.18 4.02
East Bay Regional Parks 43.46 4.74 15.42 0.56 64.18
Sky Ranch Developer 39.08 6.70 22.20 2.98 70.96
Contra Costa Water 1.26 0.15 0.57 0.10 2.08
Town of Moraga 6.27 6.27
Reclamation Districts 0.04 0.04
CCC Rights-of-Way 0.45 0.45
Totals for Separated
Use (Feb to June 2015) 87.17 12.06 38.37 6.27 0.56 0.59 2.98 148.000
Total Ag Use for FY 14-
15 87.31 12.07 38.38 8.49 0.001 0.79 2.71 0.01 2.98 152.74
Amt not separated (July
2014 through Jan 2015) 0.14 0 0 2.22 0.001 0.23 2.12 0.01 0 4.72
Re-evaluation of the Herbicide Glyphosate (Roundup®)
This spring, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, the active ingredient
in the herbicide Roundup®, as Group 2A “probably carcinogenic to humans.” IARC classifies agents, mixtures of
agents, and exposures into five groups according to their potential to cause cancer:
• Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans.
• Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans.
• Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans.
• Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
• Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans.
To place the glyphosate designation in context, examples of agents and exposures in Group 1 are arsenic, lindane,
smoking, alcoholic beverages, ultraviolet radiation, and consumption of processed meats. Examples in Group 2A
are malathion, emissions from high temperature frying, consumption of red meat, and burning wood in a
fireplace. (Source: IARC)
IARC identifies the potential for a chemical to cause cancer but does not quantify any increased risk to people
from a chemical nor does it recommend a safe level of exposure. Those designations are left up to regulatory
agencies around the world. The USEPA is currently conducting a formal review of glyphosate and has said it will
give “full consideration” to the IARC findings. The USEPA currently places glyphosate in Group E, Evidence of
2015 IPM Annual Report 26
Non-carcinogenicity for Humans. At present, it is unclear how potent a carcinogen glyphosate is; however, it is
clear that people who apply glyphosate are at greatest risk for any deleterious effects and that personal protective
equipment (PPE) can mitigate those effects.
In April of this year, Health Canada published its Proposed Re-evaluation Decision for glyphosate in which it
proposed continuing registration of products containing glyphosate for sale and use in Canada and stated the
following:
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) recently assigned a hazard classification for glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic
to humans”. It is important to note that a hazard classification is not a health risk
assessment. The level of human exposure, which determines the actual risk, was not taken
into account by WHO (IARC). Pesticides are registered for use in Canada only if the level
of exposure to Canadians does not cause any harmful effects, including cancer.
On November 12, 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) ruled that glyphosate probably does not
cause cancer in humans despite IARC’s finding. However, EFSA set an acute reference dose (ARfD) at 0.5 mg/kg
of body weight and an acceptable daily intake (ADI) at 0.5 mg/kg of body weight per day. They set an acceptable
operator exposure level (AOEL) at 0.1 mg/kg of body weight per day. The following is from the EFSA website
(http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112):
A peer review expert group made up of EFSA scientists and representatives from risk
assessment bodies in EU Member States has set an acute reference dose (ARfD) for
glyphosate of 0.5 mg per kg of body weight, the first time such an exposure threshold has
been applied to the substance.
Jose Tarazona, head of EFSA’s Pesticides Unit, said: “This has been an exhaustive
process – a full assessment that has taken into account a wealth of new studies and data.
By introducing an acute reference dose we are further tightening the way potential risks
from glyphosate will be assessed in the future. Regarding carcinogenicity, it is unlikely
that this substance is carcinogenic.”
The peer review group concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e.
damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans. Glyphosate is not
proposed to be classified as carcinogenic under the EU regulation for classification,
labelling and packaging of chemical substances. In particular, all the Member State
experts but one agreed that neither the epidemiological data (i.e. on humans) nor the
evidence from animal studies demonstrated causality between exposure to glyphosate and
the development of cancer in humans.
EFSA also considered, at the request of the European Commission, the report published
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate
as probably carcinogenic to humans.
IARC’s designation has raised controversy among scientists around the world, and it remains to be seen what
action USEPA will take. IARC did not perform any studies on its own; the panel reviewed existing research.
Any pesticide used by the County should always be employed thoughtfully and judiciously within a
comprehensive IPM program. County Departments have been reviewing their use of glyphosate in light of the
new designation from IARC, and the IPM Coordinator and other County staff have participated in three meetings
with Bay Area IPM Coordinators to discuss glyphosate. Because Counties around the Bay use a small part of the
glyphosate reported to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, there is work to do to educate private applicators
and private citizens who use pesticides in their yards.
At present the County is waiting for the USEPA’s glyphosate review to be made public. At that point the County
will once again re-evaluate the use of the herbicide and its alternatives. In the meantime, the County will continue
using glyphosate where staff determine that non-chemical methods pose safety hazards to the public or workers or
cannot provide the needed efficacy, where alternative chemicals (such as “green” herbicides) cannot provide the
efficacy needed within the budget, or where alternative chemicals may pose a greater hazard than glyphosate
(such as Garlon whose active ingredient is triclopyr).
2015 IPM Annual Report 27
Rodenticide Use
The Department of Agriculture uses rodenticide for ground squirrels whose burrowing threatens critical
infrastructure in the County, such as roads, levees, earthen dams, and railroad embankments. In Special Districts
rodents are managed by trapping with some use of rodenticides for gophers, moles, and voles at Livorna Park and
around the playing field at Alamo School.
“First generation” vs. “second generation” anticoagulant rodenticides
Anticoagulants prevent blood from clotting and cause death by internal bleeding. In small doses they are used
therapeutically in humans for a number of heart ailments. Vitamin K1 is the antidote for anticoagulant poisoning,
and is readily available. (There are some types of rodenticides for which there is no antidote.)
When anticoagulant rodenticides are necessary, the County uses first generation anticoagulant baits. First
generation anticoagulants require multiple feedings over several days to a week to kill.
Second generation anticoagulants are designed to kill after a single feeding and pose a greater risk to animals that
eat poisoned rodents. If the rodent continues to feed on a second generation anticoagulant after it eats a toxic dose
at the first meal, it may build up more than a lethal dose in its body before the clotting factors run out and the
animal dies. Residues of second generation anticoagulants may remain in liver tissue for many weeks. Because
rodents poisoned by second generation anticoagulants can carry a heavier load of more toxic poison that persists
in their bodies for a long period of time, the risk of death is increased for a predator that eats rodents poisoned by
second generation anticoagulants.
The first generation materials are cleared much more rapidly from animal tissues and have a much reduced
potential for secondary kill when compared to second generation materials. However, the first generation
anticoagulants can also kill animals that eat poisoned rodents.
As noted earlier in this report, the Agriculture Department has revised its ground squirrel baiting procedure to
reduce the amount of treated grain used. The Agriculture Department also mitigates the risk of secondary
poisoning by performing carcass surveys in all areas treated with anticoagulants whether or not it is required by
endangered species restrictions. In FY 14-15 ground squirrels were particularly abundant and the Department’s
use increased to 2.72 lbs of diphacinone active ingredient. If the new baiting procedure had not been in place the
amount used would have been much more.
Below, rodenticide use has been plotted separately from other pesticides used by the County.
* The Agriculture Department uses primarily diphacinone treated grain bait, but in years past they also used some gas cartridges as
fumigation agents.
In FY 14-15, Special Districts used only diphacinone, but in years past, their use was more than 99% aluminum phosphide, which is a
fumigant and not an anticoagulant rodenticide.
FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Agriculture Dept. 3 3 3 4 3 1 3
PW Special Dist. 11 9 12 7 7 2 0.003
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 Lbs. of Active Ingredient Rodenticide* Use by County Operations
2015 IPM Annual Report 28
Trends in Pesticide Use
A change in pesticide use from one year to the next does not necessarily indicate a long-term trend. Long-term
trends are more meaningful than short-term changes. It is important to understand that pesticide use can increase
and decrease depending on the pest population, the weather, the invasion of new and perhaps difficult to control
pests, the use of new products that contain small percentages of active ingredient, the use of chemicals that are
less hazardous but not as effective, the addition or subtraction of new pest management projects to a department’s
workload, and cuts to budgets or staff that make it difficult or impossible to use alternate methods of control.
The County’s pesticide use trend follows a trend typical of other pollution reduction programs. Early reductions
are dramatic during the period when changes that are easy to make are accomplished. When this “low-hanging
fruit” has been plucked, it takes more time and effort to investigate and analyze where additional changes can be
made. Since FY 00-01, the County has reduced its use of pesticide by 72%. If further reductions in pesticide use
are to be made, it will require time for focused study and additional funding for implementation.
2015 IPM Annual Report 29
Departmental Integrated Pest Management Priorities For 2016
Agriculture Department Priorities for 2016
•
The Agriculture Department will give priority to weed work under contract with local parks and
municipalities. Artichoke thistle and purple starthistle will remain the primary target weeds for the 2016
season. The Department will move more toward an advisory role with private landowners and will help
them develop weed management plans and encourage landowners to take the primary role for weed
control on their properties.
Continue the County’s highly effective Noxious Weed Program
The Department will continue to respond to any "A" rated weed that enters the county with surveys and
treatment.
•
The Agricultural Department will continue to provide advice to the County, municipalities, growers and
the general public on the control of ground squirrels. Without effective control measures, ground squirrels
will damage crops and infrastructure, such as earthen dams, levees, and highways. The economic and
environmental consequences would be substantial.
Ground Squirrel Management Program
Over the years the Department has experimented with raptor perches, exclusion techniques, and live
trapping as alternatives to traditional baiting. Although some of these methods could provide reasonable
control with small, limited infestations of ground squirrels, all of these methods are considerably more
costly and less effective on a larger scale. The Department continues to search for the most effective, least
toxic, and economical solutions for controlling ground squirrels within our county by consulting with
researchers, the University of California Cooperative Extension Service, the California Department of
Food and Agriculture, other counties, and with industry.
Public Works Department Priorities for 2016
Facilities Division
•
•
Continue working to fix structural deficiencies in County buildings
Grounds Division
Continue monitoring the bed bug situation in County buildings and providing awareness training if
necessary
• Continue removing hazardous trees and trees killed by the drought;
•
where appropriate and where there is
funding, trees will be replaced with drought tolerant species
•
Continue to convert turf to drought tolerant landscaping throughout the County
•
Continue diverting as much green waste as possible from the landfill by chipping prunings and using the
material in place
•
Continue to use woodchip mulch from tree companies as a weed suppressant wherever possible
•
Continue to chip large logs from tree companies and Public Works Maintenance for mulch
•
Continue to negotiate with waste haulers to provide Grounds with pallets for chipping
Continue to hand weed wherever and whenever possible;
•
using mulch facilitates hand weeding
•
Continue to educate the public to help them raise their tolerance of weeds
•
Continue to conserve water as much as possible
Continue to raise the level of service on County property
2015 IPM Annual Report 30
Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division
•
The Department will continue working with grazing contractors to develop a procedure to use goats
and/or sheep during off peak seasons at a reduced cost in areas such as detention basins, flood control
channels, and other secure locations.
Explore options to reduce grazing costs
•
•
Continue to collect data from the two spray trucks equipped with data collectors and analyze data to
ensure accuracy and usability of information.
The Vegetation Manager will continue to refine the Department’s IPM practices and investigate new
methods of weed control. With the successful grazing by goats and sheep along Walnut Creek, the
Vegetation Manager will explore the feasibility of reseeding with a native rye grass in an effort to choke
out fire prone weeds such as wild oats.
Continue to refine IPM practices
2015 IPM Annual Report 31
Attachment A. Pest Management Decision Making Document
Using Grazing Animals for Vegetation Management
2015 IPM Annual Report 32
2015 IPM Annual Report 33
Contra Costa County
DECISION DOCUMENTATION for WEED MANAGEMENT:
Using Grazing Animals for Vegetation Abatement
Date: 5/29/15, revised 8/18/15
Department: Public Works Vegetation Management
Location: Countywide
Situation: Weeds along flood control channels and in flood control detention basins
What are the
management goals for
the sites?
The primary management goals are to maintain weeds at a suitable height for fire prevention, to
prevent siltation, and to facilitate water flow in the event of a flood. The specific goals vary from site
to site, and each flood control facility has its own operations and maintenance manual, which may list
facility-specific vegetation management goals. The following are general vegetation management
goals:
1. Create firebreaks. These are mandated by the 9 fire districts and 19 cities that have jurisdiction in
areas with County-maintained property. Specific stipulations, e.g., for the width of the firebreak or
need for cross breaks, differ for different properties, according to the fire district with jurisdiction.
• Small properties usually need to have all the vegetation grazed to the height of 3” to 6”,
depending on the regulations.
• Large parcels may only require a perimeter firebreak, with or without firebreaks cut through the
middle or in various patterns.
2. Reduce fire fuel. This is not necessarily mandated by fire regulations, but it helps the Department
in their vegetation management.
• Public Works generally goes above and beyond the mandates from the fire districts to reduce
fuel.
• Grazing allows the Department to reduce fuel by much more than would be possible by hand
or machine.
3. Reduce or modify habitat.
• The Department works to expose and discourage ground squirrel colonies.
• The Department works to reduce habitat for nesting birds so that crews can perform required
maintenance activities without harming any birds.
• The Department may also modify vegetation and/or the shape and depth of the low-flow
channel to meet Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District requirements.
• The Department tries to reduce cover for homeless encampments.
4. Reduce vegetation to improve visual inspection of flood control channels.
• The Department is looking for slumping and erosion on the slopes, for malfunctioning
hardware, and for other problems.
• Grazing exposes these problems and makes inspections with the Army Corps of Engineers
much easier.
5. Remove or reduce water flow impediments, i.e., vegetation growing in the channel.
• Vegetation growing in the channel can snag debris that is carried in the water during a flood
event and could potentially cause water to overflow the banks.
• Engineered channels are designed to maintain a certain flow rate. When the water slows,
sediment drops out of the flowing water and falls to the bottom of the channel. This increases
the maintenance needed in the channel because it reduces the carrying capacity of the
channel.
• The Army Corps of Engineers wants Public Works to remove sediment to keep the water
flowing and to maintain the capacity of the channel, but the Department has found it very
difficult to get permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to take out sediment.
Thus it is important that the Department prevent sedimentation as much as possible.
2015 IPM Annual Report 34
Note that if Contra Costa’s flood control channels are not properly maintained, they could be
decertified by the Army Corps of Engineers, which would result in the property owners in many
communities having to purchase very expensive flood insurance.
For this facility’s
goals, is herbicide a
viable option?
Note that for most of the flood control facilities and their management goals, herbicides alone are not
an option.
How often are the
sites monitored?
This varies from site to site.
In the course of their other work, Vegetation Management and Flood Control Maintenance staff
continually monitor weed conditions and alert the Vegetation Manager of any incipient problems. The
Vegetation Manager routinely inspects all channels.
Note that goats greatly reduce the vegetation growing in the channel which allows the Department to
more easily monitor for invasive weeds and structural problems.
Weeds have been
identified as the
following:
Any broadleaf weeds or grasses. Trees can also be considered weeds if they are growing on the
slope or in the channel of an engineered flood control channel. Note that goats will eat tree seedlings
and debark larger trees. Larger trees may not be killed and must be cut and killed by painting the cut
portion of the stump with herbicide. This technique is used primarily in engineered channels and not
in natural stream channels.
Are populations high
enough to require
control? Explain
This is determined by the Vegetation Manager using requirements from the corresponding fire
district, the Army Corps of Engineers, and his knowledge and experience in order to meet the
maintenance goals of the particular flood control facility.
Is this a sensitive
site?
Are any of the sites under management considered highly sensitive sites? Yes
Are any sites under management part of any of the court-ordered
injunction?
Yes
Are any of the sites known or potential habitat for any endangered or
threatened species?
Note that in the past the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has
not had an issue with goats grazing in areas with red-legged frogs.
Yes
Are any of the sites on or near an area where people walk or children
play?
Yes
Are any of the sites near a drinking water reservoir? No
Are any of the sites near a creek or flood control channel? Yes
Are any of the sites near crops? Yes
Are any of the sites near desirable trees or landscaping? Yes
Are any of the sites on soil that is highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly? Not applicable
At any of the sites, is the ground water near the surface? Not applicable
Are there any well heads near the sites? Not applicable
What factors are See the attached decision tree for grazing.
2015 IPM Annual Report 35
taken into account
when considering a
site for grazing?
What factors
contribute the cost of
grazing?
1. The size and shape of the parcel
a. For a large parcel, the cost of moving the animals in and out is spread over a number of acres.
b. A long narrow parcel could cost more because the animals might have to be moved many
times.
2. The ease of access to a site for the unloading and loading of the animals
3. The amount of fencing necessary
4. The number of times the animals have to be moved within the site and the ease with which that
can be done
5. The availability of water at the site for the animals (having to truck in water can increase the cost)
6. The time of year in which the parcel is grazed (grazing in fall and winter is far less expensive
than when demand is high in the spring and summer)
Are special permits
required to graze
flood control
channels?
Flood control basins?
No special permits are required. This activity is subject to the procedures of the Routine Maintenance
Agreement (RMA) that the Department has with California Fish and Wildlife and includes a habitat
assessment before work begins and follows species-specific guidelines for maintenance in the
channels. Fish and Wildlife considers grazing to be the least problematic weed control technique.
The Public Works Department reports areas being grazed in their quarterly report to the state Fish
and Wildlife Department.
What qualities does a
good goat grazing
company have?
Some possible qualities:
• Availability of adequately sized herds for the jobs
• Responsiveness—available within a couple of weeks of the request rather than a couple of
months
• Within a reasonable distance from the job sites
• Ability to meet contract requirements
A bonus for the Department is a “no-kill” company that does not cull its herds for slaughter at the end
of the season. This is a selling point for citizens who call the Department worried about the welfare of
the animals.
What are important
requirements to have
in the grazing
contract?
1. One shepherd trained in management of livestock in urban and suburban areas must live on site
with each livestock herd.
2. The shepherd must be provided with a cellular phone or equivalent and must be in possession of
the phone at all times.
3. The livestock must be contained in designated areas with a fully intact chain link or hog-wire
fence connected to an electrical supply, and the fence must be maintained at all times.
4. The contractor must supply herding dogs trained to contain goats/sheep and protect goats/sheep
from wild and domestic predators.
5. The contractor must supply portable sleeping, cooking, and sanitary facilities for the shepherds to
be located on the Flood Control District property; the contractor may make alternate
arrangements with other property owners.
6. The final determination of vegetation management services shall be at the discretion of the
County, and the contractor shall meet with designated County staff to determine completion.
7. The contractor must remove livestock from the site when grazing objectives are met, or within 48
hours of completion of service, or within 24 hours, upon notification by the County.
Comments Grazing can be used in conjunction with herbicide treatments:
First grazing is used to reduce biomass in the channels and make it easier to see invasive weeds
that need to be treated. After the animals have left, crews can easily spot treat the invasive and other
serious weeds with herbicide to kill them.
2015 IPM Annual Report 36 November 2015
Decision Tree for Using Grazing Animals for Vegetation Management
Yes
START HERE
Yes, considerable
Yes Yes Yes Yes difficulties exit
No
No No No
No, or some
difficulties exist
Yes
Other management options
include machine mowing,
hand mowing and herbicides.No
*In some instances, animals may not be able to
eat the vegetation low enough for the site Yes, some or considerable difficulties exist
objectives, and/or timing may present a problem.
No
Can they be
met by the
grazer?*
Consider other veg.
mgmt options
Threatened/
endangered
spp present?
Site presents
hazards for
workers?
List
objectives
for site.
Access difficult
for people &/or
machines?
Site presents
hazards for
workers, e.g.
steep slopes?
Request a grazing estimate, but
machine/hand mowing may be
the best option.
Animals can be
unloaded and
loaded easily?
Request a grazing estimate.
Grazing may be the best
option.
Access
difficult for
people &/or
machines?
Grazing is likely the
best option.
2015 IPM Annual Report 37
Attachment B. Subcommittee Reports
Weeds
Bed Bugs
2015 IPM Annual Report 38
2015 IPM Annual Report 39
Final Report from the Weed Subcommittee
to the Contra Costa County IPM Committee.
Prepared by Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator, September 2015
Doug Freier
Members
Chad Godoy/Larry Yost
Michael Kent
Cheng Liao
Cece Sellgren, Chair
The Weed subcommittee met five times in 2015: February 17, March 10, April 21, June 9, and August 6. The
subcommittee had scheduled a meeting on April 14, but due to unforeseen circumstances, several members were
absent. Since the subcommittee did not have a quorum, the meeting was cancelled and rescheduled for April 21.
The Board of Supervisors had requested that the IPM Advisory Committee produce more policy
recommendations for their consideration. As a consequence, the subcommittee chose as one focus to develop
recommendations on funding problems in the Grounds Division and on sustainable landscaping in the County.
The second focus of the subcommittee was developing another decision-making document. The subcommittee
chose grazing as the topic.
Gathering Information from the Grounds Division Program
The subcommittee heard several staff reports on the state of grounds maintenance around County buildings and
discussed the issue with Kevin Lachapelle, Grounds Manager. Some of the problems the Grounds Division faces
are as follows:
• Funding for grounds maintenance is dynamic and beyond the control of Grounds Division staff. The
amount of funding is tied to the Departments that have offices in the building. Some Departments have
more money than others and/or are willing to spend more on landscape maintenance. As tenants move in
and out of buildings, budgets for maintenance change while the cost of maintaining the landscape around
that particular building does not. Since the recession, this has largely resulted in a lack of funds to
properly maintain most County landscaping.
• Because of the way grounds maintenance is funded, it is very difficult to make long term investments in
the landscaping to reduce pesticide use, water use, and maintenance costs.
Turf Conversion in the County
The subcommittee heard reports from staff on removal of turf from around County buildings.
This is the fourth and most severe year of drought in California. The continuing drought presents the perfect
opportunity to convince departments to convert their lawns to drought-tolerant landscaping where plants are
widely spaced and surrounded by wood chip mulch. Turf conversion
• Saves water;
• Allows the County to be an example for its citizens;
• Saves on maintenance costs since turf requires very high maintenance;
• Allows maintenance staff to spend the time saved on other crucial maintenance tasks including managing
weeds by physical means, such as hand pulling, as opposed to herbicide applications;
• Reduces herbicide use in the landscape since reduced irrigation and mulch will greatly suppress weed
growth;
• Reduces other pesticide use since turf is susceptible to many pests and diseases;
2015 IPM Annual Report 40
• Reduces the possibility of citizen exposure to pesticides since the risk of exposure is greater in
landscaping than for example, along roadsides;
• Reduces greenhouse gas emissions from turf maintenance equipment and from pumping water to irrigate
the turf; and
• Moves County landscapes in the direction of greater sustainability.
The Grounds Division chose the Pittsburg Health Center at 2311 Loveridge in Pittsburg as the pilot project. About
70% of the turf was removed and replaced with drought-tolerant landscaping and mulch. The conversion is
projected to save one million gallons of water per year.
Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
The subcommittee developed recommendations to address some of the Grounds Division issues. (See below.)
Decision-Making Document for Grazing on Flood Control Channels.
The subcommittee reviewed the document with the Public Works Vegetation Manager and made requests for a
number of changes, clarifications, and improvements. Some of the improvements that were added are as follows:
• More specifics about management goals
• A note about grazing being considered the least problematic weed control technique by the Department of
Fish and Wildlife
• A note clarifying that grazing animals may not always be able to meet the objectives of the site because
they cannot eat the vegetation low enough or because timing issues may present insurmountable problems
See Attachment A for a copy of the decision-making document.
2015 IPM Annual Report 41
MEMO
TO: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
Supervisor Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Piepho, Vice Chair
FROM: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator
SUBJECT: Recommendations on Sustainable Landscaping from the IPM Advisory Committee
DATE: August 18, 2015
BACKGROUND
This is the fourth and most severe year of drought in California. The County has an opportunity to lead the way in
water conservation and provide practical examples for its citizens. Turf around County buildings is used largely
for aesthetic purposes and consumes far more water than drought tolerant landscaping. Drought-tolerant
landscaping can be very attractive, and demonstration projects in the County will help citizens adjust to the new
aesthetic.
This summer one such project was completed in the County. Approximately 70% of the turf at the Pittsburg
Health Center (2311 Loveridge, Pittsburg) was removed and replaced with drought-tolerant plants that are widely
spaced and mulched with wood chips. The change at the site is projected to save one million gallons of water per
year. The current funding structure for maintenance of County landscaping is not conducive to projects such as
this that may require an upfront investment that will provide returns only over the long-term.
Much of the landscaping around County buildings is aging and will require renovation in the near future. This
presents the opportunity to alter County landscapes so they use less water and require less time and less pesticide
to maintain them adequately.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE IPM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. Develop a Countywide policy to convert existing turf to drought tolerant, low maintenance, and low
pesticide use landscaping. The exceptions to this policy would be play areas for Head Start sites and turf
in parks that is used for recreation (turf areas in parks that are not used for recreation should be converted
to drought tolerant landscaping). The design for any turf conversion should use the least amount of
pesticide practical in the preparation of the site.
2. Provide funding for conversion to sustainable landscaping
a. Develop ideas for a funding structure for new landscape installation, turf conversion, and
landscape maintenance and renovation that is not coupled to the particular building or the
departments housed in the building in order to provide secure, long-term funding for landscape
maintenance and for projects that require up-front investment.
b. Pursue outside funding for turf conversion but do not allow the lack of outside funding to stymie
the removal of existing turf. Perhaps the position of Sustainability Coordinator, if and when it is
filled, could pursue grant funding for sustainable landscaping projects.
3. Develop a County policy to take decisions about the type of landscaping around buildings out of the
hands of the tenants of that building in order that long range plans and long term investments in the
landscaping can be made.
4. Make the following additions to the existing County Landscape Standards under “D. Design Guidelines,
3.01. General”:
a. Lifecycle costing will be used when landscapes are renovated or created.
2015 IPM Annual Report 42
[Note: This is to ensure that projects can be undertaken that require a substantial up-front
investment to save money, labor, water, and pesticide in the future.]
b. Designs for all landscaping should take into account the level of maintenance and pest
management that will be required to sustain the landscape. Designs should be aesthetically
pleasing, low maintenance, water conserving, and maintained using an IPM approach for pest
management.
5. Make the following changes in wording to the existing County Landscape Standards under “D. Design
Guidelines, 3.06. Water Conservation, part C”
C. Emphasis shall be placed on plants well suited to the microclimate and soil conditions at the given
site and that require minimal water once established, are relatively free from pests and diseases,
and are generally easy to maintain, are pollinator-friendly, and are native to California. Reference
shall be made to currently recognized sources such as
6. Make the following addition to the existing County Landscape Standards under “D. Design Guidelines,
3.09. Turf”:
EBMUD’s Water Conserving Plants and
Landscapes for the Bay Area or Bob Perry’s Trees and Shrubs for Dry California Landscapes for
recommended water conserving plants.
Turf shall not be proposed except in Head Start and other child care play areas and in parks where it
will be used for recreation. Turf shall not be proposed for purely aesthetic purposes.
7. Develop a County policy to require that landscape designs be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Grounds Division, in addition to the other required reviews and approvals. The Grounds Division should
review plans for the long-term sustainability of the landscape with regard to maintenance costs and
potential pest and disease problems. Landscaping can be in place for 10 to 20 years, and poor designs and
inappropriate plant choices waste County resources. The Grounds Division has considerable expertise in
determining maintenance costs and recognizing future maintenance and pest problems.
8. Develop a County policy to require that the plant lists for landscape designs be reviewed by the County
Department of Agriculture whose staff are the County experts on invasive plants. Many of the invasive
plants that are plaguing California wildlands today were unwittingly introduced by the nursery trade into
urban landscapes where they escaped to become major pests that cost Californians at least 82 million
dollars every year.
RECOMMENDATIONS/NEXT STEPS
APPROVE recommendations and DIRECT County staff as appropriate.
2015 IPM Annual Report 43
Report from the Bed Bug Subcommittee
to the Contra Costa County IPM Committee.
Prepared by Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator, September 2015
Luis/Carlos Agurto
Members
Susan Heckly
Marj Leeds
Patti TenBrook—Chair
The Bed Bug subcommittee met three times in 2015: April 13, June 10, and August 12.
The Board of Supervisors had requested that the IPM Advisory Committee produce more recommendation for
their consideration. As a consequence, the subcommittee chose to focus on developing a bed bug ordinance for
the Supervisors to consider. The subcommittee also reviewed the County’s bed bug website and made suggestions
for improvement.
Bed Bug Ordinance
The committee reviewed legislation from around the country and made a list of the most important provisions.
The committee then became aware of AB 551 introduced by Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, which is currently
making its way through the California Legislature. This bill includes almost all of the salient points that the Bed
Bug subcommittee gathered from other legislation, and according to Assemblyman Nazarian’s aid, there is a good
chance it will pass and go to the governor later this year.
The Bed Bug subcommittee has drafted an ordinance for Contra Costa County that is based directly on AB 551.
This draft can either be used as the basis for a County ordinance or as the basis for implementing AB 551 if and
when it becomes law.
The IPM Coordinator will take the draft ordinance to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on
September 8, 2015 to receive direction from Supervisors Andersen and Piepho on whether to continue working on
the ordinance. The IPM Coordinator will also ask for advice on where to house enforcement for the ordinance and
how to apportion costs for bed bug treatments between landlords and tenants.
Bed Bug Website
The committee reviewed the County’s bed bug web pages at cchealth.org/bedbugs and suggested the following:
• Add information on the front page about bed bugs being a community problem that must be solved by the
community
• Add a separate tab for pest control professionals that includes a link to the National Pest Management
Association’s bed bug guidelines, a template for a bed bug IPM plan, and County social service resources
that they could call to help customers
• Add a tab for travelers with information on how to not bring bed bugs home
• Add a tab for homeowners, for businesses, and for schools
• Add the EPA bed bug website under Resources
2015 IPM Annual Report 44
MEMO
TO: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
Supervisor Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Piepho, Vice Chair
FROM: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator
SUBJECT: Draft Bed Bug Ordinance
DATE: August 18, 2015
BACKGROUND
Bed bugs are a continuing problem in Contra Costa County, and they disproportionately affect low income
people, the elderly and the disabled. We encounter numerous situations where the property owner refuses to
control the bed bug infestation or out of ignorance implements measures that make the problem worse. Tenants
lack information on their responsibilities in preventing infestations and cooperating in control, and pest control
companies need guidelines for treating bed bug infestations using the best available practices. This information
exists but is not collected in one document for Contra Costa County.
The IPM Advisory Committee’s Bed Bug subcommittee has been discussing bed bug ordinances for several
meetings and has reviewed legislation from around the U.S. with an eye to drafting an ordinance for Contra Costa
that would address the issues mentioned above. The subcommittee became aware of AB 551 introduced by
Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, which is currently making its way through the California Legislature. This bill
includes almost all of the salient points that the Bed Bug subcommittee gathered from other legislation, and
according to Assemblyman Nazarian’s aid, there is a good chance it will pass and go to the governor later this
year.
The Bed Bug subcommittee has drafted an ordinance for Contra Costa County that is based directly on AB 551.
This draft can either be used as the basis for a County ordinance or as the basis for implementing AB 551 if and
when it becomes law.
RECOMMENDATIONS/NEXT STEPS
The Bed Bug subcommittee would like direction from the TWI Committee about whether to continue work on an
ordinance for the County. It should be noted that in AB 551, the Legislature declares its intention to occupy the
field with regard to this subject.
The subcommittee also requests direction on how to apportion the costs of bed bug treatment between landlord
and tenant and where to house enforcement of this ordinance.
2015 IPM Annual Report 45
DRAFT CONTRA COSTA BED BUG ORDINANCE
[NOTE: This draft is based directly on AB 551. For clarity, responsibilities listed in AB 551 have been grouped
under Landlord, Tenant, and Pest Control Operator.]
The IPM Advisory Committee’s Bed Bug subcommittee finds that
• Controlling bed bugs is uniquely challenging, as bed bug resistance to existing insecticidal control
measures is significant. Cooperation among landlords, tenants, and pest control operators is required for
successful control.
• Tenants, property owners, and pest control operators have distinct rights and responsibilities regarding
bed bug infestations.
• Effective control is more likely to occur when landlords and tenants are informed of the best practices for
bed bug control.
• Early detection and reporting of bed bugs is an important component required for preventing bed bug
infestations. Tenants should not face retaliation for reporting a problem.
• Lack of cooperation by landlords and tenants can undermine pest control operator efforts to identify the
presence of bed bugs and control an infestation. Depending on the treatment strategy, it is often critical
that tenants cooperate with pest control operators by reducing clutter, washing clothes, or performing
other activities. Likewise, inadequate or untimely response or planning by landlords may exacerbate an
infestation.
• Specific, enforceable duties of tenants and landlords are necessary so that the failure of a tenant or
landlord to cooperate fully does not prevent effective investigation, treatment, and monitoring of all
infested and surrounding units.
For the purposes of this ordinance:
1. “Bed bug management plan” means a written plan prepared by a pest control operator and the landlord for
a property. The plan will outline the responsibilities of the landlord and tenants and shall be consistent
with the National Pest Management Association’s (NPMA) best practices and tailored to the conditions at
the property. The plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
a. Education of tenants to reduce the risk of introduction of bed bugs to the property and to
encourage reporting. Education methods and frequency shall be based on resources of the
landlord.
b. Housekeeping and building maintenance procedures to help prevent bed bug harborage, including
recommendations from a pest control operator about correcting bed bug hiding places and entry
points, for example by sealing cracks and crevices in walls, ceilings, and floors, and fixing loose
moldings and peeling wallpaper.
c. The landlord’s process for responding to complaints and a brief statement of the requirements of
this ordinance.
d. Written documentation of any bed bug treatment program.
e. Use of monitoring devices on a proactive basis, routine monitoring inspections by trained
employees or licensed pest control operators, if appropriate, as agreed by the pest control operator
and the landlord.
f. A complaint log that documents compliance with this ordinance.
2. “Bed bug treatment program” means a program, based on the NPMA’s best practices, for treating an
infestation to remove or kill visible and accessible bed bugs and their eggs, either immediately or through
residual effects. The program shall be structured to continue until the infestation is controlled.
3. “Complaint log” means part of a bed bug management plan that tracks a landlord’s ongoing responses to
each bed bug report over the preceding two years. The complaint log shall include, but is not limited to,
records pertaining to verification inspections and inspections of adjacent units, results of inspections,
records of notices provided to tenants, unit preparation inspections, treatment type, locations and dates,
and follow up inspections.
4. “Inspection” means an investigation of the premises, using NPMA’s best practices to confirm or rule out
a bed bug infestation, to identify all infested areas, to determine treatment tactics, or to verify that an
infestation has been eliminated.
2015 IPM Annual Report 46
5. “NPMA best practices” means best management practices for bed bugs issued by the National Pest
Management Association. “NPMA best practices” does not include practices or actions that conflict with
federal or state law.
6. “Pest control operator” means an individual with a Branch 2 license from the Structural Pest Control
Board.
7. “Pretreatment checklist” means unit preparation requirements tailored to the treatment method, consistent
with NPMA best practices, including, but not limited to, easy-to-understand instructions, pictures, and
diagrams, prepared by the pest control operator and provided to tenants by the landlord or pest control
operator. The checklist shall include instructions for how to treat tenant clothing, personal furnishings,
and other belongings, if treatment is required, and shall provide contact information for the pest control
operator to answer questions prior to treatment.
General Information Notice to Be Provided to Each Tenant
A landlord shall provide a written notice to tenants that shall include, but is not limited to the following:
• General information about bed bug identification, behavior and biology,
• The importance of cooperation for prevention and treatment
• The importance of prompt written reporting of suspected infestations to the landlord.
The County IPM Coordinator shall create a written notice, translated into several languages, that will be available
on the County’s bed bug website: cchealth.org/bedbugs
This notice shall be provided to all current tenants by January 1, 2016 and to each prospective tenant thereafter.
If the landlord wishes to create his or her own notice, the information shall be substantially the same as the notice
on the County’s bed bug website: cchealth.org/bedbugs
Landlord Responsibilities
1. Within five business days after a tenant or a public agency notifies a landlord of a suspected infestation,
the landlord shall retain the services of a pest control operator to verify the suspected infestation and to
conduct a further inspection, if determined to be necessary by the pest control operator.
2. Entry to inspect a tenant’s dwelling unit shall comply with Section 1954 of the California Civil Code.
Entry to inspect any unit selected by the pest control operator and to conduct follow up inspections of
surrounding units until bed bugs have been eliminated is a necessary service for the purpose of Section
1954.
3. If a pest control operator’s inspection confirms that a bed bug infestation exists:
a. The landlord shall notify all tenants of units identified for treatment by the pest control operator
of the findings of infestation. The notification shall be in writing and made within two business
days of receipt of the pest control operator’s findings. For confirmed infestations in common
areas, all tenants shall be provided notice of the pest control operator’s findings.
b. If further inspections of the affected units or surrounding units are necessary as determined by the
pest control operator, based on the NPMA best practices, subsequent notices shall include
information about future inspections, unless that information was disclosed in a prior notice. Each
entry shall require a notice conforming to Section 1954.
4. After an infestation is confirmed by a pest control operator, the landlord shall contract with a pest control
operator to prepare and implement a bed bug treatment program to begin within a reasonable time.
Beginning the treatment program within 10 calendar days after the infestation is confirmed shall be
presumed as to be a reasonable time.
5. At least seven calendar days prior to treatment, the landlord shall provide to the affected tenants with the
following:
a. A cover sheet from the landlord, in at least 10-point type, disclosing:
i. The date or dates of treatment, the deadline for tenant preparation of the unit, and the
date, approximate hour, and length of time, if any, the tenant shall be required to be
absent from the unit.
2015 IPM Annual Report 47
ii. A statement that the tenant may request assistance or an extension of time to prepare the
unit, to the extent required by law, to reasonably accommodate a disability.
iii. A statement that a tenant not entitled to a reasonable accommodation under law may also
request an extension of three business days to prepare the unit.
iv. A statement that if the pest control operator recommends disposal of items, the tenant
will follow the directions of the pest control operator to ensure that disposal does not
spread bed bugs and that infested items are not re-used by others. These directions shall
be in accordance with NPMA best practices.
b. A pretreatment checklist with information provided by the pest control operator, which shall be in
accordance with NPMA best practices.
c. A written notice of entry pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1954 to affected tenants for all
treatments and inspections.
6. If an extension of time is provided in order to reasonably accommodate a tenant required under law to
receive a reasonable accommodation, or for other tenants who have requested a three business day
accommodation, the landlord shall provide all affected tenants with a notice of the revised dates and times
as specified in 5.a.i. above under Landlord Responsibilities, as necessary.
7. Inspection of unit preparation and bed bug treatment and post treatment inspection and monitoring of all
affected and surrounding units as recommended by the pest control operator are a necessary service for
the purpose of California Civil Code Section 1954.
8. No later than 30 calendar days after a bed bug infestation is confirmed by a pest control operator, or by a
code enforcement officer or a health officer under paragraph (12) of subdivision (a) of Section 17920.3 of
the California Health and Safety Code, a pest control operator and the landlord shall prepare a written bed
bug management plan for the property. This plan shall be made available to tenants upon request.
9. It is unlawful for a landlord to rent or lease, or offer to rent or lease, any vacant dwelling unit that the
landlord knows or should reasonably know has a current bed bug infestation.
10. Service of a three-day notice and filing of an unlawful detainer action to enforce tenant responsibilities
under this ordinance shall not be considered unlawful retaliation under Section 1942.5 of the California
Civil Code.
11. If a landlord has received notice of an infestation and is in compliance with the requirements of this
ordinance, the property shall not, with respect to bed bugs, be considered to be substandard as defined in
Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code, to be untenantable as defined in Section
1941.1 of the California Code of Regulations, or to be in breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
12. A landlord shall not be liable for any damages due to delays in bed bug treatment and control that are
outside the landlord’s control.
Tenant Responsibilities
1. A tenant shall not bring onto a property personal furnishings or belongings that the tenant knows or
reasonably should know are infested with bed bugs.
2. Within seven calendar days after a tenant finds or reasonably suspects a bed bug infestation at a property,
the tenant shall notify the landlord in writing of that fact and the evidence of infestation. Evidence of
infestation includes, but is not limited to, live bed bug; staining on bedding, furniture or walls; or any
recurring or unexplained bites, that the tenant knows or reasonably suspects are caused by bed bugs.
3. Tenants shall cooperate with the inspection to facilitate the detection and treatment of bed bugs, including
providing requested information that is necessary to facilitate the detection and treatment of bed bugs to
the pest control operator.
4. The tenant shall fulfill his or her responsibilities for unit preparation before the scheduled treatment, as
described in the pest control operator’s pretreatment checklist. Tenants shall be responsible for the
management of their belongings, including, but not limited to, clothing and personal furnishings.
5. Tenants who are not able to fulfill their unit preparation responsibilities shall promptly notify the
landlord. For a tenant not entitled to a reasonable accommodation under law who requests an extension of
time to prepare the unit, the landlord shall extend the preparation time by three days.
6. A tenant shall cooperate in vacating his or her unit as notified for treatment purposes and shall not reenter
the unit until directed by the pest control operator to do so.
2015 IPM Annual Report 48
Pest Control Operator Responsibilities
1. A pest control operator shall base his or her recommendations for inspections and treatments on the
NPMA best practices (available at http://www.pestworld.org/all-things-bed-bugs/)
2. When a pest control operator is hired by a landlord to control a bed bug infestation, the pest control
operator shall prepare and implement a bed bug treatment program based on NPMA best practices to
begin within a reasonable time. Beginning the treatment program within 10 calendar days after the
infestation is confirmed shall be presumed as to be a reasonable time. The pest control operator must
immediately provide the landlord with the dates of treatment, the deadline for tenant preparation of the
unit, and the date, approximate hour, and length of time, if any, the tenant shall be required to be absent
from the unit in order for the landlord to alert affected tenants at least seven calendar days prior to
treatment.
3. The pest control operator shall provide the landlord with a pre-treatment checklist for tenants following
NPMA best practices.
4. The pest control operator shall use NPMA best practices in determining if it is necessary to dispose of a
tenant’s property and shall provide directions for proper disposal according to NPMA best practices.
5. No later than 30 calendar days after a bed bug infestation is confirmed by a pest control operator, or by a
code enforcement officer or a health officer under paragraph (12) of subdivision (a) of Section 17920.3 of
the California Health and Safety Code, a pest control operator and the landlord shall prepare a written bed
bug management plan for the property.
Disposal of Bed Bug Infested Property
A landlord or tenant, when disposing of personal property that they own or control, that is infested with bed bugs,
including, but not limited to, bedding, furniture, clothing, draperies, carpeting, or padding, shall
follow NPMA best practices to prevent the spread of bed bugs and prevent the re-use of personal property by
others. Materials needed to safely dispose of property shall be furnished as needed to the tenant by the landowner
or pest control operator.
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
In addition to any other remedies provided by law, a landlord or tenant may sue for injunctive or declaratory relief
for violations of this chapter.
Failure to comply with NPMA best practices shall not constitute a violation of this ordinance if copies of the
NPMA best practices are not available to the public free of charge
For Reference:
[From AB 551, Section 1954.24]
“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), to the end of providing a single, uniform approach to the treatment of
bed bug infestations in residential tenancies in California, it is the intent of the Legislature to occupy the field
with regard to this subject. Cities, counties, and other local entities are prohibited from enacting a local law on
this subject.
“(b) The comprehensive ordinances and regulations of the City and County of San Francisco regarding the
treatment and control of bed bug infestations are deemed to satisfy this chapter and are not preempted.”
2015 IPM Annual Report 49
Attachment C. Pesticide Use Reporting
(See separate PDF for Contra Costa County Operations Pesticide Use Data Spreadsheet)
History of Pesticide Use Reporting
Since the 1950s, the State of California has required at least some kind of pesticide use reporting, but in 1990, the
comprehensive reporting program we have now went into effect.
California was the first state in the nation to require full reporting of all agricultural and governmental agency
pesticide use. The current reporting system exempts home use pesticides and sanitizers, such as bleach, from
reporting requirements. (Sanitizers are considered pesticides.)
What does “pesticide” mean?
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) defines pesticide as “any substance or mixture of
substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating insects, rodents, nematodes, fungi, weeds,
or other pests. In California plant growth regulators, defoliants, and desiccants, as well as adjuvants, are also
regulated as pesticides.”
“Adjuvants” increase pesticide efficacy and include emulsifiers, spreaders, foam suppressants, wetting agents, and
other efficacy enhancers. In FY 14-15, Contra Costa County operations used a total of 5,287 lbs. of pesticide
active ingredients, which included 1,815 lbs. of spray adjuvant active ingredients that were used to prevent
foaming, to reduce pesticide drift, and change the pH of local water used in spraying.
How Pesticide Use is Reported to the State
Pesticide use data is reported monthly to the County Agriculture Commissioner. The data is checked and sent on
to DPR, which maintains a database of pesticide use for the entire state. Although pesticide use is reported to DPR
as pounds, ounces, or gallons of pesticide product, DPR reports pesticide use in its database as pounds of active
ingredient.
DPR defines active ingredient as “[a]n agent in a product primarily responsible for the intended pesticidal effects
and which is shown as an active ingredient on a pesticide label.” (Since adjuvants are regulated as pesticides in
California, the active ingredients of adjuvants are also included in DPR’s database.)
How Pesticide Use is Reported by Contra Costa County Operations
The attached spreadsheet records pesticide use data only for County operations
Since DPR reports California pesticide use in pounds of active ingredient, Contra Costa County does the same.
The County uses the same formula for converting gallons of pesticide product into pounds of active ingredient
that the state uses:
and not for any other agency,
entity, company, or individual in the County.
Pounds of Active Ingredient =
gallons of product used X 8.33 lbs/gallon of water X the specific gravity of the product X the % of active ingredient in the product
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 1
Contra Costa County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public
Regarding the County Integrated Pest Management Program
August 27November 20, 2015
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Staff has found no unique or innovative pesticide alternatives in the Bay Area or Nation
11/4/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“In the staff document provided
titled 2015 IPM Program
Accomplishments, I was very
surprised to read that staff believes
after reviewing programs
throughout the ‘Bay Area and the
nation’, that ‘there is nothing
unique or innovative in the Bay
Area or the nation.’”
• PfSE appears to be concerned that staff has found no unique or innovative
approaches to pest management. This concern seems to stem from a mis-
reading of the 2015 IPM Program Accomplishments document in the section on
the work history of the IPM Program Data Management subcommittee. The
phrase actually reads: “Looked for data other than pesticide use to measure
implementation of IPM in CCC; found nothing unique or innovative in the Bay
Area or the nation”
The IPM Coordinator does not allow the IPM Committee members and the public adequate time to
review documents
9/2/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“People are often reluctant to admit
that they have not had time to
review documents before voting on
minutes and other items.
Committee members are likely to
just go along with the majority and
vote to accept documents as Staff
submits them…It is more
reasonable to provide at least four
to six weeks of time for volunteers
to fit in the review amongst a busy
schedule.” (9/2/15)
“…I find it appalling that Staff
would propose to totally eliminate
the By-Laws language that
requires a timely distribution of the
meeting minutes to the IPM
Advisory Committee. It has been
difficult to read all the documents
required for review within 5 days
[from when] they are provided,
which is a recent improvement to
providing it 3 days prior to
meetings that was practiced before
my letter earlier this year…The By-
• The IPM Coordinator sends out agenda materials in accordance with the Brown
Act and County policy, which is 96 hours prior to the time of the public meeting.
• At the end of each meeting, the next meeting’s agenda is planned so that
members are aware of and can plan time for review of long or numerous
documents.
• Since the inception of the IPM Advisory Committee, the practice has been to
distribute the minutes with the agenda materials. Because the by-laws were
being updated to reflect the current designations for IPM Committee seats and to
change public member terms, the IPM Coordinator proposed changing the by-
laws to reflect the current practice regarding distribution of the minutes. On
9/2/15 the IPM Committee members discussed these by-laws changes and
heard comment from the public on the issue. The Committee voted to
unanimously approve all the by-laws changes.
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 2
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Laws currently states that minutes
be distributed 1 week after the
meeting…I believe it’s reasonable
to amend [the by-laws] to
distributing the materials within 2
weeks after the meeting to give
staff time to prepare the meeting
minutes, but eliminating this
important timeline is not acceptable
to the community.” (9/2/15)
IPM subcommittees should focus on pesticide use and not on bed bugs or removing turf
2/16/15-IPM
2/17/15-IPM
2/20/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
3/4/15-IPM
5/6/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
9/2/15-IPM
11/4/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of the subcommittees
working on bed bugs, a community
problem, rather than County-only
pesticide issues and working on
turf removal around buildings
rather than on pesticide use in
rights-of-way
• Bed bugs affect 1000s of Contra Costa residents, both in municipalities and the
unincorporated areas of the County. In order to get relief, desperate citizens are
using many different kinds of pesticides in the home, throughout the bedroom,
and often on the bedding itself. Reports indicate that frequently pesticides are
used to excess and in a manner contrary to the labeled directions. This intimate
contact with, and misuse of, pesticides is very troubling. This is a serious issue of
pesticide exposure and contamination as well as an issue of the well-being of
Contra Costa residents that the County has an obligation to address.
• Converting turf to drought-tolerant landscaping accomplishes several things:
o Saves millions of gallons of water in this time of serious drought.
o Reduces the need for weed control and thus for herbicides. The limited
irrigation and wood chip mulch between the drought-tolerant plants is not
conducive to weed growth, Few weeds sprout in the dry soil under the
mulch, and those that do sprout can often be hand-pulled.
o Addresses herbicide use near buildings, which is where people have the
greatest chance of being exposed to these pesticides.
o Reduces maintenance hours because turf is a high maintenance plant.
o Frees Grounds maintenance staff to better manage other landscapes and
continue to reduce their use of pesticide.
o Reduces the amount of electricity used to pump water, the amount of gas
used in lawn mowers and trimmers and in trucks to travel to and from sites
for maintenance, and reduces the amount of pesticide and fertilizer used in
maintaining the turf. This reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
o Demonstrates that the County is a leader in landscaping more wisely for the
arid climate in which we live.
County not tracking pesticide use separately for Public Works rights-of-way/roadsides, flood control
channels, and County-owned parcels
3/2/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We do not see any good reason
why pesticide usage is not being
provided to the community for each
roadside and flood control
program.” (3/2/15)
• The County has always tracked pesticide use separately for roadsides, flood
control channels, and County-owned parcels, but because of a recent change in
the way the Department reported pesticide use to the State of California, the
state Pesticide Use Reports for FY 12-13 and FY 13-14 were not separated. The
database that Public Works uses to track pesticide use cannot produce reports
for PfSE that are user friendly since the database was never intended to be a
pesticide use reporting tool. As a courtesy to PfSE, the Department has resumed
separating pesticide use for the 3 programs when it reports to the state. These
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 3
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Pesticide Use Reports have been provided to PfSE for FY 14-15.
Report the total amount of pesticide used not just the active ingredients
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Report total amount, not just the
active ingredients of pesticides
used in usage spreadsheet”
• In the spread sheet prepared by the IPM Coordinator every year for pesticide use
by County operations, the total amount of pesticide product used is recorded as
well as the total amount of pesticide active ingredient used for each product.
• The California Department of Pesticide Regulation reports pesticide use for the
state in pounds of active ingredient. The County has adopted this system so that
pesticide use reporting is aligned with the state. But as noted above, the County
spreadsheet also records total pounds or gallons of pesticide product used.
• The spreadsheet is posted on the IPM website and attached to the annual report.
Corrections to the minutes of the IPM Advisory Committee or its subcommittees requested by PfSE
5/6/15-IPM
6/9/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of PfSE requesting changes
to the minutes and then changes
are not made
• The IPM Committee members vote on whether or not to make corrections to the
minutes. The members do not always vote to make PfSE’s corrections, additions,
and changes. The IPM Coordinator includes written changes from PfSE (as well
as other public comment) as attachments to the official record of the meeting.
The official agenda, minutes, public comment, and other attachments are posted
on the IPM website.
The herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) has been designated as a probable human
carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
6/9/15-IPM
7/8/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
9/2/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Considering that RoundUp
products with the active ingredient,
glyphosate, is [sic] being applied at
the rate of nearly 1,000 lbs
annually in the Grounds Program
alone, and that glyphosate has
been listed as a Probable Human
Carcinogen by the World Health
Organization earlier this year, are
there any plans by the county to
eliminate this risky chemical to
reduce exposure to the community
and wildlife?”
• The IPM Coordinator has been attending meetings in San Francisco with IPM
coordinators and city and county staff from around the Bay to discuss the
Roundup issue. At this point we do not have a less hazardous product with
equivalent efficacy to replace Roundup, but we continue to look for one. The
Grounds Division uses Roundup as a spot treatment and uses a little as
necessary. In FY 14-15 the Grounds Division used 311 lbs. of glyphosate, the
active ingredient in Roundup.
• The most serious risk of exposure to Roundup is to the applicator because that
person is in close contact with the material, sometimes daily. The law and the
County require applicators to wear personal protective equipment and to be
trained annually to prevent exposure. In light of the new probable carcinogen
designation, the County is looking at whether there are additional precautions
that should be taken to protect workers.
• IARC identifies the potential for a chemical to cause cancer but does not quantify
any increased risk to people from a chemical so designated nor does it
recommend a safe level of exposure. Those designations are left up to regulatory
agencies around the world. The County is waiting for the USEPA to complete its
review of glyphosate.
• On 11/12/15, the European Food Safety Authority ruled that glyphosate probably
does not cause cancer in humans despite IARC’s findings.
Questions posed during public comment for items not on the agenda are not answered by the IPM
Committee
8/6/15 From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“…please allow ample time for
• The IPM Committee does not take up and discuss issues that are not on the
published agenda for the meeting as this would be a violation of the Brown Act.
• Members of the Committee can request to have public concerns put on the
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 4
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
answering and discussing these 6
questions as listed in order of
priority at the next meeting agenda.
Community members have been
waiting patiently since last year for
most of these questions to be
addressed.”
agenda for a future meeting.
IPM Committee members should RSVP for each meeting
6/9/15-IPM
7/8/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“I attended the April 14, 2015
meeting when we waited for over
30 minutes for staff and community
members on the [Weed sub]
Committee to arrive to no avail.
Staff had to regretfully cancel the
meeting due to lack of a quorum.
…consider asking for a heads-up
from committee members if they
cannot attend a future IPM
meeting.” (6/9/15 and 7/8/15)
“Would the county request
Committee members to provide in
writing, anticipation of absenteeism
so that those who arrive at
meetings are not waiting for an
hour only for the meeting to be
cancelled due to lack of a quorum.”
(8/6/15)
• IPM Committee members alert the IPM Coordinator when they know they will be
late or will be missing a meeting of either the full committee or a subcommittee.
Unfortunately, unexpected circumstances do arise from time to time.
• The Weed subcommittee meeting on April 14, 2015 was the first meeting of the
full IPM Committee or any of its subcommittees that had to be cancelled for lack
of a quorum since the IPM Advisory Committee was formed in 2010.
Quorums have been disregarded in previous subcommittee meetings
6/9/15-IPM
7/8/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“According to Shirley Shelangoski
who had attended all
subcommittees between 2012-
2014, quorums were not
considered in subcommittees until
the recent year. Before,
subcommittee meetings were held
regardless of a lack of quorum.”
• All subcommittees consider whether or not there is a quorum before proceeding
with a meeting. Attendance is tracked in each set of minutes.
Absences on the IPM Committee
8/6/15-IPM
8/26/15 Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Will the county track absenteeism
• Absences are tracked in the minutes of every meeting of the full IPM Committee
and each of its subcommittees. Attendance at meetings is reported annually to
the Board of Supervisors.
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 5
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
and provide the data annually so
that those who missed more than
two in a given year be considered
for removal from membership as
stated in the By-Laws?”
Pesticide Use around the Hazardous Materials Office in Martinez
2/20/15-IPM
8/615-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of members of PfSE
observing pesticide use around the
Hazardous Materials Office at 4585
Pacheco Blvd. in Martinez without
posting
• The Hazardous Materials Program rents space from ERRG, a company that
occupies the top floor of the building. They and not the County are responsible
for maintaining the building and the property.
• The County’s posting policy does not require private owners of buildings to post
their pesticide use.
• On 8/6/15, PfSE videoed a Clark Pest Control technician spraying around the
building at 4585 Pacheco Blvd. Clark, the contractor for ERRG, was using a
pesticide called indoxacarb for ants that had been invading the building,
particularly the top floor. Indoxacarb is listed as a “reduced risk” pesticide by the
USEPA and is used by Pestec, the County contractor, in baits for cockroaches
and ants. Hazardous Materials staff who experienced ant problems were
educated by the IPM Coordinator, all food debris was removed, and boric acid
baits were used in the two Hazardous Materials offices with ants trailing through.
IPM Contract Language
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“the county still does not have IPM
language in its contracts with pest
control contractors”
• 2009: the IPM Coordinator and County staff added IPM language to the contract
for pest management in & around Co. buildings. The contractor emphasizes
education, sanitation, and pest proofing as primary solutions. Insecticides, mainly
in the form of baits, are used as a last resort. For the control of rats and mice in
and around County buildings, the County only uses sanitation, education, and
trapping.
• Special Districts currently hires only 1 contractor for pest control. He is employed
by means of a purchase order, which is not an appropriate vehicle for IPM
contract language; however,
o as a condition of his employment, he is required to abide by the Public
Works “Landscape Design, Construction, and Maintenance Standards and
Guidelines”1
o this has been explained to PfSE several times.
which contain language outlining the IPM approach. This also
applies to any other contractor hired by Special Districts.
• Spring 2012: to reinforce the IPM standards, the Special Districts Manager sent a
letter to each Special Districts’ contractor detailing the IPM approach expected of
them. This is an on-going practice and any new contractors will receive the same
letter to emphasize the County’s IPM principles.
• On 11/28/12, Susan JunFish asked for Special Districts contracts and purchase
orders; on 11/29/12 the IPM Coordinator sent her the contracts, purchase orders,
and letters mentioned above that were sent out by Special Districts.
1 http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2147
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 6
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
• On 2/14/13, Susan JunFish asked again for copies of the letters and was sent
them on 2/15/13.
• The Grounds Division occasionally hires a contractor to apply pesticides that the
Division does not have staff or equipment to apply itself. The IPM Coordinator
considers that these contracts or purchase orders do not require IPM language
because the contractor is hired for a specific pesticide application and not to
perform IPM services or make any IPM decisions. In these cases the Grounds
Division has already gone through the IPM decision making process and has
decided the specific work ordered is appropriate.
Unprofessional Behavior by County Staff
11/6/13-IPM
11/13/13-IO
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“serious pattern of hostile and
unprofessional treatment to the
community by County staff”
“continued name-calling, shouting,
and put-downs by county staff and
Committee members at IPM
meetings”
“require staff to take training in
order to learn how to work
productively in public meetings”
• Staff disagree with the assertions that staff have been hostile or unprofessional
toward members of PfSE or that staff have engaged in name-calling, shouting, or
put-downs in any committee meetings. However, without reference to specific
incidents on specific dates, it is impossible for staff to respond in detail.
• Members of the public have always had ample opportunity (within defined limits)
to participate in all aspects of IPM Committee meetings.
• Starting in 2014, IPM full committee and subcommittee meetings will strictly
adhere to the Ground Rules adopted unanimously by the IPM Committee on May
5, 2010. The IPM Coordinator will distribute Committee Ground Rules with each
agenda packet. This will make public participation more fair and prevent one or a
few individuals from dominating public comment. This course of action should limit
the potential opportunities for improper discourse.
Make Audio and/or Video Recordings of IPM Committee Meetings
3/6/14-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
“record meetings with a
camcorder”
“The Community requested to have
IPM related meetings recorded to
achieve accurate meeting minutes
that reflect what actually happened
at the meetings and to encourage
professional behavior.”
• Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner in 2013, suggested that meetings be
audio recorded (no video). The issue may be taken up at a future IPM Committee
meeting.
• No other advisory bodies video or audio record their meetings. If the public wishes
to record meetings, they may do so and should announce their intention at the
beginning of the meeting.
Intimidation of a member of Parents for a Safer Environment by the IPM Coordinator
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“we ask that in the future, [County]
staff not contact the community
and pressure them to retract their
public comments”
On November 13, 2013, Margaret Lynwood submitted a written public comment to
the Internal Operations Committee. In the comment, she stated that she had “been
attending pesticide related meetings and [had] discovered a serious pattern of
hostile and unprofessional treatment to the community by county staff.” Since Ms.
Lynwood did not provide specific details, and the IPM coordinator had no record of
her attending and did not remember seeing her in the last 4 years at any IPM
Committee or subcommittee meetings, but only at TWIC and IO meetings, she
contacted Ms. Lynwood by phone to understand her concerns and ask her if she felt
that County Supervisors or other staff in TWIC or IO meetings had exhibited
unprofessional behavior. She said, “No,” and was unable to cite a specific instance
when she had witnessed such behavior. The IPM Coordinator did not ask her to
retract her public comment.
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 7
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Use of Pre-Emergent Herbicides
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The Community wants to be
assured that the Public Works Dept
does not use pesticides along the
Flood Control District that has [sic]
residual activity before a
forecasted rainstorm.”
This is an issue about pre-emergent herbicides and was discussed in a
subcommittee meeting on 10/29/13 and again in the Advisory Committee meeting
on 11/6/13. Both meetings were attended by both Susan JunFish and Shirley
Shelangoski of PfSE.
The following points were made:
• Pre-emergent herbicides have residual activity by design because they are meant
to prevent the germination of weeds over an extended period of time, sometimes
a number of weeks.
• Pre-emergent herbicides are used by Public Works as part of their herbicide
rotation program to prevent the development of herbicide-resistant weeds.
Herbicide rotation is one of a number of best practices strongly recommended by
the University of California and many other researchers to prevent herbicide
resistance2
• Pre-emergent herbicides are not applied on flood control channel banks; they are
used on flood control access roads above the banks.
. Creating herbicide-resistant weeds is considered an extremely
serious problem by weed scientists throughout the world.
• Pre-emergent herbicides need irrigation or rainfall shortly after their application,
typically within a few days to several weeks, to carry them shallowly into the soil
where they become active. Because there is no irrigation on flood control access
roads, pre-emergent herbicides must be applied prior to a rain event.
• The Department follows all label requirements for the application of pre-emergent
herbicides (and all other herbicides). Note that a pesticide label is law
• The use of pre-emergent herbicides can reduce the total amount of herbicide
needed to control weeds in the County because it takes a smaller amount of pre-
emergent herbicide to control weeds in an area than it would using a post-
emergent herbicide.
and must
be strictly followed.
Use of Garlon 3A® (triclopyr) herbicide on flood control channel slopes without considering its half-
life
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We want the Public works
Department to consider the
residual activity (or half-life) of
pesticides prior to application.
Particularly along the Flood Control
District before a forecasted rain
that can wash pesticides into the
channels and contaminate the
• Staff has reviewed EPA documents for triclopyr reregistration; information on
triclopyr in the Nature Conservancy’s Weed Control Methods Handbook;
information on triclopyr in the Weed Science Society of America’s Herbicide
Handbook; and the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation’s “Environmental
Fate of Triclopyr” (January 1997); and has found that triclopyr:
o Is practically non-toxic to birds, fish, and crustaceans
o Is of very low toxicity to mammals and is rapidly absorbed and then rapidly
excreted by the kidneys, primarily in unmetabolized form
o Has an average half-life in soil of 30 days (considered short persistence)
2 2012. Norsworthy, Jason K., et al. Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations. Weed Science 2012 Special
Issue:31-62.
2000. Prather, Timothy S., J.M. DiTlmaso, and J.S. Holt. Herbicide Resistance: Definition and Management Strategies. University of California, Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication #8012. 14 pp.
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 8
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
water that flows to the Bays” o Would have little toxicological hazard to fish and wildlife as currently used in
forestry (CCC’s use is similar, although the County uses less product per
acre than studies cited)
o Has a low Koc, which indicates mobility in soil; however, studies show that
triclopyr is only somewhat prone to lateral movement and is practically not
prone to vertical movement. In addition, triclopyr is fairly immobile in the
sub-surface flow.
o Could be used without harm to nearby streams in forestry applications if
buffer zones are used around streams and ephemeral drainage routes.
• CCC Public Works Vegetation Management uses Garlon 3A as follows:
o Garlon 3A is a broadleaf contact herbicide with no pre-emergent qualities. It
does not kill grasses, so it is often used with Roundup (glyphosate), which
does kill grasses.
o Generally Garlon 3A is not used during the rainy season.
o It is used on roadsides, flood control channel slopes, and flood control
channel access roads.
o On flood control channel slopes, Garlon 3A is sprayed down the slope no
further than the toe of the slope. Flood control channels are trapezoidal in
cross section, and the toe of the slope is where the slope meets the flat part
of the channel. Depending on the site, the water in the channel is from 10-
50 ft. from the toe.
o If there is a chance of the herbicide getting into the water, Public Works
uses Renovate 3, which has the same active ingredient (triclopyr), but is
labeled for aquatic use.
Posting for pesticide use
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
4/2/14-IPM
12/4/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The county staff are still not
posting when applying pesticide in
parks, along hiking trails, major
intersections of rights of ways,
along flood control districts where
many people, children and their
pets frequent.”
“Posting online of pesticide
applications”
“Posting online of pesticide use
reports from each program as they
are generated on a monthly basis
[for fulfilling reporting requirements
with the state Department of
Pesticide Regulation]”
Provide a list of where pesticide
applications were posted for each
IPM program and how many signs
were used in 2013. (4/2/14)
“The County’s Posting Policy
• In 2009 the Departments developed a pesticide use posting policy. The policy
does not require posting in “rights-of-way or other areas that the general public
does not use for recreation or pedestrian purposes”.
• The CCC posting policy, including the provision mentioned above, is consistent
with, and very similar to the posting policies of Santa Clara and Marin Counties
and with the City of San Francisco.
• The policy was reviewed and discussed by the IPM Committee when it was first
developed, and in 2012 was revised to allow web posting and allow permanent
signs in certain areas.
• County Departments have verified that they abide by the posting policy.
• The County’s website for online posting of pesticide applications (for the areas
required by the CCC posting policy) was up and running as of 3/10/15.
• Pesticide use reports that are generated for the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation are provided yearly to Parents for a Safer Environment.
Monthly reports are available if the public wishes to view them.
• In the 5/27/14 IPM Transparency subcommittee meeting, the IPM Coordinator
presented a chart with a list of pesticide application postings and the number of
signs use for the 2013 calendar year.
• Note that the County Posting Policy states that posting is “Not required in
locations that the public does not use for recreation or pedestrian purposes”
Recreation is defined as “any activity where significant physical contact with the
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 9
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
states that posting is required
where there is foot access by the
public or where the area is used for
recreation…PfSE has shown you
photos of children walking along
these access trails…These access
roads look just like walking trails
along often idyllic looking creeks
that the community use on a daily
basis.” (12/4/14)
Concerns about pesticide posting
(2/17/15)
“Posting is still not done in most
treated areas where people have
foot access and where they
recreate per the CC County’s
Posting Policy.” (3/2/15)
treated area is likely to occur”.
• On Pinole Creek, in the photo submitted by PfSE, the Public Works Department
does not treat the access road the children are shown walking on.
• Most of the County’s Flood Control access roads are within locked gates with
signs saying “Property of Contra Costa. No Trespassing”. No one should be
jogging or walking along these roads.
• If PfSE can provide the County with information on specific access roads and
specific times when people have been exposed to pesticide spraying, the County
will investigate immediately
• Without information on specific locations, the County is unable to investigate this
concern about not posting “in most treated areas where people have foot access
and where they recreate…”.
Adopting an IPM ordinance
9/4/13-IPM
11/6/13-IPM
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Issue of adopting an IPM
ordinance for the County
• In 2009, Susan JunFish proposed the need for an IPM Ordinance to the BOS.
The Board directed the Committee to investigate the issue.
• In 2009, County Counsel wrote an opinion recommending the use of an
administrative bulletin to supplement the County’s IPM Policy.
• County Counsel continues to stand by their 2009 opinion.
• At several meetings in 2010 and 2011, the IPM Committee studied the issue and
heard presentations from PfSE and from other counties. In 2011 the Committee
concluded unanimously that the County should adopt an IPM Administrative
Bulletin to supplement the IPM Policy that the County adopted in 2002. In CCC
an administrative bulletin serves to direct staff and carries consequences for non-
compliance.
• The IPM Committee found no advantage to adopting an IPM ordinance.
• In April of 2013, the IPM Administrative Bulletin was adopted.
• In the fall of 2013, the IPM Committee again reviewed the issue of adopting an
IPM Ordinance. For the second time, the Committee saw no advantage to
developing an ordinance and once again voted unanimously to recommend the
continued use of the IPM Policy supplemented by the IPM Administrative Bulletin.
Reporting “Bad Actor” pesticides
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Disagreement on how the County
should report “Bad Actor 3
• Since FY 00-01, the County has been publishing pesticide use figures that
include use figures for “Bad Actors”.
”
pesticides in the IPM Annual
• Note that all pesticides used by County operations are reported in the IPM Annual
Report, regardless of the toxicity or hazards of the pesticide. At issue is the
categorization of pesticides in the report, not whether all use is reported.
3 “Bad Actor” is a term coined by 2 advocacy groups, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and Californians for Pesticide Reform, to identify a “most toxic” set
of pesticides. These pesticides are at least one of the following: known or probable carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants, cholinesterase
inhibitors, known groundwater contaminants, or pesticides with high acute toxicity. The pesticides designated as “Bad Actors” can be found in the PAN
database on line: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 10
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
3/6/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
9/2/15-IPM
Report • Susan JunFish, of Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE), has been asking that
additional pesticides be reported as “Bad Actors”. To resolve this issue, the IPM
Committee heard presentations from Susan JunFish and held a special meeting
of the Data Management subcommittee on March 25, 2013 devoted exclusively to
this issue. Dr. Susan Kegley 4
• After hearing Dr. Kegley’s presentation and discussing the issue with her and with
representatives of PfSE, the subcommittee members concluded that the County
should report as “Bad Actors” only those that are designated as such in the
Pesticide Action Network database.
was invited to speak, as requested by Susan
JunFish.
• June 26, 2013: The IPM Committee voted unanimously to make changes to the
2012 IPM Annual to reflect the recommendation from the Data Management
subcommittee, as noted above. The IPM Coordinator continues to report
pesticides as “Bad Actors” only if they are designated as such in the PAN
database.
Use of Paraquat and Other Bad Actors for Aquatic Weed Control by the Department of Agriculture
2/17/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Use of paraquat for Aquatic Weed
Control and other broad applied
Bad Actor Pesticides by the
Department of Agriculture.”
(Particular mention of South
American sponge plant in the Delta
was made.)
• The Agriculture Department has not used paraquat in any aquatic weed
applications and does not apply herbicides to the Delta for aquatic weeds. In the
past, the Department has treated purple loosestrife in County waterways that feed
into the Delta, but from this point forward they will not be treating any aquatic
weeds.
• The State Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) has treated various
areas in the Delta for invasive aquatic weeds over the years, and in September
2012, Governor Brown signed legislation authorizing DBW to add South
American sponge plant to the list of weeds they treat.
• State weed science experts judged that South American sponge plant posed a
serious threat to the ecosystems in California waterways. This was based on
research, the biology of the plant, and the rapid rate of its spread in California.
• Judicious use of herbicide to eliminate small infestations before they take over
and completely clog Delta waterways is an excellent use of herbicide and will
prevent huge expenditures of labor and herbicide in the future. This kind of
preventive use of a pesticide to reduce the necessity to use large amounts of
pesticide when the pest has built to great numbers is a recognized and legitimate
IPM tactic.
Providing comments on the kestrel study and rodenticides use issues
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We have asked the Dept of Ag
and the IPM Advisory Committee
to provide comments on the
Kestrel study and PfSE's Draft
LD50 document in the past two
years.”
In conjunction with this research
• On 9/18/12 Susan JunFish circulated to members of the IPM Committee the
abstract from the kestrel study mentioned at left. On 2/4/13, the IPM Coordinator
circulated the actual research paper to all the members of the IPM Committee.
• On November 22, 2013, Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner, sent a formal
response to Susan JunFish regarding the kestrel study. (TWIC and the IPM
Committee Chair and IPM Coordinator were cc’ed on this communication.)
• On January 7, 2014, Vince Guise re-sent the formal response to Susan JunFish
and Shirley Shelangoski. On January 16. 2014, Shirley Shelangoski confirmed
4 Ph.D. Organic/Inorganic Chemistry; Principal and CEO, Pesticide Research Institute; former Senior Staff Scientist for Pesticide Action Network (PAN);
instrumental in the development of the PAN database.
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 11
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
paper, PfSE has brought up its
concern about the rodenticides
used by County operations.
“Contractors [in Special Districts]
use pesticides [rodenticides] before
demonstrating alternatives first.”
(8/26/150
having received the document.
• Susan JunFish asked the Committee to comment on the study, and the formal
response was provided by the Agriculture Dept.
• Regarding “PfSE’s Draft LD50 document”, neither the Committee nor County staff
can comment on data calculated by Susan JunFish that have no references or
clear calculation methods. This was conveyed to PfSE in the Department of
Agriculture’s Kestrel response letter.
• Note that as part of the Department of Agriculture’s ground squirrel program, the
Department surveys ground squirrel treated areas for ground squirrel carcasses
(or any other carcasses). Staff rarely find dead ground squirrels above ground,
which is consistent with U.C. research in the state and the experience of other
agencies. Staff has never found secondary kill, such as raptors or predatory
mammals, in areas the Department treats. This does not mean, nor does the
County claim, that no secondary kill ever occurs in the course of the County’s
treatment program.
• The IPM Committee did not discuss the research paper specifically; however, the
Committee and County staff took the following steps regarding the rodenticide
issue:
o In 2012, the Agriculture Dept. conducted an in-house trial of live-trapping of
ground squirrels as a possible alternative to rodenticides treatment. See
below for more detail.
o At their January 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from the
Agriculture Dept on the trapping study and heard a presentation from the
State Department of Fish and Wildlife on secondary poisoning of raptors and
other predators and the state’s efforts to restrict use of the more toxic 2nd
generation anticoagulant rodenticides (CCC does not use 2nd generation
anticoagulants because of their toxicity and their hazards to non-target
animals that consume poisoned rodents).
o At their March 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from Dr.
Jim Hale on wildlife issues in CCC that included discussion of the impacts of
rodenticides.
o At their May 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from Mt.
Diablo Audubon on their campaign to curb the use of 2nd generation
rodenticides.
o The Agriculture and Public Works Departments jointly prepared a map of the
County marking where rodenticides are used by the Agriculture Dept. This
map was presented in separate meetings to Supervisors Gioia, Mitchoff, and
Andersen, and to Susan JunFish & Shirley Shelangoski of PfSE. In these
meetings the Agricultural Commissioner explained the Department’s ground
squirrel program and the live trapping study.
o The Agriculture Dept. prepared a very detailed decision making document for
ground squirrel management in the County to record their decision making
process and explain the complexities involved in their decisions, including
biology, safety, efficacy, cost and the goals of the program. This document
was discussed extensively in a subcommittee meeting and again in a regular
Committee meeting. PfSE members were present and participated in the
discussion.
o In 2013, the Agriculture Dept revised its ground squirrel baiting methodology
to make it safer for staff, to make applications more precisely targeted, and to
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 12
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
reduce the amount of bait used each season. The amount of bait used by the
Department has been reduced by over 50% since 2011. Use has gone from
35,915 lbs in 2011 and 14,271 lbs in 2013. 14,271 lbs of bait is 1.4 lbs. of
actual diphacinone.
o In February and again in August of 2013, the IPM Coordinator investigated
rodenticides use by contractors to Special Districts. She presented her
findings to the Committee at the 9/4/13 meeting.
o The Special Districts’ contractor has reduced his use of anticoagulant bait
from 188 lbs in FY 12-13 to 88 lbs in FY 13-14 and to 53.5 lbs in FY 14-15.
The amount of actual anticoagulant active ingredient in 53.5 lbs is 0.0027 lbs (
0.04 oz). The contractor has increased trapping and is not using any of the
more toxic and dangerous 2nd generation anticoagulants.
o On 3/5/14, the IPM Committee heard an update from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife on the regulations concerning 2nd generation
anticoagulant rodenticides and on secondary poisoning of raptors and
mammalian predators by anticoagulant rodenticides.
Trapping for ground squirrels
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
10/9/14-TWIC
1/14/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“[PfSE] asked TWIC to instruct the
Department of Agriculture and
Public Works Dept to use trapping
methods [for ground squirrels]”
“Santa Clara spends only
$25/ground squirrel trapping &
removal”
“Isn’t it worth the effort to learn how
the other counties are doing using
only trapping for ground squirrel
control?” (10/9/14)
“One cannot compare efficiency of
our [County] staff applying
rodenticides and compare that to
them trapping and stacking up
overtime costs during the learning
curve…A good-faith comparison
would have been to utilize expert
trappers vs our staff applying
rodenticides, and then comparing
costs.” (10/9/14)
“[The IPM Coordinator] states that
the county would incur a charge of
$16,720 per linear mile for ground
squirrel control if we paid a
contractor who charges
$25/squirrel trapped. This is very
speculative and we would like to
see the county take bids from
• In 2012, the Agriculture Department ran an extensive, in-house ground squirrel
live trapping trial to determine the feasibility of using live traps to protect critical
County infrastructure from ground squirrel burrowing.
o The trapping was successful in that staff were easily able to capture 152
ground squirrels in the 1,200 linear foot trial area along a County road over
the 5 day trial period.
o The squirrels were euthanized on site by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
o Unfortunately, squirrels from the surrounding area quickly moved into the
vacant burrows. This makes trapping ineffective in areas with
surrounding pressure from ground squirrels
o When the Department uses rodenticide bait, the squirrels do not move back
into the vacant burrows for an extended period of time. The Department
surmises that because baited squirrels die mostly in their burrows, the
carcasses repel any newcomers.
.
o The Department found that live trapping would be prohibitive. It would cost
$5,074/linear mile compared to $220/linear mile using bait. The Department
treats around 925 linear miles of roadway each year.
o Note that along roadsides, the Department spreads bait in a 12 to 15 ft wide
swath at a rate of 2 to 3 oat kernels per square foot only in areas where
ground squirrels are active. This treatment method takes advantage of the
natural foraging habit of the ground squirrel, an animal that is highly adapted
to finding individual seed kernels on the ground.
o The Department verified the expense by contacting 2 pest control
contractors. Using their fees per hour or per squirrel trapped, the
Department estimated that the cost to use a contractor to trap ground
squirrels would be between $12,524 and $16,700 per linear mile. This does
not compare favorably to the Department estimate of $5,074/linear if work
were done by Department staff.
o Note that at the $25/squirrel rate quoted by PfSE, it would cost the
County $16,720/linear mile if the ground squirrel catch rate were
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 13
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
trappers and share the proposals
with the Committee.” (1/14/15)
“Pilot Trial of rodenticides vs
tapping done in 2012, biased &
scientifically indefensible.”
(8/26/15)
“Cost of trapping inflated.”
(8/26/15)
similar to the 152 squirrels/1,200 linear feet.
o One of the pest control contractors who was contacted for an estimate said
he had also observed the ineffectiveness of trapping in areas with
surrounding ground squirrel pressure.
This is 3 times more than it
cost for Agriculture Department personnel to trap over a linear mile, so using
a contractor would not save money, even if this method were effective.
o The Department also observed some other unexpected outcomes:
Traps were checked daily, but staff found squirrels bloodied and
wounded from fighting with each other or trying to chew their way out of
the traps.
Traps were vandalized by the public even though large signs warned
people to leave the traps alone. This exposed the public to health risks
from bites and scratches and from transmissible diseases carried by
ground squirrels.
o In certain small areas that have a limited number of ground squirrel colonies,
live trapping may be a viable alternative.
• Santa Clara County Regional Parks find live trapping effective for their limited use
of the method. They trap squirrels around Regional Park buildings to prevent
undermining of foundations. This is a very small area compared to the hundreds
of miles of roads involved in CCC. Park rangers are close by to educate the
public and to observe the traps continually. This reduces vandalism and allows
park personnel to have squirrels dispatched soon after they are trapped, which
prevents harm to the squirrels from fighting or gnawing the cage.
• In March 2006, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors directed county staff to
avoid the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within county-owned properties and
facilities. To address these concerns, the county hired a consultant and formed
an ad hoc committee. The County developed an IPM program and as a result of a
subsequent study, the ad hoc committee and the Board recommended broadcast
baiting with diphacinone as the primary control method for ground squirrels. The
Board approved this program in December 2006.
• The CCC Agriculture Department has also evaluated kill traps but has chosen not
to use that method for many reasons, including the increased risk of taking non-
target animals, the risk of injury to curious children, and the expense.
CCC is the only Bay Area county using rodenticides for ground squirrels
12/5/13-TWIC
10/9/14--TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“[Contra Costa is] currently the only
Bay Area county to continue to use
the archaic and non-specific to
target pest method of rodenticides
to kill grounds squirrels”
“It’s great that the Agriculture
Department has decreased usage
of rodenticides from 36,615 pounds
[of treated grain] applied two years
ago to 14,391 pounds [of treated
• Contra Costa County is not the only Bay Area county using rodenticide bait to
manage ground squirrels.
Note that CCC uses diphacinone-treated bait to protect critical infrastructure in
the County from damage caused by ground squirrel burrowing. Diphacinone is a
1st generation anticoagulant that is less toxic and less persistent in animal tissues
than 2nd generation anticoagulants. The Agriculture Department endeavors to
maintain a relatively ground squirrel-free 100 ft buffer along various County roads
(mainly in East County), along levees and railroad embankments, and around
earthen dams and bridge abutments. To maintain this buffer, the Department
treats a 12 to 15 ft. swath.
o The Santa Clara Valley Water District uses diphacinone- and
chlorophacinone-treated bait in areas similar to the sites the CCC
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 14
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
grain] applied in the most recent
fiscal year. However it is still
14,301 pound [sic] more of bait
applied than all Marin, San
Francisco, and Santa Clara
counties combined that do not use
any rodenticides at all in open
space.” (10/9/14)
Agriculture Department treats for the CC Water District.
o Alameda County engages in a ground squirrel treatment program using
diphacinone bait that is very similar to CCC. They treat roadsides and levees
and Zone 7 Water District sites and use a similar amount of diphacinone-
treated bait.
• San Francisco City and County allows the use of bromadiolone bait (a 2nd
generation anticoagulant rodenticide) at the SF Airport and by commercial
lessees on city properties that are not adjacent to natural areas. Second
generation anticoagulants are more toxic and more persistent in the tissues of
poisoned animals than 1st generation anticoagulants, such as the diphacinone
that CCC Department of Agriculture uses. Bromadiolone persists in liver tissues
for 248 days compared to 90 days for diphacinone which makes sub-lethally
poisoned animals walking hazards for predators much longer.
• Note that San Francisco allows the use of diphacinone for baiting rats in areas
with high public health concerns and where trapping is infeasible. CCC uses only
trapping to control rats and mice in and around County buildings. But note also
that CCC is far less urbanized than San Francisco, and therefore does not have
the same kind of pest pressure from rats.
• Marin and Napa County Public Works Departments reported that they have
nowhere near the kind of ground squirrel populations that East Contra Costa
County has, and consequently, they don’t do anything about the few ground
squirrels along their roads.
The County should use volunteers and free labor
12/5/13-TWIC
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The County should use free labor
programs
• This could be particularly helpful around County buildings. The Grounds Manager
would welcome Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE) volunteers to pull weeds
at particular sites, but PfSE would first need to negotiate with the County to
determine if PfSE volunteers would be permitted work on County landscaping. If
the work were approved, PfSE would need to organize and supervise the
volunteers.
• Note that County unions have protested the use of inmate labor for jobs that
could be filled by union members. The union recently won a grievance against the
Sheriff’s Department regarding the use of inmate labor for grounds maintenance
work. The union has filed a grievance against the fire department regarding the
use of inmate labor to clear brush. The Grounds Manager does not anticipate that
PfSE volunteers pulling weeds would precipitate these kinds of union actions.
• In the County’s other IPM programs, using volunteers is more difficult.
o “Free” labor involves considerable County resources including outreach to
solicit volunteers, planning and organizing work sessions, staff time for
training volunteers, transportation of volunteers, equipment for volunteers
and staff time for supervision.
o Almost all of the Agriculture Department’s noxious weed program involves
activity on private land or on lands that are not owned or managed by the
County. Use of volunteer help in these areas would involve liability for those
land owners or managers.
o Much of the Public Works Department’s creek and roadside vegetation
management involves work in dangerous areas such as roadsides or steep
and rocky slopes and requires the use of hazardous equipment such as
chain saws and brush cutters. County liability for volunteers performing this
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 15
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
kind of work would be extremely high.
o The County’s structural IPM program is not suited to the use of volunteer
labor.
• Note that the County does use volunteers, most notably in creek restoration and
clean up, for creek water quality monitoring and for outreach to the public about
creek water quality and the value of healthy creeks and watersheds.
Grazing has no significant impact on water quality
12/4/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“…[I]n each of the four case
studies, grazing had NO significant
impact on water quality. It is my
hope that this research can provide
decision makers with confidence
that managed grazing is an
effective, economical and safe
vegetation management tool along
watercourses.”
“Small PfSE Pilot Trial in 2009
showed no contaminants
downstream of grazing.” (8/26/15)
• The County is aware that grazing does not have a significant impact on water
quality. Economics and not water quality is the limiting factor in the vegetation
management situations in the County. Public Works continues to expand its
grazing program where it is most appropriate and/or cost-effective, and grazing
has become a permanent tool in the County’s IPM Toolbox.
The County should expand goat grazing and competitive planting
12/5/13-TWIC
3/5/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
8/2615-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The County should expand the
competitive planting and goat
grazing programs”
“[One decision-making document]
asserts that goat grazing costs
much more than herbicide
spraying; however it appears the
cost of grazing during the in-
season are [sic] being compared
with herbicide usage. Other case
studies we are evaluating show
that grazing is cost effective and
even cheaper than herbicide
usage.” (2/17/15)
Grazing costs are inflated and cost
of herbicide use is deflated.
(8/2615)
• The County Flood Control District is partnering with Restoration Trust, an
Oakland-based non-profit, in a native planting experiment along Clayton Valley
Drain (near Hwy 4 adjacent to Walnut Creek). The study involves planting 2
species of native sedge and 1 species of native grass. These are perennial
species that stay green year round and are resistant to fire. The plants are
compatible with flood control objectives because they do not have woody stems,
and during flood events, they would lie down on the slope, thus reducing flow
impedance. They are not sensitive to broadleaf herbicides that will be needed to
control weeds at least until the plants have spread enough to outcompete weeds.
County volunteers installed the first plantings on December 7, 2013
• Note that it is conceivable that herbicides may always have to be used on these
plantings to prevent the area from being overrun with weeds because the
surrounding weed pressure is very high.
• Restoration Trust will be monitoring the test plots for the next 5 years to assess
the survival of the native plants and their degree of successful competition with
non-native annual species. The County will gather information over the next few
years to determine whether, how, and where to expand this kind of planting. The
County cannot expand this project without data on its costs and viability.
• Over the last 3 years, the Public Works Department has expanded its use of goat
grazing considerably. In 2012 they grazed 99 acres, in 2014 they grazed 336
acres, and in 2015 they project around 300 acres. It is now a regular
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 16
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
management tool for the Department. Every site the County manages differs in
the ease with which goats can be used and their suitability for managing
vegetation. The Department uses goats where they are appropriate and cost
effective, and continues to gather data on costs and long-term effectiveness at
individual sites. Cost is affected by many factors:
o The size of the site—loading and unloading the animals is a fixed cost, so
small sites cost more per acre than large sites
o The ease of access to the site—the harder it is to get the goats into an area,
the more expensive it is
o The availability of water—if water must be trucked in, the cost is greater
o The security of the site—the more fencing that is required and the more the
fences must be taken down and erected within the site both increase the cost
o The time of year—because of the law of supply and demand, cost is greater
during the peak grazing season
o The presence of endangered species—sites with endangered species and
other restrictions from the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife are good candidates
for grazing regardless of the cost
• Although the cost of off-season grazing is less expensive than during the peak
grazing season, Public Works cannot effectively manage all the weeds that grow
in the Flood Control District only with off-season grazing.
Considering least-toxic alternatives before choosing pesticides
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
2/17/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Staff has still not demonstrated
that for each pest control problem,
least toxic alternatives were
evaluated prior to choosing
pesticides.”
Estimates for costs of herbicide
applications need to include cost of
permits, tracking requirements,
storage of chemicals, licensing,
training, etc.
“The IPM Advisory Committee has
not yet reviewed several key data
in the [decision-making documents]
that justify using broadcast
herbicide spraying along Right of
Ways and rodenticide usage in
open space.” (2/17/15)
“Also, has the county investigated
least toxic methods in accordance
with the IPM Policy?” (8/6/15)
• In 2012, the IPM Committee developed a form for recording IPM decisions made
by the Departments. In 2013, each IPM program in the County produced at least
1 decision-making document for a specific pest or pest management situation
(the Agriculture Department produced 2 documents that year).
• These documents show which least-toxic alternatives are considered and tested,
which are being regularly employed, which are not, and why.
• In 2013, each decision-making document was extensively reviewed by the
Decision-Making subcommittee with PfSE members in attendance.
• Recording the thought processes and decision-making path for each pest or pest
management situation takes considerable time (approximately 40 hours of work
per document).
• In 2014, the Decision-Making subcommittee reviewed and, after numerous
revisions, accepted 4 more decision-making documents. These discussions were
conducted in public with members of PfSE in attendance.
• In 2015, the Weed subcommittee reviewed and revised 1 more decision-making
document which covered how the County decides to use grazing as a
management tool.
• In 2014, the Cost Accounting subcommittee chose to research the costs
associated with altering landscapes around County buildings to require less
maintenance, less water, and less herbicide. The subcommittee concluded that
this is a very worthy goal, but more complicated to achieve than expected. Sites
must be considered individually because one plan will not fit all, and in the midst
of severe drought, it is not the time to begin replanting. The subcommittee also
explored the idea of replacing lawns with artificial turf, but decided that it is not
the answer except in very specific, limited situations. Artificial turf has high up-
front costs, still requires maintenance, can become infested with weeds growing
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 17
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
in soil that accumulates on top of the mat, and has environmental consequences
at the end of its life,
• Herbicide treatment costs reported in the 2013 IPM Annual Report included all
associated costs mentioned by PfSE. When costs are compared in future
documents, every effort will be made to include all related costs for both
pesticides and alternatives.
Excessive pesticide use in CCC
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
12/4/14-TWIC
3/10/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Contra Costa County uses more
pesticide than any other Bay Area
County (or, than several Bay Area
Counties combined)
“lack of progress is evident in that
the county has not significantly
altered their use of pesticide since
2009”
“The single most underlying
problem I see in the IPM Program
is that there is little to no leadership
in guiding the County to reduce
pesticides. (12/4/14)
• The assertion that CCC uses more pesticide than any other Bay Area County, or
other counties combined, is hard to evaluate since staff have not seen current
pesticide use figures for County operations in other Bay Area Counties.
• This could be researched, but would take time. It is difficult to compare counties,
all of which vary greatly in their size, their budgets, their staff, their pests, their
weather, and the kinds of responsibilities they choose to undertake. Staff feel that
comparing pesticide use in various counties is not particularly relevant to how
well Contra Costa County operations are implementing IPM.
• In 2012 and 2013, the IPM Data Management subcommittee undertook to find
additional metrics to evaluate the County’s IPM programs. This proved to be a
difficult task, and the committee’s research did not discover any unique or
innovative measures for evaluating IPM programs in other Bay Area counties, or
across the U.S.
• The subcommittee agreed that pesticide use data do not reveal whether the
County is implementing IPM, and so in 2012, the subcommittee developed the
IPM Priority Assessment Tool. This is a compilation of IPM best management
practices (BMPs). The subcommittee asked the Departments to fill out the form in
2012 and 2013 and report the percentage of implementation of each of the
BMPs.
• It is important to understand that pesticide use can increase and decrease from
year to year depending on the pest population, the weather, the invasion of new
and perhaps difficult to control pests, the use of new products that contain small
percentages of active ingredient, the use of chemicals that are less hazardous
but not as effective, the addition or subtraction of new pest management projects
to a department’s workload, and cuts or increases to budgets or staff that change
priorities or workload.
• Since FY 2000-2001, the County has reduced its pesticide use by 77%--from
18,931 lbs of active ingredient in FY 00-01 to 4688 lbs of active ingredient in
FY13-14.
• Since FY 2000-2001, each Department has been evaluating their pesticide use
and researching options for eliminating or reducing pesticide use. County
operations have eliminated the use of 22 of the 31 “Bad Actor” pesticides that
they had been using.
• The County’s pesticide use trend follows a trend typical of other pollution
reduction programs. Early reductions are dramatic during the period when
changes that are easy to make are accomplished. Once this “low-hanging fruit”
has been plucked, it takes more time and effort to investigate and analyze where
additional changes can be made. The County is entering this period, and if further
reductions in pesticide use are to be made, it will require time for focused study
and additional funding for implementation.
• Note that County operations use about 2% of all the pesticide (active ingredients)
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 18
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
that is required to be reported in the County. The total reported to the state does
not include homeowner use, which researchers suspect is a considerable
amount.
CCC should do more IPM training and outreach to County staff and the public
12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“the County IPM Coordinator and
the IPM Advisory Committee
[should] provide annual IPM
training and outreach programs to
both county staff and the public”
The County should “provide
training and conferences such as
those conducted by Santa Clara
and San Francisco counties which
train hundreds of interested
participants.”
• The IPM Committee is an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and does
not have a budget, nor does it have the staff or the mandate to provide outreach
and training.
• There is no need to duplicate San Francisco and Santa Clara’s regional IPM
conferences, and it would be impossible for the IPM Coordinator to do so without
staff and budget.
• In 2012, the IPM Coordinator partnered with cities in CCC to provide a half-day
landscape IPM training to City and County staff and will probably do so again in
the future.
• The IPM Coordinator provides extensive education in person and over the phone
to County staff and Contra Costa citizens on bed bug awareness and an IPM
approach to managing bed bugs. The IPM Coordinator produces educational
materials on bed bugs for professionals and lay people. Materials are housed on
the Health Services bed bug website (cchealth.org/bedbugs).
• The Departments provide annual training to County staff that includes IPM.
• County staff attend numerous trainings and conferences that include IPM training
in order to stay current on pest management research and to maintain their
various licenses.
• The Department of Agriculture has a biologist on-call from 8 AM to 5 PM each
weekday to answer questions from the public about pests and pest management.
Biologists base their responses on IPM principles and on materials and resources
from the U.C. Statewide IPM Program.
• Every day in the course of their work, County staff from Public Works, Health
Services and the Department of Agriculture engage citizens in dialog about the
pest management work the County does and the IPM principles the County
employs.
• The Department of Agriculture provides many training sessions each year on
pesticide safety (including IPM issues) to growers, farm workers, agencies, and
the pest control industry.
• The Department of Agriculture is a member of the Egeria densa Integrated Pest
Management Committee and developed the Contra Costa Delta/Discovery Bay
Region Brazilian Waterweed (Egeria densa) Integrated Pest Management Plan.
• The County Clean Water Program sponsors an annual Bay Friendly Landscaping
training for County staff and professional landscapers throughout the county. This
training includes information about IPM and about reducing inputs into and
outputs from landscaping activities to prevent pollution in creeks and the Bay.
• The County Clean Water Program provides support for watershed coordinators
and friends of creeks groups that coordinate volunteers to conduct general
outreach to the community about water quality in creeks and the value and
importance of wildlife habitat, watersheds, and creek restoration.
• The County Clean Water Program provides support to the Bringing Back the
Natives Garden Tour which educates the public about the many benefits of
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 19
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
gardening with California native plants.
• The County Clean Water Program supports the Our Water, Our World Program in
Contra Costa County (a program originally developed by CC Central Sanitary
District). This program provides in-store IPM education directly to consumers who
are purchasing pesticides. IPM training is also provided for nursery and hardware
store employees.
• In 2014 the County Clean Water Program launched 3 other IPM and pesticide
public education programs.
• The Contra Costa Master Gardener Program trains volunteers with a curriculum
that includes IPM. Master Gardener volunteers are available Monday through
Thursday from 9 to Noon to answer gardening and pest management questions
from the public. Advice is based on materials and resources from the U.C.
Statewide IPM Program. Master Gardeners also provide presentations on
gardening and IPM to a broad cross section of Contra Costa citizens.
• The IPM Coordinator has been working closely with the Cities of El Cerrito and
San Pablo over the past 2 years to develop IPM guidance for cities on
implementing IPM and to develop standard operating procedures for various
pests.
• The IPM Coordinator accepts many speaking engagements throughout the
County and the region to provide training on IPM and especially on bed bug
issues.
• The IPM Coordinator and other County staff have been working closely with cities
to provide guidance on the crises of bed bug infestations they are experiencing.
• The IPM Coordinator is working with Code Enforcement in the City of Richmond
to develop bed bug training for Code Enforcement officers throughout the state.
• Every month the IPM Coordinator spends a significant number of hours talking
with citizens about least-hazardous bed bug control.
• The Agricultural Department represents the California Agricultural
Commissioner’s and Sealer’s Association as the sitting member of the California
Invasive Species Advisory Task Force.
• In October 2013, County staff attended a Parents for a Safer Environment’s IPM
workshop and found it informative. Parents for a Safer Environment can provide a
useful community service by hosting more such workshops.
• In April 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided an in-person IPM tutorial for the
Grounds Division’s new spray technician.
• In May 2014, the IPM Coordinator arranged an IPM workshop given by Pestec,
the County’s Structural IPM Contractor, for the County’s Head Start Home Base
educators. Pestec presented information on how to prevent pests in the home
and simple, non-toxic strategies for low income families to use to combat pest
invasions. Home Base educators provide in-home education to Head Start
families.
• In May 2014, the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division sponsored a
workshop on IPM for bed bugs for County Environmental Health Inspectors and
code enforcement officers in Contra Costa municipalities.
• In July 2014, the County hosted a presentation by the U.C. Horticultural Advisor
on how landscapes should be managed during drought and how to plan
landscapes for what is likely to be continual droughts. County staff, both
administrators and maintenance personnel, along with park personnel from the
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 20
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
city of Danville attended.
• In July 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided a bed bug awareness training for the
residents of Meadow Wood at Alamo Creek, a senior living facility in Danville,
along with subsequent consultation with individual residents and staff.
• In September 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided the Greater Richmond
Interfaith Program with assistance for a bed bug infestation at their Family
Housing Program.
• In February 2015, the IPM Coordinator met with staff at the Bay Area Rescue
Mission in Richmond to discuss bed bug prevention.
• In June 2015, the IPM Coordinator completed an IPM Guidance manual for
municipalities in Contra Costa County with help from Beth Baldwin of the County
Clean Water Program and Stephen Pree of the City of El Cerrito. The three of
them presented an IPM workshop for municipal staff that included information on
how to use the manual and resources available to them within the County.
• In November 2015, the IPM Coordinator and Luis Agurto from Pestec provided a
bed bug training for County Adult Protective Services staff who have been
encountering bed bug problems in their clients homes more frequently.
Violations of the Brown Act
12/5/13-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
8/6/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“continued violations of the Brown
Act including repeated disposal of
original meeting minutes, repeated
failure to provide public records at
all or much later than 10 working
day, and meeting minutes that do
not accurately reflect comments
made or not made by participants”
“our county’s IPM policy and the
Public Records Act have been
violated at least on a quarterly
basis by staff since 2009.” (3/2/15)
“We are still waiting to learn where
Fusilade II Turf and Ornamental
herbicide had been applied by the
Grounds Program in the past
years” (8/6/15)
• Staff always respond within 10 days to public records requests. In almost all
cases staff respond within 1 to 3 days. The only reason for delay has been to find
and collect documents that have been requested.
• The County takes public records requests seriously and responds promptly to
each one.
• Hand written meeting minutes are recycled after official minutes have been typed
up. Official minutes, once approved by the IPM Committee, are posted on the
IPM website.
• The IPM Committee approves the minutes for each meeting. The public is
provided time to comment on the minutes, and as the IPM Committee sees fit, the
minutes are corrected.
• Staff are ready to respond to any specific instances or claims of Brown Act
violations. Staff maintain written logs of all public records requests.
• On July 8, 2015 Susan JunFish formally requested information about Fusilade
use by the Grounds Division. On July 16, 2015 the IPM Coordinator provided her
with a chart, created for her, showing how much and where Fusilade was used (0
used in FY 12-13 and FY 14-15 and 0.1 pound used once in a parking lot in FY
13-14).
Financial incentives to serve on the IPM Committee/Conflict of interest on the IPM Committee
12/5/13-TWIC
1/14/15 IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The County should “discourage
financial incentives of [IPM
Committee] applicants by providing
a minimum of a 5 year moratorium
for those who serve to be eligible
for receiving a county contract or
• Staff disagree that there are any kinds of financial incentives to serve on the IPM
Advisory Committee, but will defer to the Board of Supervisors on whether to
impose such a moratorium.
• If the public has evidence of financial incentives for serving on the IPM
Committee, we request that they bring that evidence forward.
• Michael Baefsky was not a member of the IPM Advisory Committee when he was
asked to contract with General Services to advise the County on non-chemical
methods to manage weeds on the Camino Tassajara medians in 2009. His
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 21
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
any funding”
“In 2009, Michael Baefsky, a
community representative of the
IPM Advisory Committee received
a contract with the former General
Services Department according to
a document from Terry Mann,
former Deputy Director of the
General Services Dept. After
receiving that contract, Mr.
Baefsky’s behavior on the
Committee changed significantly.”
contract ended in 2009. That year he attended meetings of the IPM Task Force,
an informal body with no official appointees. The IPM Advisory Committee was
not created until 2010, and he was appointed by the Board to an At-Large seat in
2010. He has held no contracts with the County since 2009.
• The IPM Committee bylaws state the following in sections III.B.2&3:
• “Contractors who provide pest management services to the County may
not serve on the Committee. The exception is A.1.d., above, the Current
Structural Pest Management Contractor with General Services
Department.
• “If a member’s work status or residence changes, he/she must notify the
Committee in writing, within thirty (30) days of their change in status. The
Chair will review the change of status and determine if the member is still
eligible for membership according to these by-laws. If they are found to be
ineligible, the member will be asked to resign his/her position.”
Monetary compensation or gifts from pesticide salespeople
12/5/13-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We are requesting that TWIC
require that all staff involved in
ordering pesticides from
salespersons fill out a form
disclosing any monetary
compensation or any other forms
of gifts from pesticide
salespersons”
• County staff do not receive (and have not been offered) gifts or compensation in
any form from pesticide salespeople or any other salespeople. Accepting gifts or
compensation would be against County policy5
• If the public has evidence of County staff taking bribes, we urge the public to
provide that evidence for investigation.
and would subject staff and their
departments to disciplinary action
IPM Committee did not accept all of Parents for a Safer Environment’s priorities as their own
2/12/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The IPM Committee is planning to
include only 70% of PfSE’s
priorities as the Committee’s
priorities for 2014
• The IPM Committee devoted more than an entire meeting to the discussion of its
work priorities for 2014. The public was fully involved in the discussion and PfSE
provided documents and testimony detailing their own priorities. The Committee
had a thorough discussion and then voted on which priorities to pursue.
IPM Coordinator references statements by members of Parents for a Safer Environment that were never made
3/2/15 From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
• In her written public comments to TWIC on February 12, 2014, Susan JunFish
states: “We believe that the Committee is planning to address about 70% of the
priority issues the community has raised, so we are hopeful. The two areas where
5 California Government Code § 1090 prevents county employees and officials from being "financially interested" in any contract made by them in their
official capacity, or by anybody or board of which they are members.
California Government Code § 81000 et seq., known as the Political Reform Act, requires, among other things, that certain public employees perform their
duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interest. See Cal Gov Code § 81001(b). It also prevents certain employees from
using their positions to influence county decisions in which they have a financial interest. See Cal Gov Code 87100. The Act also requires certain employees
and officers to file a Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests (the CCC Agricultural Commissioner, the managers in Public Works and the IPM
Coordinator fill out this form) See Cal Gov Code 89503.
CCC Administrative Bulletin 117.6, paragraph 6, can be read to prevent employees from accepting any gift which "is intended, or could reasonably
considered as tending to influence business or applications pending before the Board of Supervisors."
County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-8/2711/20/15 22
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
“PfSE members also feel a lack of
goodwill and collaboration when
the IPM Coordinator references
statements by members that were
never made. For example, in the
Response Table, it states that a
PfSE member stated at the
February 12, 2015 [sic] TWIC
meeting that ‘The IPM Committee
is planning to include only 70% of
PfSE’s priorities as the
Committee’s priorities for 2014.’
We would be thrilled if this was the
case…”
there has been no plan to address are columns 4 and 5 of the table.”
The IPM Committee needs a non-voting facilitator
2/12/14-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment:
“an impartial, non-voting facilitator
would make the meetings run
smoother and become more
viable”
• Staff believe that meetings are run effectively and efficiently.
• The new IPM Committee chair has been very effective at running the 2014 and
2015 IPM Committee meetings and allowing the public ample opportunities to
provide comment.
Parents for a Safer Environment disagrees with responses to “unresolved” issues in the Triennial
Review Report
11/6/13-IPM
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment:
Disagreement with the response by
staff to “unresolved issues” in the
Triennial Review Report for the
IPM Advisory Committee
• The response in dispute refers to the question in Section VIII of the Triennial
Review report to the Board of Supervisors from the IPM Committee: “The
purpose of this section is to briefly describe any potential issues raised by
advisory body members, stakeholders, or the general public that the advisory
body has been unable to resolve.”
• The response given to this question in the report accurately reflects the response
intended by the IPM Committee as agreed at their November 6, 2013 meeting.
• The Triennial Review Report has been accepted by TWIC and the BOS, and the
IPM Committee cannot go back and change the report.
• The issue in question for the IPM Committee was whether to describe in Section
VIII only issues that the Committee had been unable to resolve, or to also include
a discussion of issues that PfSE felt were still unresolved. The Committee
debated this and decided to also include a discussion of issues that PfSE felt
were unresolved. However, it was completely clear from the discussion at the
meeting that the Committee agreed that the issues described in this section (with
the exception of the two that were noted as ongoing) had previously been given
due consideration by the Committee, and that the Committee had addressed the
issues. The Committee directed the IPM Coordinator to meet with the Committee
Secretary to compile Committee and staff responses to the “unresolved” PfSE
issues to include in the report and then to submit the report.
• Note that in the IPM Committee’s extensive planning sessions for 2014 work, the
Committee did not identify any of the “unresolved” issues as priorities for 2014.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 1
For liquid materials:Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x % AI
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
Adjuvant Activator 90 36208-50014 1.040 90.000 4786.31 4248.36 3381.90Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt AquaMaster 524-343 1.205 53.800 814.09 662.88 487.37 322.67 446.22 301.06 47.25 255.16 26.38 142.46
Chemtrol 36208-50015 0.995 1.000 1.16 1.82 8.50 0.70
Sodium salt of Imazxamox Clearcast 241-437-AA-67690 1.049 12.100 5.00 5.29 3.50 3.70
Copper ethanolamine
complexes, mixed Cutrine Plus 8959-10-AA 1.206 9.000 58.78 40.69 6.78 5.00 4.52
Indaziflam Esplanade 200 SC 432-1516 1.050 19.050 4.17 25.00 41.66 25.14 41.89
Adjuvant Foam Fighter F 36208-50015 0.995 5.000 0.52 0.52
Dimethyl silicone fluid
emulsion Foam Fighter F
36208-50003, 72-
50005-AA 1.000 10.000 0.94 0.62 0.62 0.42 0.73 0.63 0.52
Triclopyr triethylamine salt Garlon 3A 1.135 44.400 268.66 1862.78 1547.95 2048.03 1165.94 757.71 1008.02 119.69 502.44 166.75 699.99
Triclopyr BEE Garlon 4 62719-40 1.060 61.600 278.76 155.02 106.77 111.50 1.36 2.72 10.88 3.50 19.04
Oxyfluorfen Goal 707-174 0.990 19.400 3.20
Oxyfluorfen Goal Tender 62719-447 1.170 41.000 7.99 16.50 2.00
Oxyfluorfen Goal 707-243 1.120 22.000 13.34
Imazapyr, isopropylamine
salt Habitat 241-426 1.068 28.700 5.75 17.08 34.40 13.10 5.75 0.88 2.25 2.19 5.59
based petroleum
oil+nonionic emulsifiers Helena Agri-Dex 5905-50017-AA 0.879 99.000 2.00 14.50
Aminopyralid, tri
isopropanolamine salt Milestone VM 62719-537 1.140 40.600 173.26 238.42 241.39 229.05 225.43 120.12 14.88 57.36 13.09 50.48
Adjuvant MSO Conc w/Leci-Tech 34704-50053-AA 0.900 100.000 0.38 2.85
Adjuvant No Foam A 11656-50086-ZA 1.050 90.000 253.87 2731.53 2292.68 2267.57 2290.71 230.85 1817.22 209.00 1645.22
Pendimethalin Pendulum Aquacap 241-416 1.175 38.700 28.41
Sethoxydim Poast 7969-58 0.935 18.000 20.33Imazapyr, isopropylamine
salt Polaris 228-534-AA 1.057 27.700 26.83 12.02 29.32
Triclopyr TEA Renovate 3 62719-37-67690 1.140 44.400 324.71 309.95 171.84 137.05 183.44 145.49 87.00 366.88 35.13 148.15
Glyphosate,Rodeo 524-343 1.205 53.800 1193.46G yp osate,
isopropylamine salt Roundup Custom 524-343-ZC & ZG 1.206 53.800 29.94 161.82
Roundup Pro 524-475-ZA & ZB 1.170 41.000 2041.43 12.00 47.96
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 1.199 50.200 588.28 1153.95 937.84 1006.75 1092.55 1496.00 273.16 1369.00 240.75 1206.57
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt
Roundup Tough Weed
Formula 239-2636 1.070 18.000 98.07
Maleic hydrazide Royal Slo Gro 400-94-AA 1.135 21.700 41.03
Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt Stalker 241-398 1.050 27.600 13.58 20.98 9.05
Adjuvant Silicone Super Wetter 17545-50029-AA 0.994 100.000 0.19 1.57
Adjuvant Silwet L-77 36208-50025 1.007 100.000 14.26 8.39 15.77
Oryzalin Surflan A.S.62719-113 1.188 40.400 56.97
Oryzalin Surflan A.S.70506-44 1.236 40.400 112.33 87.36 47.84 33.28 2.08 12.00 49.92
Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 68891-50001-AA 1.118 53.400 197.06
Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 11656-50093 1.180 53.400 112.85 190.95 181.77 129.28 168.65 173.90 29.00 152.22 20.81 109.23
Clopyralid Transline 62719-259 1.161 40.900 89.00 48.81 6.17
Adjuvant Unfoamer 34704-50062-AA 1.000 12.500 0.5 0.52
Vanquish 55947-46 1.250 56.800 1360.29
Dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 228-397 1.250 56.800 906.37 707.53 97.59 40.69 333.45 0.75 4.44 24.56 145.26
Weedar 64 71368-1-264 1.160 38.900 1979.96 18.79
PESTICIDES OF CONCERN ARE SHADED (Pesticide Action Network defined "Bad Actors")
Contra Costa County Public Works
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 2
For dry materials: Amt. Used x %AI
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I. Used FY 00-01 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Dry Materials (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)
Diuron 80DF 66222-51 N/A 80.000 960.00 640.00
Direx 80DF 352-508-1812 N/A 80.000 2300.00
Endurance 55947-43 N/A 65.000 983.45
Prodiamine Endurance 228-398 N/A 65.000 1194.05 789.75 855.40 689.00
Isoxaben Gallery 75DF 62719-145 N/A 75.000 40.50 51.75 59.25 54.75 2.63 3.00 15.75 15.00 11.25 48.50 36.38
Gallery SC 62719-658 AA N/A 45.500 13.00 5.92
Sulfumeturon methyl Oust 352-401 N/A 75.000 20.53 152.25 108.12 76.55
Oust XP 352-601 N/A 75.000 75.85 96.61 14.25 12.74 9.56
Predict 55947-78 N/A 78.600 389.07
Prodiamine ProClipse 65 WDG 228-434 N/A 65.000 201.50 361.40 448.50 48.00 31.20 383.00 248.95
Ronstar 50WSP 264-538 N/A 50.000 60.00
Simtrol 90DF 35915-12-60063 N/A 90.000 387.00
Tebuthiuron Spike 80DF 62719-107 N/A 80.000 48.00 48.00 96.00 96.00 105.60
Telar DF 352-522-ZA N/A 75.000 1.00 0.75
Telar XP 352-654-AA N/A 75.000 4.88 5.16 6.00 9.01 6.76 16.00 12.00
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-404 N/A 75.000 19.031 13.313 10.88 6.38
TOTAL:16590.97 11889.25 10367.44 8165.12 6438.92 5713.48 6565.25 4688.34 4780.08
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 5764.53 3493.47 2883.09 2545.49 1582.41 1117.04 1340.19 1032.82 1020.03
Contra Costa County Public Works (continued)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 3
Contra Costa County Public Works, Special Districts
Name of EPA or Calif.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.
Total Lbs
A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Reg #
Specific
Gravity
%
A.I.
Used FY 07-08 &
before Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Liquid Materials Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI (gallons)(gallons)
Glyphosate Roundup ProMax 524-579 1.36 48.7 no data 0.00 0.00 26.45
Dry Materials Amt. used x % AI no data (pounds)(pounds)
Bromethelin Talpirid Mole Bait 12455-101 N/A 0.025 no data 0.0000008
Chlorphacinone Chlorophacinone 11071-CA-001 N/A 0.005 no data 0.00220
Chlorphacinone
Chlorophacinone
Treated Grain Rodent
Bait 10965-50004ZA N/A 0.005 no data 0.00 0.00 0.000190 0.0014375
Diphacinone
Diphacinone Treated
Grain Rodent Bait 10965-50003 N/A 0.010 no data 0.0001500
Diphacinone
Diphacinone Treated
Grain Rodent Bait 10965-50001-ZA N/A 0.005 no data 0.00375 45.00 0.00225 29.00 0.00145
Diphacinone Eaton's Answer 56-57 N/A 0.005 no data 0.002325 0.00210 0.0009750 0.00095 39.00 0.00195 16.00 0.00080
Diphacinone Eaton's Bait Blocks 56-42 N/A 0.005 no data 0.0001 0.000250 0.00020 0.00060 4.00 0.00020 8.50 0.00043
Aluminum phosphide Fumitoxin 72959-1-5857 N/A 55.000 no data 0.00 0.00 0.81
Strychnine Alkaloid Gopher Getter AG Bait 36029-7 N/A 0.500 no data 0.00 0.00 0.0020
Diphacinone
Gopher Getter Type 2
AG Bait 36029-23 N/A 0.005 no data 0.00 0.00 0.0002
Diphacinone
Gopher Getter Type 2
AG Bait 36029-24 N/A 0.005 no data 0.0004025 0.00009
Diphacinone
P.C.Q. Pelleted Rodent
Bait 12455-50003-AA N/A 0.010 no data 0.0005000 0.00365
Aluminum phosphide Phostoxin 72959-4 N/A no data 10.79 9.20
Oxadiazon Ronstar G 432-886 N/A 2.000 no data 6.00
Chlorphacinone Rozol 7173-242 N/A 0.005 no data 0.00010
Aluminum phosphide Weevil-cide 70506-13 N/A 60.000 no data 0.00 0.66 11.64 6.7320000 7.140 2.65 1.59000
Zinc phosphide ZP Rodent Bait AG 12455-17 N/A 2.000 no data 0.000 0.000 0.02
TOTAL 10.79 9.86 44.92 6.735666 7.151343 1.594400 0.00268
0.04 oz
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 10.79 9.86 12.47 6.73 7.14 1.59 0.00
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 4
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
glyphosate Aquamaster 524-343 1.205 53.80 5.29 3.12 16.85
glyphosate Aqua Neat 228-365-AA 1.224 53.80
glyphosate Aqua Neat 228-365-4581 1.201 53.80 26.91
esfenvalerate Asana XL 352-515 0.930 8.40 0.09 0.01
Dicamba & 2.4 D Banvel 55947-1 1.211 48.20 72.51
2,4-D 34704-5 1.163 46.50 24.78
Bivert 2935-50157-AA 0.790 100.00 6.12
Carbaryl ("7")54705-4 1.100 41.20 30.01
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Clarity 7969-137 1.250 56.80 416.43 170.92 280.46 391.70 275.43 225.45 25.20 149.04 14.76 87.30
Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Garlon 4 464-554 1.082 61.60 13.88
imazapyr isopropylamine salt Habitat 241-426 1.068 28.70 0.00 1.33 1.20 0.72 1.35 0.26 0.92 0.09 0.23
surfactant Hasten 2935-50160 0.900 100.00 1.20 0.15
Adjuvant
Herbicide Activator
(First Choice)11656-50024-ZC 0.900 100.00 0.94
Drift retardant--oils In Place 2935-50169 0.880 100.00 59.45 6.25 45.82 0.41 2.98
Aminopyralid,
triisopropanolammonium salt Milestone 62719-519 1.140 40.60 33.74 10.60 38.06 43.42 17.70 21.52 6.27 24.18 3.13 12.07
Aminopyralid,
triisopropanolammonium salt &
triclopyr, triethylamine salt Milestone VM Plus 62719-572 1.140 18.44 7.88 8.91 0.09 6.57
surfactant Pro-Tron 71058-50008-AA 0.984 95.00 195.84 51.47 137.75 21.30 165.86 4.93 38.39
Adjuvant R-11 2935-50142-AA 1.020 90.00 389.99 180.09 71.80 170.14 1.76
Clopyralid, triethylamine salt &
triclopyr, triethylamine salt Redeem 62719-337 1.140 45.10 0.30
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Rodeo 524-343 1.205 53.80 13.50
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro 524-475 1.170 41.00 276.35 104.04 195.97 182.66
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 1.199 50.20 152.67 149.51 63.88 17.12 85.84 1.69 8.47
imazapyr isopropylamine
salt Stalker 241-296 1.060 27.60 0.30 0.56
imazapyr isopropylamine
salt Stalker 241-398 1.060 27.60 1.61 0.71 0.0004 0.001
Picloram potassium salt Tordon 22K 464-323 1.140 24.40 3.55
Clopyralid, monoethanolamine
salt Transline 62719-259 1.161 40.90 277.99 0.03 0.01
Adjuvant Tri-Fol Buffer 2935-50152-AA 1.120 34.00 0.25
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 55947-46 1.250 56.80 299.20 1.83 0.24
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 100-884 1.250 56.80 0.35
Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Remedy 62719-552 1.080 61.60 16.63
Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI
Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 5
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Dry Materials (pounds)(pounds)
Diphacinone Diphacinone .005%10965-50001-ZA N/A 0.005 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.23 0.09 1335.00 0.07 260 0.013
Diphacinone Diphacinone .01%10965-50003-ZA N/A 0.01 1.57 2.58 2.34 2.78 3.37 3.10 2.75 13055.50 1.31 27109 2.71
Sodium nitrate, charcoal Gas Cartridge 56228-2 N/A 81.00 2.58 1.94 2.07 4.56 5.47
Imidacloprid Merit 75WSP 3125-439 N/A 75.00 10.19
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-522 N/A 75.00 0.14 0.29 0.18 0.89 0.93 5.84 10.79 8.09 1.05 0.79
Picloram potassium salt Tordon 10K 464-320 N/A 11.60 0.99 0.36 0.06
Aluminum phosphide Weevil-cide 70506-13 N/A 60.00 0.59 0.95 0.50 0.30
TOTAL:1420.66 757.58 465.09 687.35 794.73 539.44 529.11 497.57 152.72
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 131.84 0.14 0.88 0.48 1.26 1.94 5.84 8.39 0.79
Amt . Used x %AI
Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture (continued)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 6
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
Chlorantraniliprole Acelepryn 352-731 1.094 18.40 0.24
Dikegulac sodium Atrimmec 2217-776 1.095 18.50 2.21 0.32
Prodiamine Barricade 100-1139 35.01
**Dicamba**, MCPA,
Triclopyr Cool Power 228-317 9.27
Adjuvant
Crop Oil (Monterey
Herbicide Helper)54705-50001-AA 0.900 100.00 0.08 0.60
Dursban 2E 464-586 1.000 24.10
Myclobutanil Eagle 62719-463 0.06
Embark 7182-7-AA 1.110 28.00
Bifenazate Floramite 400-508 0.03
Ethephon Florel 62719-145-AA 1.016 3.90
Ethephon Florel 264-543-54705 0.65
NAA, ammonium salt Fruit Stop 5481-66-65783 0.43
Fluazifop-P-butyl Fusilade II 100-1084 0.980 24.50 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.10
Goal 707-174 0.990 19.40 19.34
Grass Getter (Poast)7969-58-ZA-54705 0.935 18.00
Hexythiazox Hexygon 10163-208 0.11
Petroleum distillates Lesco Horticultural Oil 10404-66 2.13
Knox Out 2 FM 4581-335-449 1.036 23.00
Lindane 7001-279-AA 0.976 87.60
Adjuvant Magnify 17545-50018 1.220 51.50 0.47 0.01 0.05
Maintain A 400-396-AA 1.000 0.30
Malathion 655-598 1.032 0.50
Adjuvant No Foam A (Monterey)54705-50004-AA 1.050 90.00 0.15 1.18 0.22 1.73
NuFarm Polaris 228-534-AA 1.057 27.70 0.04 0.10
Ornamec 2217-728-AA 0.880 6.75
Glyphosate isopropylamine
salt Razor 228-366 91.73
Glyphosate, diquat
dibromide Razorburn 228-446 1.146 43.10 4.11
Roundup Pro 524-445-ZB 1.020 41.00 156.00
Glyphosate isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro 524-475 1.170 41.00 23.98
Glyphosate isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 1.199 50.20 33.89 50.92 41.56 94.11 363.50 351.72 36.41 182.55
Glyphosate potassium salt Roundup Promax 524-579 1.356 48.70 1.87 52.72 290.01 56.51 310.86
Nonanoic acid Scythe 62719-529 0.66
Sevin SL 464-586 1.000 24.10
Bifenthrin Talstar 279-3206 0.02
Triclopyr 4EC 81927-11-AA 1.100 61.60 5.64 1.41 0.25 1.41
**Dicamba, MCPA**,
MCPP Tri Power 228-262 3.79
Triclopyr BEE Turflon 62719-258 1.060 61.60 1.96
Turflon Ester 17545-8-AA 1.08 60.45 0.003 0.02
Contra Costa County Public Works - Grounds
Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 7
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Dry Materials Amt. Used x %AI (pounds)(pounds)
Isoxaben Gallery 75 DF 62719-145-AA N/A 75.00 97.08 44.42 14.25 4.88 8.25 3.00 2.25 18.38 13.79
Dithiopyr Dithiopyr 40 WSB 73220-13 N/A
0.125 lbs
ai/5 oz 1.63 2.72
30 oz (6
bags)0.75
Flumioxazin Payload 59639-120-ZA N/A 51.00 0.30 9.31 4.75 3.06 1.56
Lindane 20954-107-AA N/A 99.50
Orthene 59639-88 N/A 75.00 0.52
Acephate Orthene 59639-26 0.13
Sulfometuron methyl Oust 352-401 N/A 75.00 3.85 0.17
Oxadiazon Ronstar WP 264-538 N/A 50.00 648.63 0.00
Halosulfuron methyl Sedgehammer 81880-1-10163 N/A 75.00
Halosulfuron methyl Sedgehammer 81880-24-10163 N/A 5.00 2.00 0.10 0.03 0.0015
Flumioxazin SureGuard 59639-120 N/A 51.00 1.27 12.20 21.16 10.79 15.69 8.00
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-522 0.06
TOTAL 927.37 57.87 240.06 45.89 112.97 377.74 376.77 492.33 338.26
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 649.14 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.00
NOTE: The totals
for 07-08 only
account for
Grounds Div.
usaage and do not
include Tru-Green
usage.
Contra Costa County Public Works - Grounds (continued)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 8
CCC Public Works - Facilities
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total oz. A.I
Total oz. A.I.
by wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Total OZ. A.I.Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Liquid Materials Oz. by Wt.Oz. by Wt.(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.
Orthoboric acid Drax Liquid Bait 9444-206 0.00 0.03 0.00Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate
(Borax Advance Ant Gel 499-492 1.23 5.40 0.01 0.002
Indoxacarb Advion Ant Bait Arena 352-664 1.09 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.077 0.0063
33 ea (Net wt
of Arena is
0.07 oz)0.00262
164 ea (Net
wt of Arena
is 0.07 oz)0.013
Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate
Advance Liquid Ant
Bait 499-491 1.24 1.30 0.00 0.00 4.12 37.79 62.047 72.323 784.00 13.14360
Indoxacarb Advion Ant Gel 352-746 1.24 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.022 0.0346 85.42 0.05508 115.64 0.075
Indoxacarb
Advion Cockroach Bait
Arena 352-668 1.09 0.50 0.00 0.005 0.0014
8 ea (Net wt of
Arena is 0.07
oz)0.00280
10 ea (Net
wt of Arena
is 0.07 oz)0.00397
Indoxacarb
Advion Cockroach Gel
Bait 352-652 1.0442 0.60 0.01 0.000521 0.07871 31.08 0.20251 7.13 0.046
Chlorantraniliprole Altriset 100-1503 1.094 18.4 2.00 0.419
Cedar oil
Best Yet Insect Control
Solution Exempt 25b material No data 10.00 128.00 12.800
White pepper, mineral oil DeTour for Rodents Exempt 0.864 3.00 166.00 4.475
Hydroprene
Gentrol IGR
Concentrate 2724-351 0.08 0.00 0.00
Hydroprene Gentrol Point Source 2724-469 90.60 0.00 0.007 0.065
Rosemary Oil EcoExempt 1C Exempt 1.66 8.32 112.49
2-phenethyl propionate EcoPco Acu 67425-14 0.00 0.00 0.01Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate
(Borax Intice Thiquid Ant Bait 73079-7 1.33 1.00 3128.00 43.26650 3554.00 49.159
Fipronil Maxforce Ant Bait Gel 432-1264 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000013
Fipronil
Maxforce FC Select
Roach Gel 432-1259 1.1414 0.01 0.000006
Imidacloprid
Maxforce Quantum Ant
Bait 432-1506 1.43 0.03 27.90 0.012
Hydramethylnon
Maxforce Roach Bait
Gel 432-1254 2.15 0.13 0.03 0.00
sodium lauryl sulfate Oh Yeah Exempt 1 0.70 9.47 18.731 9.57444 1072.00 7.80416 2222 16.176
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Precor 2000 274-483 0.5%
permethrin 0.0208
0.09%
methoprene 0.0000
Note: product has 5 a.i. s Precor 2000 Plus 2724-490 0.085%
methoprene 128 0.109
0.35%
permethrin 0.448
0.3
pehnothrin 0.384
2% n-octyl
bicycloheptene
dicarbonximide 2.56
1.4% poperonly
butoxide 1.792
Foaming agent
Profoam Platinum
(foaming agent)1021148-50001-AA No data 60.00 2 1.200
coyote & fox urine
Shake Away:
Fox/Coyote 80917-5 1 5.00 20.488 44.50 2.31400
Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate
(Borax Terro PCO Bait stations 149-8-64405 1 5.40 0.12 1.166 0.661
135-0.36
oz
stations 2.6244
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OPERATIONS - PESTICIDE USE SUMMARY COMPARISON FY 00-01 to FY 14-15, Revised 10-28-15
Page 9
CCC Public Works - Facilities, cont.
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total oz. A.I
Total oz. A.I.
by wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Total OZ. A.I.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Amt Used
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Amt Used
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 FY 13-14 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Dry Materials OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Alpine Dust 499-527 0.25%
dinotefuran 0.00 0.000
95% DE 0.14 0.010
Abamectin Avert Dry Flowable Bait 499-294 0.00 0.00 0.00
Orthoboric acid Borid 9444-129 0.00 6.93 0.99
Amorphous silicon dioxide
Concern Diatomaceous
Earth 73729-1-50932 85.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.09 1.700 0.680
Bromodialone Contrac Blox 12455-79 0.09 0.06 0.02
non-toxic rodent monitoring food
bait Detex Blox Eco-019 236 N/A
Diatomaceous earth Diatomaceous Earth 499-509 100 0.23 0.23
Note: product has 3 a.i. s Eco PCO WP-X None 3% phenethyl
propionate 0.060 0.0792
5% Thyme oil 0.100 0.132
0.05%
pyrethrins 0.001 0.00132
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Eco PCO DX 67425-16-655
1% 2-
phenethyl
propionate 0.00017
0.4%
pyrethrins 0.000068
Balsam fir oil
Fresh Cab Rodent
Repellent (granules)82016-1 2.00
8-2.5 oz
pouches 0.4
Oil of black pepper Havahart Critter Ridder 50932-10 0.48 804.00 3.8592 624 2.9952
Orthoboric acid
Niban FG/Mother Earth
Granules
64405-2
499-515 5.00 190.69 107.53 62.64 35.98 56.875 156.300 375.00 18.75 3144.5 157.225
Fipronil
Maxforce Ant Bait
Stations 432-1256 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 Each (Net wt
of bait station is
0.05)0.00008
Fipronil
Maxforce FC Prof.
Insect Cntrl Roach Bait
Station 432-1257 0.05
8 Each (Net wt
of bait station is
0.053)0.00021
Fipronil
Maxforce Ant Bait
Stations 64248-10 0.01 0.000005 0.000055
Fipronil
Maxforce Roach Bait
Stations 64248-11 0.05 0.00028 0.00016 0.000265
Hydramethylnon
Maxforce Roach Bait
Stations 432-1251 0.19 0.03 0.00
Boric Acid Perma Dust 499-384 142.71 242.11 94.08
OZ of A.I 335.55 365.04 274.38 85.65 140.824 260.426 89.401 253.146
LBs of A.I.20.97 22.81 17.15 5.35 8.80 16.28 5.59 15.82
OZ of BA 0.41 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.0014 0.0000 0.832
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:ACCEPT report on I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan and take
ACTION as appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 17
Referral Name: Review transportation plans and services for specific populations, including
but not limited to County Low Income Transportation Action Plan,
Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area,
Priorities for Senior Mobility...
Presenter: Jamar Stamps, DCD Contact: Jamar Stamps
(925)674-7832
Referral History:
In 2013, the County was awarded a grant in the amount of $75,000 for Transportation for Livable
Communities (“TLC”) from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) to develop the
I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan (“Plan”). The Plan identifies improvements to serve
bicyclists and pedestrians using the Treat Boulevard/I-680 over-crossing near the Contra Costa
Centre/Pleasant Hill BART station area.
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
study area consists of the segment of Treat Boulevard from the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing,
extending west to North Main Street in the City of Walnut Creek (Exhibit A).
Referral Update:
The Department of Conservation and Development (“DCD”) contracted with Alta Planning +
Design (“consultant”) to develop the Plan. DCD staff formed a technical advisory committee
(“TAC”) to review work on specific project tasks. The TAC consists of representatives from
County Public Works Department, County Supervisor District IV, City of Walnut Creek,
Caltrans, Contra Costa Center Municipal Advisory Council and CCTA.
Stakeholders invited to participate in the project include various agencies and public advocacy
groups, some of which are: City of Pleasant Hill, BART, East Bay Regional Park District, Walnut
Creek School District, Walden Improvement Association, Bike East Bay, Bike Concord, etc.
With input from site evaluations, traffic analysis and direction from TAC members, the consultant
With input from site evaluations, traffic analysis and direction from TAC members, the consultant
initially developed three preliminary improvement plan options. A public workshop held in
December 2014 led to a fourth “preferred” option, which combined elements from the initial three
concepts. The fourth preferred option was included in the Draft Plan which was published in
September 2015 for public comment (Exhibit B).
County staff received numerous comments from the public, bicycle advocacy groups and other
agencies within the three week comment period (September 16, 2015 through October 9, 2015).
A summary of those comments is provided in Exhibit C. DCD staff met with Walnut Creek staff
to discuss how best to proceed. It was determined that a thorough response would require
revisions to the Plan that unfortunately would not be able to be covered by the existing scope of
work. Additionally, the project’s funding has been exhausted.
The Consultant provided DCD staff with an addendum to the scope of work and budget (Exhibit
D) for the additional work required to complete the Plan, which was vetted by DCD and Walnut
Creek staff. The total cost for additional work would be $20,705. Potential funding sources for the
additional work include: Measure J Subregional Transportation Needs funds, CCTA TLC,
OneBayArea (“OBAG”) planning grant, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning grant.
Recommencement of the project would depend on when funding is secured. If Measure J funds
are available, Plan development would proceed in January 2016. However, relying on grant funds
would provide less certainty due to the competitive nature of grant funds and varying schedules
for award disbursements.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report on I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan and take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Exhibit A – Study Area Map
Exhibit B – Draft Plan
Exhibit C – Summary of Comments
Exhibit D – Addendum to Scope of Work/Budget
§¨¦680
N Main St Oak Rd Geary Rd Treat Blvd Jones Rd Buskirk Ave Las Juntas Way
Wayne Ct Parnell Ct
Sunnyvale Ave
Cherry Ln Honey Trl
Del Hombre Ln Roble Rd
Brockhurst Ct Oa
k R
d
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Map created 11/3/2011by Contra Costa County Department Conservation and Development Community Development Division--GIS Group651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-009537:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384WThis map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.I 0 325 650162.5 Feet
Contra Costa CentreProposed Study Area
Legend
BART Stations
BART Track
Parcels
Proposed Study Area
Walnut Creek City Limits
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill Concord
Lafayette
Martinez
Lafayette
§¨¦680
Taylor BlvdN Main StTreat BlvdGeary Rd
Oak Park Blvd
Gregory Ln
Treat Blvd
Vicinity Map
SITE
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Alta Planning + Design | i
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and
Development
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2015
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | ii
This page is intentionally blank
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Alta Planning + Design | iii
Table of Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5!
1.!Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 7!
2.!Plan Development Process ............................................................................................................................ 8!
3.!Planning Context ................................................................................................................................................ 9!
3.1.!City of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan (2011) ......................................................................... 9!
3.2.!Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2009) ...................................................................... 9!
3.3.!Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (1998) ................................................................ 9!
4.!Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................................... 11!
4.1.!Design Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 11!
4.2.!General Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................................... 11!
4.3.!Land Use and Urban Design ............................................................................................................... 12!
4.4.!User Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 13!
4.5.!Collisions .................................................................................................................................................... 14!
5.!Alternative Concepts ...................................................................................................................................... 15!
5.1.!Concept Overview .................................................................................................................................. 15!
5.2.!Pedestrian Improvements ................................................................................................................... 16!
5.3.!Concept 1A: Standard Bicycle Lanes ............................................................................................... 17!
5.4.!Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes ...................................................................................................... 17!
5.5.!Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes ............................................................ 17!
5.6.!Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Sidewalk ......................................................... 19!
5.7.!Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Sidewalk ................................................................................. 20!
6.!Concept Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 24!
6.1.!Traffic Analysis for All Concepts ..................................................................................................... 24!
6.2.!Concept 4 Phase 2 Future Year Analysis (2040) ..................................................................... 25!
6.3.!Multi-Criteria Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 27!
Appendix A: Study Participants ......................................................................................................................... 29!
Appendix B: Existing Conditions by Location ............................................................................................... 31!
Appendix C: Additional Traffic Data ................................................................................................................ 37!
Appendix D: Concept Plans and Features ...................................................................................................... 41!
Appendix E: Concept 4 Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................ 53!
Separately available: full Traffic Analysis Report with modeling output and traffic count data
tables (DKS Associates)
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | iv
This page is intentionally blank
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 5
Summary
The Contra Costa Centre Transit Village is a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in
unincorporated Walnut Creek, clustered around the Pleasant Hill BART station. It is
characterized by mixed commercial, office and residential land uses. Pedestrians and cyclists
access the area principally via the Iron Horse Trail or a narrow (5’) sidewalk along the north
side of the I-680 overcrossing bridge.
Treat Boulevard creates challenges for the users of transit as the wide roadways (up to nine
lanes) and intersections become barriers for pedestrians to cross. Without bicycle
infrastructure, the first/last mile for transit users becomes even more constrained.
With the goal of addressing these deficiencies and providing more livable communities, Alta
Planning + Design developed four draft concepts (1A, 1B, 2 and 3). After stakeholder discussions
and feasibility analysis, a recommended combination concept (4) was identified based on
several different elements from the draft concepts. Concept 4 emphasizes a high level of
comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians on the segment they most often use, Main Street to Oak
Road. The main features of Concept 4 are:
•!the provision of a two-way shared use path on the north side of Treat Boulevard
between Main Street and Oak Road, including the I-680 overcrossing;
•!a new sidewalk on the south side between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue to enhance
pedestrian connectivity; and
•!changes to the north side of the Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue intersections to improve
pedestrian and bicycle crossings.
A short-term Phase 1 project would focus on improvements between Main Street and Buskirk
Avenue. The estimated cost of Phase 1 is $1,426,000. As this concept does not remove any
traffic lanes or restrict any turn movements, there are no motorist level of service impacts.
In the medium-term, Phase 2 would include two-stage bicycle turn facilities at Main Street and
removal of two channelized right turns at Oak Road in favor of shared use paths. The estimated
cost of Phase 2 is $724,000. Traffic analysis using future year (2040) volumes indicates that
queue lengths for some of the Oak Road movements may double from roughly 10 to 20 car
lengths while the overall intersection LOS remains “E”.
In the long term, Caltrans and the City of Walnut Creek are considering the redesign of several
interchanges along I-680 with potentially significant changes to the pedestrian and bicycle
networks.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 6
This page is intentionally blank
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
7 | Alta Planning + Design
1.!Introduction
The Contra Costa Centre Transit Village is a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in
unincorporated Walnut Creek, characterized by mixed commercial and office land uses. Bicycle
parking at the BART station is plentiful and heavily utilized. Despite these trip generators, the
I-680 overcrossing has a narrow (5’) sidewalk on the north side only, and no bicycle facilities.
Other than the regional Iron Horse Trail, there are no bicycle facilities along or across the
corridor.
This study intends to assess active transportation improvement options, recommend a phased
approach to implementation, and provide concept plans and cost estimates for funding
programming.
Figure 1-1 shows a vicinity map of the study corridor.
Figure 1-1: Project Locality
This project includes the following intersections:
1.!Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and N. Main Street
2.!Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I!680 northbound ramps
3.!Treat Boulevard and Oak Road
4.!Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse Trail
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 8
2.! Plan Development Process
Plan Initiation
The Plan was funded with a $75,000 grant
from Contra Costa Measure J (2004)
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
program, administered through the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA).
In April 2014, the consultant team met with
Contra Costa County at a “kick-off’ meeting to
review the overall scope, data needs,
schedule, vision and goals of the Plan. The
Team collected necessary geographic, design
and vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian data for
analysis.
Outreach
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
including staff from Contra Costa County,
Walnut Creek, and Caltrans was convened
three times (see Appendix A for a list of TAC
members). In addition to the TAC, meetings
were held with the following stakeholders:
Figure 2-1: Plan Process
•!7/27/14 Lamorinda Development
•!12/12/14 Contra Costa Centre property management
•!2/20/15 Bike East Bay
Design Alternatives
The summer and fall of 2014 were dedicated to the analysis of existing plans, GIS data, field
research, traffic analysis and the development of three design concepts. The design concepts,
described in further detail below, were evaluated and reviewed by the TAC and the Walnut
Creek Transportation Commission.
Recommended Concept
In May 2015, the TAC met to review the recommended concept. Principal topics included
highway network planning, freeway access constraints, design details, and traffic modeling.
Existing
Conditions
•Site Tour and Data Collection
•Base Model
•TAC Meeting 1 (Apr 2014)
•Stakeholder Meetings
Concepts
•Develop three concepts
•TAC Meeting 2 (May 2014)
•Walnut Creek Transportation
Commission (Oct 2014)
•Community Workshop (Dec
2014)
Feasibility
Study
•Refine and Model Options
•Evaluate Options
•TAC Meeting 3 (May 2015)
Plan
Development
•Preliminary Engineering for
Recommended Option
•Cost Estimates to Support
Funding Applications
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
9 | Alta Planning + Design
3.! Planning Context
Previous plans in the area identify proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements, policies,
and priorities for Treat Boulevard and the nearby area. A brief description of each related plan
is listed below.
3.1.!City of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan (2011)
According to this plan, the City of Walnut Creek allows bicyclists to use sidewalks along heavily
travelled arterials, including Treat Boulevard. Various segments of Treat Boulevard within the
city limits are designated as Class III bicycle routes, although sharing a lane with high volumes
of traffic on a 35 mph roadway is not a condition that will suit most people.
Figure 3-1: Extract of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan showing Treat Boulevard as a proposed Class III
3.2.!Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2009)
The Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan names “Routes to transit” as one of three types
of pedestrian priority locations. The Pleasant Hill BART station is mentioned as a priority
location along with the other BART stations in Contra Costa County. No specific improvements
are prescribed for the Treat Boulevard study corridor.
The Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies Treat Boulevard as a part of the
Countywide Bicycle Network (CBN) but does not propose a specific treatment.
3.3.!Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (1998)
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan states that a circulation system for bicycles
and pedestrians will be provided to support travel between parking areas, transit stops,
buildings, the Iron Horse Trail, and the Bart Station.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan cites the following bicycle and pedestrian
objectives for transportation and circulation:
•!Transportation and Circulation Objective #5 Provide for safe and convenient pedestrian
and bicycle movement between the BART Station, Station Area parking, local transit
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 10
boarding areas, and major facilities in the Station Area and between the Station Area
and nearby residential and commercial areas.”
•!Urban Design Objective #8 Develop areas intensively used by pedestrians at a human
scale with adjoining uses which will visually and functionally enliven the area.
The Specific Plan design concepts identify Treat Boulevard as the major entranceway to the
Station Area and encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment:
•!Emphasize Treat Boulevard as the major entranceway to the Station Area and visually
identify this role by the placement of the pedestrian overpass at Oak Road and the
pedestrian/bicycle overpass at Jones Road, and the provision of elevated public
plazas or pedestrian corridors in the vicinity of the northeast and southeast corners of
the intersection (Subareas 12 and 15). Provide sufficient public outdoor space to
accommodate the pedestrian activities focused at this location as a result of adjoining
office development, BART parking and local transit stop.
•!Create a pedestrian-friendly street-level environment by discouraging blank building
walls and encouraging windows, doors, and other building facade features.
The Specific Plan identifies policies for bicycle and pedestrian circulation that relate to Treat
Boulevard. The policies are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 : Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Policies
Policy Description Status
Policy 1 A pedestrian overpass shall be provided at the
intersection of Treat Boulevard and Oak Road.
No longer supported and has
been removed from Plan
Policy 2 A pedestrian and bicycle overpass should be
provided at Jones Road for the Iron Horse Trail.
Complete
Policy 3 If feasible, development on Area 12 should provide for
a continuous pedestrian-way from the north end of
the pedestrian overpass at Oak Road to the BART
Station.
Complete
Policy 7 Undertake a community design program for both
pedestrian and bicycle overcrossings as soon as
feasible given availability of funding and reasonably
defined site geometrics.
Complete
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
11 | Alta Planning + Design
4.!Existing Conditions
A site tour was held with the TAC on May 19, 2014. The consultant team also performed several
additional field reviews through the month of May.
4.1.!Design Assumptions
During the site tour meeting, the design assumptions were confirmed as follows:
•!Lane widths shall be no less than 11’ or 10.5’ for turn lanes
•!Medians can be narrowed
•!All proposals are to remain within the public right of way
4.2.!General Traffic Conditions
The corridor has a 35 mph speed limit. The roadway has excess capacity during off-peak hours
as it is sized based on level of service and demand during peak hours.
There are nine lanes in some locations (Figure 4-1), presenting a long distance for pedestrians
to cross the street. Reducing this distance, providing longer walk times, or reducing wait times
for pedestrians can improve the pedestrian experience. Lane widths within the study area are
typically 12’ but vary from 11’ to 17’.
Long cycle lengths provide higher motor vehicle capacity for the main movements, but delays
for other movements and for pedestrians can cause frustration. Long cycle lengths also lead to
risk taking such as red-light running.
Figure 4-1 : Existing Conditions Lane Configurations and Signal Phasing
Yield controlled channelized right turns are present at all westbound intersections and
eastbound at Jones Road. Northbound Buskirk Avenue and southbound Oak Road also have
channelized right turns. Dedicated receiving lanes for continuous free flow are present at
westbound right turn at Main Street, the southbound right turn at Oak Road, and the
northbound right turn at Buskirk Avenue. Although channelized right turns are advantageous
for automobile traffic, they present a less comfortable and safe environment for pedestrians
and cyclists, who must cross faster moving right turning traffic that frequently does not expect
to conflict with pedestrians.
Appendix B presents a more detailed description of existing conditions by location along the
corridor, along with traffic count and base model data.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 12
4.3.!Land Use and Urban Design
The land uses on Treat Boulevard include office, retail, hotel, and mixed-use residential. The
Walgreens shopping center on the northeast corner of Treat Boulevard and North Main Street
is not slated for expansion, although the parking lot may be reconfigured to connect to BevMo,
a beverage retail establishment directly north.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Plan identifies urban design objectives for building height,
form and mass, public spaces, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, signage, building design, and
defensible space. Buildings on Treat Boulevard have a minimum three-story height and setback
of 20 feet from the street.
The most recent mixed-use development on the north side of
Treat Boulevard, between Jones Road and Oak Road, has
continuous sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, benches, and trees.
A Starbucks on the easternmost corner provides outdoor
seating. A parking lane separates pedestrians from the traffic
on Treat Boulevard. The light colored concrete on the parking
strip and extended right-turn lane is a de-facto space for
bicycling.
Photo 1 The north side of Treat
Boulevard between Jones Road
and Oak Road has continuous
building frontage and a
pedestrian-friendly public realm.
The south side of the block between Jones Road and Oak
Road is reminiscent of typical suburban design. The office
buildings are set back approximately 50 feet away from the
street. Unlike the north side, which has a continuous building
frontage along the sidewalk, the south building’s V-shape sets
the entrance to the building back even further. The sidewalk
is separated from the traffic by a landscape strip and
occasional trees.
Photo 2 The south side of Treat
Boulevard has a meandering 6’
wide sidewalk
This style is consistent along the majority of the study
corridor, with and without the landscape strip, with sidewalk
widths varying between 4-8 feet. Along the Embassy Suites
frontage on the north side of Treat Boulevard between Oak
Road and Buskirk Avenue, there is an 8’ wide sidewalk
separated from traffic by an 8’ wide landscape strip. Trees line
both sides of the sidewalk, providing a shade canopy during
the summer.
Photo 3 The north side of Treat
Boulevard has a tree-lined 8’
wide sidewalk
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
13 | Alta Planning + Design
4.4.!User Analysis
A field review of the study corridor was conducted in July 2014 during peak hours to observe
pedestrian, driver, and bicyclist behavior. The fieldwork included interviews with pedestrians.
The majority of pedestrians were observed walking on the north side of the study corridor.
When asked about their experience walking on Treat Boulevard, pedestrians noted that the
walk across the I-680 overbridge is “unpleasant” and “always seems to take longer than it
should.” Another pedestrian noted that the signals along Treat Boulevard are “really slow,” and
can take “double the time if you have to cross two ways.”
The pedestrian phases were timed during field
observations. Pedestrians waited up to 120 seconds
before receiving a walk indication. At the Treat
Boulevard and Oak Road intersection, pedestrians were
observed crossing the street during the do-not-walk
phase. These pedestrians would cross to the center
median, and then wait for the walk signal, presumably to
get a head start (Figure 4-2). This suggests that the
signal phasing may be too long to accommodate
pedestrian commuters, particularly those traveling to
catch a BART train.
The pedestrian plaza between the Embassy Suites Hotel
and Vodafone Building north of Treat Boulevard (Figure
4-3) serves as a common path for pedestrians and
bicyclists traveling to and from the BART Station.
Figure 4-2: Some pedestrians cross to
the median on a Do Not Walk signal to
get a head start on the next ped phase
Figure 4-3: Plaza route
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 14
Few people were observed bicycling on Treat Boulevard, choosing instead to ride on the
sidewalk. On the I-680 overbridge, the majority of riders used the narrow (5’) north sidewalk.
In some instances, the bicyclist or pedestrian would step into the street to pass a group.
Drivers were observed failing to yield to pedestrians in channelized right turn lane crosswalks,
particularly at the northeast corner of Treat Boulevard and Oak Road. Some drivers blocked
pedestrian movement by pausing in crosswalks while waiting in a traffic queue.
4.5.!Collisions
Recent collision data was requested through Contra Costa County and collected from the
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Violation type was recorded for 13 of
the 16 total collisions (Table 4-1). Automobile Right of Way was the most common violation for
a bicycle/vehicle collision, and Pedestrian Right of Way was the most common violation for a
pedestrian/vehicle collision.
The cluster of collisions at Jones
Road shown in Figure 4-4 may
precede the construction of the
Iron Horse Trail overbridge.
The next most frequent location
is around Buskirk Avenue, where
three bicycle collisions have
been reported.
Table 4-1 : Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Crash Type
Violation Bicycle Pedestrian
Automobile Right of Way 2 1
Improper Turning 2 0
Other Hazardous Violation 1 0
Other Improper Driving 0 1
Pedestrian Right of Way 0 3
Unsafe Lane Change 1 0
Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 0
Total 8 5
Figure 4-4: Reported Collisions Map
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
15 | Alta Planning + Design
5.!Alternative Concepts
5.1.!Concept Overview
Three concepts were developed for the Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. For
Concept 1, a lower cost, lower impact version of 1A was also considered. Concept 4 was
developed after conducting traffic modeling and outreach. Principal elements of each concept
are given in Table 5-1; more details and plan view graphics are provided in Appendix D. An
evaluation of the concepts is provided in section 6 of this document.
Table 5-1 Concept Comparisons
Concept Location Main Street to
Buskirk Avenue
Buskirk Avenue to
Oak Road
Oak Road to
Jones Road
Concept 1A
(short term)
North side /
Westbound
Bike lanes Sharrows Sharrows
South side /
Eastbound
Bike lanes Sharrows Sharrows
Concept 1B
North side /
Westbound
Buffered bike lanes Buffered bike lanes Buffered bike
lanes
South side /
Eastbound
Buffered bike lanes Buffered bike lanes Buffered bike
lanes
Concept 2
North side /
Westbound
Two way shared path Two way shared path Buffered bike lane
South side /
Eastbound
Bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane
Concept 3
North side /
Westbound
Two way shared path Two way shared path Cycle track
South side /
Eastbound
Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk
Concept 4:
Recommended
Combined
Concept
North side /
Westbound
Two way shared path Two way shared path Sharrows
South side /
Eastbound
Sidewalk No change No change
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 16
5.2.!Pedestrian Improvements
All concepts, with the exception of 1A, propose pedestrian enhancements at crosswalks along
the study corridor. These improvements include:
•!Enhancing the existing crosswalks at channelized free right turns along the study
corridor with high visibility continental or ladder striping, “sharks-teeth” yield markings
and signs
•!Reconstructing the channelization island at Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue to
meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
A sample graphic showing a channelized right turn lane with “shark’s teeth” yield markings,
high visibility ladder style crosswalk, and tactile ground surface indicators on the ADA standard
curb ramps is shown in Figure 5-1. For those concepts where bicycle lanes are provided, this
graphic indicates how a bike lane would be configured where the turn lane is an “add-lane.”
The bike lane is straight and motorists must merge across the path of bicyclists.
Figure 5-1: Conceptual provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists at a channelized right turn lane
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
17 | Alta Planning + Design
5.3.!Concept 1 A: Standard Bicycle Lanes
Concept 1A proposes bike lanes on Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue
by narrowing travel lanes to the County specified minimum 11’ width. East of Buskirk Avenue,
bike lanes could only be accommodated if travel lanes were reduced to 10’ width (below the
County specified minimum). Accordingly, sharrows could be employed. While sharrows are
permitted on roadways with 35 mph speed limits, they are not an ideal solution as few people
will “take the lane” with motorists traveling at that speed. Green paint would be provided at
the bike lane entrances and at conflict points to make the bike lanes more visible to motorists.
Altogether, the Concept 1A enhancements would be easy to implement and less costly than
the other alternatives; however, they would offer limited improvement to the bicycle and
pedestrian experience on Treat Boulevard. Concept 1A does not remove any travel lanes and
would have minimal impact on the driving experience or traffic movements. Concept 1A could
be considered as an option for short-term improvements.
5.4.!Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes
Concept 1B proposes buffered bike lanes along the full extent of the study corridor. The buffer
between the bike lane and adjacent motor vehicle lane offers bicyclists an increased sense of
safety. Green paint at the bike lane entrances and the conflict zones make the bike lanes more
visible to motorists. These enhancements can be done by converting the outside travel lanes
into the buffered bike lanes.
Figure 5-2: Concept 1B buffered bike lanes at I-680
Concept 1B would remove the outside eastbound and westbound travel lanes, remove the
eastbound channelized right-turn lane at Treat Boulevard and Jones Road, and narrow the curb
radius at the eastbound I-680 on-ramp between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue. Although
removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road reduces capacity, it also
eliminates the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves
traffic operation and safety along Treat Boulevard.
5.5.!Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes
Concept 2 proposes converting the existing north side sidewalk into a shared use path between
Main Street and Oak Road, adding buffered westbound bike lanes between Oak Road and
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 18
Jones Road, and adding eastbound buffered bike lanes for the full extent of the study area. The
vertical curb provides an enhanced sense of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Figure 5-3: Concept 2 shared use path (north side) and buffered bike lane (south side) at I-680
At Treat Boulevard and Oak Road, bicyclists would be partially separated from motor vehicles
with curbs and islands to reduce the risk of collisions between bicyclists and right-turning
vehicles. Channelized right turns at Oak Road and Jones Road would be removed.
Figure 5-4: Concept 2 at Oak Road
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
19 | Alta Planning + Design
Concept 2 can be implemented by narrowing lanes, and converting the outside eastbound lane
between Buskirk Avenue and Jones Road into a buffered bike lane. Although capacity is
reduced by removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road, this also eliminates
the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves traffic
operation and safety along Treat Boulevard. The expansion of the north sidewalk into a two-
way shared-use path, the construction of the protected intersection, and the removal of the
channelized right turns would result in higher costs than Concept 1A and 1B.
5.6.!Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Sidewalk
Concept 3 proposes converting the existing north sidewalk into a shared use path between
Main Street and Oak Road, and adding a westbound cycle track between Oak Road and Jones
Road. The shared use path is used by both pedestrians and bicyclists. It provides bicyclists with
a grade separation from motor vehicles and therefore a greater sense of safety. The cycle track
would be a bike lane separated from the travel lanes by a row of parked cars. This physical
separation from the travel lanes provides bicyclists with a greater sense of safety. The
eastbound outside lane would have sharrows, which are a marginal but low cost solution on
roadways with speed limits up to 35 mph (as with Treat Boulevard).
Concept 3 proposes removing channelized right turns at Oak Road and Jones Road,
designating the sidewalk between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue as a 10-foot wide two-way
shared-use path, adding a sidewalk to the south side between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue,
and expanding the existing south sidewalk with a landscape strip between Buskirk Avenue and
Oak Road. The south sidewalk would offer pedestrians an alternative walking option to the new
shared-use path, where pedestrians would share the same space with bicyclists.
Figure 5-5: Concept 3 shared use path (north side) and sidewalk (south side) at I-680
Concept 3 can be done by narrowing lanes, removing channelized right turns, and converting
the right-turn lane between Oak Road and Jones Road into the cycle track. Although capacity
is reduced by removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road, this also removes
the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves traffic
operation and safety along Treat Boulevard. This design results in some impact to the
intersection level of service (LOS) and results in more overall network delay and higher travel
times due to the removal of one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. Concept 3 has a
small delay impact at Oak Road during the morning peak hour and Main Street during the
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 20
afternoon peak hour. The expansion of the north sidewalk into a two-way shared-use path, the
removal of the channelized right turns, and the construction of the south side sidewalk would
result in higher costs than Concept 1A and 1B.
5.7.!Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Sidewalk
This study originally was to include development of up to three concepts. Through an iterative
development process and with stakeholder input, selected elements of the original three
concepts were combined into Concept 4. While this concept does not provide as substantial
an improvement for bicyclists and pedestrians as might be achieved with some elements not
carried forward from the other concepts, it is a compromise predicated on the assumption that
all travel lanes must be retained and must be at least 11’ wide. Plans are provided for this
concept in Appendix D.
5.7.1.!Main Street to Buskirk Avenue
The concepts that included traffic lane removals are not supported by the traffic modeling, but
lane width reductions enable the installation of paths on both sides of the bridge:
•!On the north side, the existing sidewalk would be replaced with a 12’ wide shared use
path. Minor improvements would be made to reduce potential conflicts at the
Walgreens driveways.
•!On the south side, Treat Boulevard has enough space for either an on-street eastbound
bike lane or a new southern sidewalk facility without removing travel lanes. Concept 4
includes a south side sidewalk to improve pedestrian connectivity, because eastbound
bicyclists will be able to use the north side shared-use path or the curbside traffic lanes.
Figure 5-6: Concept 4 shared use path (north side) and sidewalk (south side) at I-680 (as per Concept 3)
5.7.2.!Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road
All travel lanes remain in Concept 4 due to the heavy traffic volume at Buskirk Avenue turning
right towards northbound I-680. As such, the cycle track element was not included.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
21 | Alta Planning + Design
5.7.3.!Oak Road to Jones Road
Neither bike lanes, sharrows nor cycle tracks were chosen for this section of Treat Boulevard
for the following reasons:
•!Eastbound bike lanes cannot be accommodated without removal of a traffic lane or
reduction of lane widths below the County’s minimum to 10’. Modeling indicates an
unacceptable impact on motorist level of service. Furthermore, Treat Blvd is currently
not a hospitable route for bicycling east of Jones Road and there is low demand relative
to the rest of the corridor; therefore, this portion of the route is likely to attract only
more confident “vehicular” bicyclists.
•!Eastbound sharrows were not chosen for this section because the volume and speed of
traffic would not provide a comfortable environment for bicyclists. Instead, bicyclists
should be encouraged to use the shared-use path on the north side of the road.
•!Westbound sharrows were chosen for this section to accommodate and direct bicyclists
either westbound onto the shared-use path or northbound toward the BART station
once they reach the Oak Street and Treat Boulevard intersection. The sharrows will be
located on the dedicated westbound right-turn lane, which will have lower traffic
volumes and provide a more comfortable environment for people on bikes.
•!The landing points for the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing are approximately 500 feet
north and south of the intersection.
Implementation of a separate bikeway along Treat Boulevard in this block may be possible in
the long-term, depending on the motor traffic volume and wider network changes that may
occur.
5.7.4.!Concept 4 Phasing
Concept 4 could be implemented in two phases. The short-term Phase 1 would include the
north side path between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue and the south side (eastbound)
sidewalk extension between Main Street and the I-680 northbound off ramp.
Phase 2 includes more significant traffic signal and intersection layout modifications:
•!At Main Street, two-stage bicycle turn facilities would enhance bikeway connectivity
but will require property negotiations and/or retaining walls
•!At Oak Road, removing the southbound channelized right turn would reduce the
weaving of westbound motorists on Treat Boulevard, improving traffic operation and
safety. This would require the relocation of signal poles and major curb realignments.
The route to and from the BART station is shown in Figure 5-7, which is an extract of a full size
sheet provided in Appendix D. People already bike on both of the indicated routes (red and
blue). However, the Phase 2 project would improve conditions for bicycling across and along
the east side of Oak Road. If Phase 2 improvements were made, people could still choose to
cross Oak Road at Coggins Drive and bike along the west side.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 22
Figure 5-7: Concept 4 phasing (Phase 1 black text and red line, Phase 2 purple text and blue line). Please
refer to Appendix D for a full plan sheet.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
23 | Alta Planning + Design
5.7.5.!Phase 2 Design Mitigations
Preliminary traffic analysis indicated that the
removal of the free right turns (Phase 2) generally
has a negative impact on delay and queuing at
Oak Road during the morning and evening peak
periods when compared to the Phase 1
improvements. Accordingly, three mitigation
scenarios were developed. Incorporating one of
these mitigations into Concept 4 should be
explored during future design development.
Mitigation 1 – Signal Timing
Mitigation 1 involves signal timing adjustments to
overlap the southbound right turn (SBRT)
movement with the eastbound left turn (EBLT)
movement to allow better traffic flow for the SBRT
movement. By allowing SBRT traffic to turn during
the EBLT (as is the case with the existing
channelized turn lane), the queue will dissipate
faster.
Mitigation 2 – Two Right Turn Lanes
Mitigation 2 (Figure 5-9) is a modification of the
southbound approach, providing for one
southbound left turn (SBLT) lane, one southbound
through (SBTH) lane, and two SBRT lanes.
The geometric modification includes offsetting
the curb at the northeastern corner of the
intersection inwards and cutting back the median
nose on the east leg to accommodate SBLT
movements. The tradeoff for the queue length
reduction is the need to eliminate the west leg
crosswalk. Otherwise, pedestrians are at risk from
the “multiple strike” threat where one motorist
cannot see a crossing pedestrian due to the
vehicle in the adjacent lane.
Mitigation 3 – Signal Timing, Two Through Lanes
Mitigation 3 (Figure 5-10) is a modification of the
southbound approach to include one SBLT lane,
two SBTH lanes, and one SBRT lane. The signal
would operate with a SBRT/EBLT overlap in this
scenario as well.
Figure 5-8: Mitigation 1 geometry
Figure 5-9: Mitigation 2
Figure 5-10: Mitigation 3
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 24
6.!Concept Evaluation
6.1.!Traffic Analysis for All Concepts
This section includes a summary of the separate detailed traffic report. When looking at the
average intersection LOS, the design concepts result in little impact for the current year (2014)
traffic volumes (Table 6-1) or for the future year (2040) traffic volumes (Table 6-2). Concept
1A and Concept 4 Phase 1 were not analyzed because they do not involve any changes to the
number of lanes or intersection layouts.
Table 6-1 : All Concepts - Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014)
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Concept 1B Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4
(Phase 2)
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Main Street* A.M. 55.7 E 60.0 E 60.1 E 60.1 E 60.1 E
P.M. 42.9 D 41.1 D 42.2 D 42.2 D 42.2 D
I-680 NB and
Buskirk Avenue
A.M. 30.3 C 32.9 C 30.3 C 30.3 C 30.3 C
P.M. 17.5 B 17.7 B 17.4 B 17.4 B 17.4 B
Oak Road A.M. 46.8 D 55.5 E 53.6 D 53.6 D 49.3 D
P.M. 19.3 B 39.4 D 40.1 D 40.1 D 34.1 C
Jones Road* A.M. 37.6 D 28.8 C 29.8 C 29.8 C 29.9 C
P.M. 49.8 D 37.7 D 38.2 D 38.2 D 37.9 D
Table 6-2: All Concepts - Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year
Intersection Peak
Hour
No Build Concept 1B Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4
(Phase 2)
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Main Street* A.M. 83.1 F 86.0 F 83.3 F 83.3 F 83.3 F
P.M. 67.9 E 67.4 E 75.9 E 75.9 E 75.9 E
I-680 NB and
Buskirk Avenue
A.M. 31.4 C 36.4 D 30.5 C 30.5 C 30.5 C
P.M. 19.9 B 24.9 C 13.7 B 13.7 B 13.8 B
Oak Road
A.M. 63.8 E 63.3 E 67.3 E 67.3 E
67.5
(67.6)
[61.9]1
E
P.M. 46.3 D 48.9 D 45.5 D 45.5 D
36.7
(29.3)
[30.5] 1
D
Jones Road* A.M. 61.9 E 61.9 E 49.6 D 49.6 D 49.6 D
P.M. 211.9 F 212.4 F 212.1 F 212.1 F 212.1 F
1 Free right turn removal at Oak Road Mitigation 1, (Mitigation 2), and [Mitigation 3]
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
25 | Alta Planning + Design
6.2.!Concept 4 Phase 2 Future Year Analysis (2040)
The Concept 4 Phase 2 project involves removal of channelized right turns on the north side of
Treat Boulevard at Oak Road. As the date of such changes is unknown, a conservative approach
to modeling individual movement intersection delay and LOS is to use the volumes assumed
for the future year (2040). A queuing analysis was also completed for movements of concern.
Table 6-3 presents the findings for Phase 1 (in traffic terms, equivalent to no build) and Phase
2. As shown, intersection delay is high in general for the future year. For the future year
alternatives, the signal timings were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat
Boulevard corridor in both directions. This optimization results in higher delays for side street
and left turn movements, as indicated by the high delay at Treat Boulevard/Jones Road during
the p.m. peak hour. Although performance degrades slightly with the free right turn removal at
Oak Road, the high weaving volumes observed between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps are
mitigated. Removing the inefficient and unsafe weaving behavior on this segment reduces the
potential negative impact of the improvements at the corridor level.
Mitigation 1
As shown in Table 6-3, the model predicts that the Phase 2 project with mitigation 1 will have
up to a 314 ft. SBRT queue. during the p.m. peak hour as compared to Phase 1 (and no build)
project queue length of 498 ft. The improvement is due to permissive right turns during the
overlap, where pedestrians are currently unfettered at the channelized right turn. For the SBTH
movement, the queue will be up to 694 ft. long during the A.M. peak hour as compared to 273
ft. for the Phase 1 project. The available queuing space on Oak Road between Coggins Drive
and Treat Boulevard is 275 ft., which means that vehicles will continue to stack upstream of
Coggins Drive. However, the 694 ft. queue during the morning corresponds to an average delay
less than the cycle length, meaning that, on average, vehicles are able to travel through the
intersection on the first green indication that they receive. As this is an average, some vehicles
may have to wait for the second green they receive.
Mitigation 2
Mitigation 2 results in a predicted queue length decrease for the SBRT movement during the
A.M. and P.M. peak hours (113 ft. versus the 211 ft. predicted for Mitigation 1). Again, this
improvement is substantial compared to the Phase 1 or no build alternatives – this time due to
the removal of the west leg crosswalk. However, the queuing for the SBTH is expected to
increase during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. As with Mitigation 1, the long SBTH queue during
the morning corresponds to an average delay less than the cycle length.
Mitigation 3
Mitigation 3 is expected to result in queue length increase for the SBRT movement during the
A.M. peak hour and a small increase in queue length for the SBTH movement for the p.m. peak
hour. This scenario results in better intersection delay and queue lengths than Mitigation 1 and
Mitigation 2. If confirmed in detailed design, this option appears to provide the best
combination of pedestrian and automobile LOS.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 26
Table 6-3: Concept 4 Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year (2040)
Intersection Peak
Hour
Phase 1 Project (equivalent to
no build in traffic terms)
Phase 2 Project
Mitigation 1, (Mitigation 2),
[Mitigation 3]
Delay
(s) LOS
Movmt.
of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Control
Delay
(s)
LOS
Movmt.
of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Treat Boulevard and
Main Street*
A.M. >80 F WBLT 455
Not Applicable
WBRT 0
P.M. 75.9 E WBLT 506
WBRT 562
Treat Boulevard and I-
680 Northbound
Ramps/Buskirk Avenue
A.M. 30.5 C WBRT 310
NBRT 0
P.M. 13.8 B WBRT 135
NBRT 0
Treat Boulevard and
Oak Road
A.M. 61.3 E
SBRT 0
67.5
(67.6)
[61.9]
E
SBRT 211 (113)
[211]
SBTH 273 SBTH
694
(694)
[276]
WBRT 25 WBRT n/a
WBTH 188 WB
TH/RT
193
(193)
[193]
P.M. 30.9 C
SBRT 498
36.7
(29.3)
[30.5]
D
SBRT
314
(188)
[314]
SBTH 198 SBTH
445
(445)
[217]
WBRT 0 WBRT n/a
WBTH 64 WB
TH/RT
67
(67)
[67]
Treat Boulevard and
Jones Road*
A.M. 49.6 D No movement of
interest Not Applicable P.M. >80 F
Notes:'''
HCM'2010'analysis'unless'specified'by'*,'where'HCM'2000'analysis'used'due'to'HCM'2010'limitations.'
Queue'Length'='95th'Percentile'Queue'Length'
Mitigation'1'–'Overlap'signal'operation'for'SBRT'with'EBLT'
(Mitigation'2)'–'Reconfigure'SB'approach'to'have'double'SBRT,'requires'removal'of'west'crosswalk'
[Mitigation'3]'–'Reconfigure'SB'approach'to'have'double'SBTH'and'a'SBRT'with'overlap'operation
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
27 | Alta Planning + Design
6.3.!Multi -Criteria Analysis
All concepts were evaluated for future conditions based on a list of criteria described below.
For each concept, the reallocation of the eastbound curbside lane to a bike lane has been
omitted as the traffic impact was estimated to be unacceptable. The evaluation criteria are
described below; the scores can be seen in Table 6-4 on the next page.
•!Bicycle Experience: the perceived safety and convenience of traveling the corridor by
bike.
•!Pedestrian Experience: the perceived safety and convenience of traveling the corridor
by foot.
•!Driving Experience: the comfort and convenience of traveling the corridor by
automobile.
•!Ease of Implementation: the amount of planning, design and construction required to
implement the concept.
•!Cost: the amount of funding required to implement the concept.
•!Traffic Impacts (level of service): defined in the separate Traffic Report and relates to
the amount of delay in travel speeds along the corridor and at intersections.
Concept 4 scores highest – a balance between bicycle and pedestrian improvements with
motorist level of service and cost effectiveness.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 28
Table 6-4: Concept Evaluation
Criterion No Build Concept
1A
Concept
1B
Concept
2
Concept
3
Concept
4
No
change
Limited
Bike lanes
Buffered
Bike Lanes
Shared Use
Path and
Buffered
Bike Lanes
Shared Use
Path, Cycle
Track and
South side
Sidewalk
Shared Use
Path and
South side
Sidewalk
Bicycle
Experience
0 1 2 3 2 2
Pedestrian
Experience
0 0 1 2 3 3
Driving
Experience
0 0 2 2 2 2
Ease of
Implementation
3 3 2 0 -1 0
Cost
-1 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3
Traffic Impacts
(level of service)
-1 0 -2 -2 -1 0
Total Score 1 2 3 2 2 4
Table 6-5 Scoring Levels
Very
Significant
Negative
Significant
Negative
Minor
Negative Neutral Minor
Positive
Significant
Positive
Very
Significant
Positive
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
29 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix A: Study Participants
Client
Jamar Stamps Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
and Development
Technical Advisory Committee
Jeremy Lochiro City of Walnut Creek
Angela Villar Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works
Coire Reilly Contra Costa County Health Services Department
Anh Phan Nguyen Caltrans
Denise Seib Contra Costa Centre Association
Laura Case Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Office
John Vallor Contra Costa County MAC
Brad Beck Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
Alta Planning + Design
Brett Hondorp, AICP Principal-In-Charge
John Lieswyn, PTP, MET Consultant Team Project Manager
Alexandra Sweet Senior Planner
DKS
Thomas Krakow, P.E. Principal-In-Charge
David Mahama, P.E. Project Manager
Maria Tribelhorn, E.I.T Assistant Transportation Engineer
Others
IDAX Data Collection
Quality Counts, LLC Data Collection
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 30
This page is intentionally blank
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
31 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix B: Existing Conditions by Location
North Main Street
Both the westbound left turn/U-turn and westbound right turn movements are heavy at this
intersection. Due to the high turning volumes and high left lane utilization, the queue from
westbound traffic turning into N. Main Street backs to the I-680 ramps during the A.M. peak
hour. The westbound left turn bays are not adequate for the forming left turn queues and
vehicles sometimes queue in the through lanes, creating potential for rear-end collisions and
congestion.
The southbound left turn volumes are high at N. Main Street during both the morning and
afternoon peak periods. Queues spill back beyond the turn bays during both time periods.
Currently N. Main Street operates in coordination with Ygnacio Valley Road (coordinated north-
south), rather than in coordination with the Treat Boulevard corridor, which may contribute to
the formation of westbound queues. East-west coordination could be considered as a potential
alternative for this location. Ygnacio Valley Road is about 3 miles south of the Treat
Boulevard/N. Main Street intersection. There are four traffic signals on N. Main Street between
Ygnacio Valley Road and Treat Boulevard. Additionally, Ygnacio Valley Road, N. Main Street
and Treat Boulevard have interchanges with the I-680 freeway.
Photo 4 View of westbound Treat Boulevard
approaching N. Main Street. Existing bicyclist use
of sidewalk in conflict with Walgreens driveway
turning movements.
Photo 5 View of Treat Boulevard and N. Main
Street. Right-turn slip lane creates two points of
potential conflict between motorists and
pedestrians.
The City of Walnut Creek will be paving North Main Street from Treat Boulevard northward in
2015 and from Treat Boulevard southward in 2016. Minor configuration and/or striping changes
may be accommodated at that time.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 32
I-680 Overcrossing
The bridge that crosses over I-680 between N. Main Street and I-680 Northbound off-ramp has
no sidewalk on the south side and a narrow (5’ to 8’) sidewalk on the north side. Despite the
fact the sidewalk is not wide enough to comfortably accommodate two pedestrians walking
side-by-side, it is also shared by cyclists due to the roadway traffic conditions and lack of
separate bicycle facilities. The I-680 overcrossing has three westbound through lanes and two
eastbound through lanes and two eastbound left-turn lanes. The bridge carries over 20,000
vehicles per day in each direction, for a total average daily traffic of about 40,000 motor
vehicles.
The bridge has wide shoulders in both directions, but particularly in the westbound direction,
which presents an opportunity to increase the pedestrian and bicycle space. This could be
accomplished through one or a combination of the following: lane adjustment, addition of a
sidewalk on the south side of the bridge, widening of the existing sidewalk, and/or addition of
bicycle lanes or a cycle track. The construction of a shared path on one side would provide
service to both pedestrians and bi-directional travel for cyclists on one side of the road. The
path provides excellent service to non-automobile modes, but requires 15’ of space including
path, shoulder, and traffic buffer.
Photo 6 View east along the existing 5’ wide
sidewalk on the I-680 overcrossing. Pedestrians
are observed walking in the traffic lane to overtake
one another.
Photo 7 View west along the sidewalk on the
overcrossing. A pedestrian commented that the
walk on the overcrossing “is unpleasant and always
seems to take longer than it should.”
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
33 | Alta Planning + Design
I-680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue
The I-680 northbound ramps at Buskirk Avenue present a challenge to pedestrians wishing to
cross the intersection. The northbound right turn traffic onto Treat Boulevard is heavy and due
to channelization does not always yield to pedestrians and bicycles.
During the morning peak period, the northbound left turn queues occasionally exceed the left
turn lane storage capacity. During the evening peak period, the eastbound Treat Boulevard
traffic turning left onto the I-680 ramp was observed to exceed the left turn storage.
Photo 8 View west of the I-680 overcrossing
sidewalk from Buskirk Avenue. Current 5’ wide
sidewalk is insufficient for two-way pedestrian use.
Bicyclists were observed using this facility to
travel east and west instead of using the roadway.
Photo 9 View west of the I-680 overcrossing,
south side from Buskirk Avenue. No sidewalk or
bike lane exists along this side of the
overcrossing.
Photo 10 North crosswalk of Buskirk Avenue
typifies some of the existing curb ramps with
uneven surfaces difficult to traverse for those with
mobility impairments.
Photo 11 The northbound I-680 offramp has heavy
right turn volumes at peak times
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 34
Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and the I-680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue
Westbound
The southbound right turn lane at Oak Road has its own receiving lane westbound, which
immediately becomes a right turn only onto Buskirk Avenue and the I-680 NB on ramp. This
layout causes weaving conflicts on westbound Treat Boulevard due to the high demand for
northbound I-680. Further exacerbating this issue, the BART support columns separate the
lanes of travel and limit visibility for traffic merging from the right lane.
These conditions contribute to the formation of a westbound queue during the afternoon peak
hour. Weaving conflicts demand driver attention, often taking away driver awareness of
pedestrians and bike riders. Due to this lack of attention, bike riders are currently safest riding
in the middle of the lane rather than at the edge of the lane, which is ideally where a bicycle
lane would be located. As indicated by low bicycle volumes on this segment (three westbound
during the P.M. peak hour), few cyclists brave this environment. Weaving traffic and high right
lane utilization through this segment cause traffic to spill back to Oak Road, reducing the
number of vehicles that can travel westbound through the Oak Road and Jones Road
intersections during a green light, effectively “wasting” green time at these intersections.
Photo 12 View of westbound Treat Boulevard
from Oak Road. Traffic from Oak Road merges
into the right lane for I-680 northbound.
Photo 13 View looking east on the north side of
Treat Boulevard. The 8’ wide treelined sidewalk is
also used by bicyclists traveling both directions.
Eastbound
The eastbound segment on Treat Boulevard
between the I-680 ramps and Oak Road is also
characterized by high weaving volumes during
the morning and afternoon peak periods.
Heavy traffic from the I-680 northbound ramp
merge into the eastbound lanes where weaving
conflicts arise between motorists turning at
Oak Road or Jones Road. The BART support
columns separate the lanes and limit visibility,
exacerbating this issue.
Photo 14 View east towards Oak Road on the
south side of Treat Boulevard.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
35 | Alta Planning + Design
Oak Road
Oak Road is commonly used for pedestrian access to the BART station. About 90 pedestrians
cross Treat Boulevard at Oak Road during the morning peak hour. Because the cycle length is
long (160 seconds in the morning), some pedestrians cross illegally against the light by finding
gaps in queued traffic or between platoons of cars. During the morning peak period, the
westbound left turn and northbound left turn queues occasionally exceed the left turn lane
storage capacity.
Photo 15 View north along Oak Road. Cyclists
accessing BART use the shared path on the west
side of Oak Road, cross at Coggins Drive to the
east side of Oak Road to continue north to BART
or cross Oak Road and continue up the path on
the east side of Oak Road.
Photo 16 View west on the east side of Oak Road,
showing northbound free right turn lane and
splitter island: cars speed around the corner, or
block the crosswalk while waiting to merge.
Photo 17 At the intersection of Oak Road and
Treat Boulevard, pedestrians have up to a two-
minute wait time to cross the street. One
pedestrian commented on the length of the
crosswalk and time required to cross. Several
pedestrians were observed walking down the
Treat Boulevard median.
Photo 18 Pedestrians can wait in the middle of the
roadway if they started crossing late in the phase
and did not make it across before the end of the
phase. While the pushbutton is in reach of
wheelchair users, the relatively narrow median
and lack of protection from turning vehicles
makes it an intimidating place to wait.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 36
Treat Boulevard between Jones Road and Oak Road
Westbound
During the P.M. peak period, about 70 vehicles
complete the westbound right turn movement
from Treat Boulevard to Oak Road. There is an
existing free right turn for this movement. This
volume could be accommodated without the
existing free right turn.
The pace speed during periods ranges
between 21 – 35 mph in both directions.
Photo 19 Bicyclists are likely to be currently
utilizing the lighter colored concrete strip to the
right of the dashed lane line
Eastbound
East of Jones Road the number of eastbound
through lanes drops from four to three, and
based on field observations it appears most
through vehicles avoid the rightmost lane for
this reason. With fewer destinations and the
limited bicycling facilities east of Jones Road,
this segment is a lower priority for bikeway
improvements.
Photo 20 Treat Boulevard looking east toward
Jones Road. A non-compliant MUTCD sign tells
drivers to “observe pedestrian right of way.”
Jones Road
Few pedestrians and bicyclists are observed using the Treat Boulevard crosswalk at Jones
Road, perhaps electing to use the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing. Westbound Treat Boulevard
traffic making a left turn into Jones Road occasionally exceeds the left turn storage capacity
during the morning and evening peak period.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
37 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix C: Additional Traffi c Data
The following traffic data and motor traffic level of service modeling is summarized from the
separate Traffic Technical Memorandum.
Traffic Data
Data was collected as follows:
•!Turning movement counts for all users collected with a 24-hour video count during a
sunny, dry day on Tuesday May 13, 2014 along Treat Boulevard at North Main Street,
Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road and Jones Road
•!Weekday and weekend motor traffic counts collected with pneumatic tube counters
placed on Treat Boulevard between the Jones Road and Oak Road intersections over
the seven-day period between May 31 to June 5, 2014
Based on the tube counts, approximately 48,000 vehicles per average weekday use Treat
Boulevard (both directions). Figure C-1 presents the peak period turning movement counts for
the four study intersections. Full datasets are available in the separate traffic analysis report.
Figure C-1: AM (PM) peak period turning movement counts
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 38
Table C-6 and Table C-7 summarize the morning and afternoon peak period pedestrian and
bicycle counts for the study intersections.
Table C-6: Existing Pedestrian Count Summary
Table C-7: Existing Bicycle Count Summary
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
39 | Alta Planning + Design
Motorist Traffic Level of Service Model
This data was used to build an existing conditions traffic model that evaluates motorist level of
service (LOS), which will be one of the metrics used to evaluate potential improvements. The
corridor measures of effectiveness are presented in Table C-8. The intersection average control
delay and corresponding LOS grade values are presented in Table C-9. For context, the length
of the study segment is 0.43 miles. Under 35 mph free flow conditions with no stops for traffic
signals, it would take about 45 seconds to traverse the segment.
Table C-8: Measures of Effectiveness from Existing Conditions Synchro Model
Table C-9: Intersection Average Level of Service from Existing Conditions Synchro Model
LOS “D” is defined in the HCM as “approaching unstable/tolerable delay: drivers may have to
wait through more than one red signal. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly”. With all
intersections modeled to be operating at LOS “D” or better (with the exception of Main Street,
which is “E” in the morning peak), there is some excess capacity before excessive delay
conditions would be expected to develop. However, the County has advised that with predicted
future volumes in mind, no reduction in the number of lanes will be considered in this corridor.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 40
Multi-Modal Level of Service Model
Multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) for Treat Boulevard in the current condition has been
calculated for motorized and non-motorized modes of traffic using ARTPLAN 2012, the arterial
street component of the LOSPLAN software suite. The underlying analysis methods are based
on HCM 2010 procedures, which are the first attempt to quantify the inter-relationship of
modes. These procedures are currently being revised to better account for a wider range of
user types and environments.
The HCM MMLOS methods are based on user perceptions of various conditions as assessed
through video labs. The model omits consideration of the variety in bicyclist types and impacts
of various crossing facilities. Bicycle LOS is gauged based on the average effective width of the
outside through lane, motorized vehicle volumes, motorized vehicle speeds, heavy vehicle
(truck) volumes, and pavement condition. Pedestrian LOS is gauged based on the existence of
a sidewalk, lateral separation of pedestrians from motorized vehicles, motorized vehicle
volumes, and motorized vehicle speeds. For all modes, a letter grade of “A” indicates superior
LOS. LOS results for autos are not comparable to LOS as calculated by other traffic analysis /
simulation methods.
A summary of the results is provided in Table C-10. It should be noted that it is not necessary
to have a dedicated bicycle facility for a roadway to be assigned a LOS grade, because a
bicyclist may ride anywhere except where explicitly prohibited. These grades do not
necessarily reflect what all people may consider acceptable, rather they are a relative grade
based on the method’s video lab participant perceptions of conditions. While a grade of “D”
may be acceptable to some confident bicyclists, it is not likely that most members of the
general public would consider sharing a traffic lane with motorists along Treat Boulevard.
In comparing the bicycle and pedestrian grades for various segments and peak periods, the
values are intuitive in that the segment between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue has fewer
provisions for these modes. The better bicycle grades for the eastbound direction during the
afternoon peak are due to the lower eastbound traffic volumes at that time of day.
Table C-10: Multi-Modal Level of Service – Base Condition
Segment Direction Peak Hour Auto Bike Ped
Main Street to Buskirk Avenue EB PM D D D
WB AM D E D
Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road EB PM D C C
WB AM D D C
Oak Road to Jones Road EB PM D C C
WB AM D D C
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
41 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix D: Concept Plans and Features
The following pages of this appendix contain:
•!Concept 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 sketch plans, visual simulations and cross sections
•!Concept 4 Bicycle Access to Pleasant Hill BART Plan
•!Concept 4 Preliminary CAD plans
•!Table describing the principal features of each concept
13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat Boulevard- Concept 1A: Short Term Improvement OptionConcept 1A Treat Blvd: Main to Buskirk 11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'11'11'11’11'5’7’11'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'14'14'12'14'11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'14'15'11'11'11'7'11'6'High visibilitycrosswalksHigh visibilitycrosswalksGreen color at bike lane entranceAdd 7’ bike laneNarrow outer laneConsolidate into 15' wide one-way drivewaysGreen colorin conflict zonesHigh visibilitycrosswalksHigh visibilitycrosswalksBike lane intersection markingsGreen color at bike lane entranceNarrows lanes all thru lanes, add 5’ bike laneEastbound and westbound sharrows between Jones and BuskirkBike lane pocket, narrow lanes from 12’ to 11’ if necessaryAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Bike laneBike laneTravel laneTravel laneTravel laneSide-walkTravel lanePavedmedian11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11' 5'5'5'7'
13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat Boulevard11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'12'12'11'11'12'12'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'10'4’20'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'14'14'12'7’4’5’6’11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'8’4’5'11'PPConsolidate into 15’ wide one-way driveways5’ bike lane with2’ bufferAdd 8’ bike lane and 6’ bufferGreen colorin conflict zonesAdd two stage turn boxNarrow curbradiusConvert outer laneto 10’bike lane with 4’ bufferConvert outer lane to8’ bike lane and 5’ bufferConvert outer laneto right turn onlyGreen striping in conflict zonesGreen striping in conflict zonesRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionConvert right turn laneto 6’ bike lane with 4’ buffersParking remainsGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to 7’ bike lane with 4’ bufferTwo-stage turn queueRemove free right turn laneHigh visibilitycrosswalksReduce to 6’bike lane entranceBike lane intersection crossing markingsTwo-stage turn queue boxGreen color at bike lane entranceGreen color at bike lane entranceGreen color at bike lane entranceHigh visibilitycrosswalksConvert free - Concept 1B: Buffered Bike LanesTreat Blvd: Main to BuskirkTreat Blvd: Buskirk to Oak Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesView west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Buffer6'Bike lane8'Travel laneSidewalk10'Side-walk12'5’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel lane12'4' 4' 8'Plantedmedian13’Bike laneBuffer4'Bike lane7'Travel laneSidewalk6'Side-walk12'6’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 11'Travel laneTravel laneParking lane11'4' 4' 8' 10'Median5’Bike laneReconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsBike laneBike laneTravel laneTravel laneBufferTravel laneSide-walkTravel lanePavedmedian11' 11'12'12'8'6'2' 5'5'5'
13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardPP11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'12'12'11'11'11'11'11'3'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'8'5'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'12'7’4’5’6’11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'5'11'View west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave - Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike LanesTreat Blvd: Main to BuskirkTreat Blvd: Buskirk to Oak Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesConsolidate into 15’ one-way drivewaysReconfigureisland5’ bike lane with2’ bufferExpand sidewalk to12’ two-way shared-use pathGreen colorin conflict zonesAdd two-stage turnqueue boxesNarrow curbradius to 30’Convert sidewalk to two-wayshared-use pathConvert outer lane for8’ bike lane and 5’ bufferProtected intersectionseparates bikes from turning vehiclesHigh visibilitycrosswalksRemove free rightturn laneConnect to east path to BARTRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionConvert right turn laneto 6’ bike lane with 4’ buffersParking remainsGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to 7’ bike lane with 4’ bufferAllows for a two-stage left-turnRemove free right turn laneHigh visibilitycrosswalksBike lane intersection crossing markingsTwo-stage turn queue boxGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to two-wayshared-use pathExtend curbKeep existing sidewalkConvert free right turn lane to 7’ bike Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsBike laneTravel laneTravel laneTravel laneShared-Use PathTravel lane11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11'2' 12'3'5'Buffer6'Bike lane8'Travel laneSidewalk10'Side-walk12'5’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel lane12'4' 4' 8'Plantedmedian13’Bike laneBuffer6'Bike lane7'Travel laneSidewalk6'Side-walk12'6’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel laneParking lane12'4' 4' 8' 10'Median5’Bike lane
13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardPPPPP- Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and SidewalkTreat Blvd: Main to Buskirk (remix)Concept 3 Treat Blvd: Buskirk to OakConcept 3 Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesView west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave YIELDConsolidate into 15’ wide one-way drivewaysExpand sidewalk to12’ two-way shared-use pathAdd two-stage turnqueue box Convert sidewalk to two-wayshared-use pathHigh visibilitycrosswalksRemove free rightturn laneConnect to east path to BARTGreen color at bike lane entranceRemove free right turn laneConvert free right turn lane to bike laneBike lane intersection crossing markingsConvert outer lane to two-wayshared-use pathKeep existing sidewalkReconfigureisland5’ cycle track with 3’buffer, 10’ floating parkingRemove bulb outs to make room for cycle trackNarrow curbradius to 30’Expand sidewalk to 6’with 3’ landscape stripNarrow outer laneto 11’Add 7’ sidewalkAdd crosswalksNarrow lanes to accommodate sidewalk11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'11'12'12'12'11'11'11'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'11’13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'12'11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'12'11'Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Travel laneTravel laneTravel laneShared-Use PathSide-walkTravel lane11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11' 12'3'7'Travel laneSidewalkShared Use 12'Travel lane11'3'6'Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane11' 11'Travel laneTravel laneTravel lane11' 14'2-4' 8-10'Plantedmedian13’Travel laneSidewalkSide-walk11'6’Travel lane14'Travel lane11'Travel lane12'Travel lane12'11'Travel laneTravel laneBike LanParking lane11'10' 3' 5' 8-10'Median5’14'Extend curbReconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standards
OAK RDHARVEY DRJONES RDSUMNE LNCOGGINS DRTREAT BLVDTREAT BLVDBARTEXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)10'ADD BICYCLE DETECTIONEXISTING DRIVEWAYWIDEN SIDEWALK TO PROVIDE 10'MIN CLEARANCE AT BART COLUMNCROSSWALK TOBART STATIONDESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)EXISTING SIDEWALKTO REMAINDESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)CONVERT SLIP LANE TOTWO-WAY BIKE LANECONVERT FREE RIGHT TURNLANE TO BIKE LANEPLANTER TO CLOSE SLIPLANE ACCESSBIKE RAMPRELOCATE MASTARM SIGNALRELOCATE MASTARM SIGNALREMOVEISLANDSPATH EDGE STRIPEADD "BIKES YIELD TOPEDESTRIANS" SIGNSRECONFIGURE ISLANDTo BART bike parking To Iron Horse Regional TrailPleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BARTBike ParkingBike access to BART and the Iron Horse Regional TrailSCALE 1"=100'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANConcept 4 - PHASE 1 and 2Bicycle Access RoutesPHASE 1 Bicycle RoutePHASE 2 Bicycle RoutePHASE 1 ImprovementsPHASE 2 ImprovementsBLACK TEXTPURPLE TEXTPHASE 1 & 2 Bicycle RouteIron Horse Regional TrailIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL
TREAT BLVDN. MAIN ST13'17'5'10'11'12'12'17'11'12'BUSKIRK AVESOUTHBOUND 680R40'12'17'12'12'14'5'18'18'NARROW LANESTO ACCOMODATE7' SIDEWALK11'11'11'11'10'12'11'7'17'11'11'11'12'11'12'7'WIDEN SIDEWALK TO 12 FT MINIMUMTWO-WAY SHARED USE PATHHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK(TYPICAL)NARROW DRIVEWAYS ANDCONVERT TO ONE-WAY DRIVEWAYSRECONFIGURE ISLANDADD BICYCLESIGNAL FACES ATINTERSECTIONR40'NARROW LANESTO ACCOMODATE7' SIDEWALKNORTHBOUND 680FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSRECONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLTO INCLUDE BICYCLE LEFT TURNWAITING AREASHARED LANE MARKINGS (TYPICAL)CONFORM TO EXISTING SIDEWALKMAINTAIN WIDE LANE TOALLOW U-TURN MOVEMENTSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP)EXISTING LANEWIDTH (TYP)FUTUREIMPROVEMENTSBICYCLE TURNWAITING AREAEXISTING CURBADA CURB RAMPSEXISTING TREES,LANDSCAPING ANDDRIVEWAY TO REMAINAAADA CURB RAMPS11'11'RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE INLETRELOCATE STREET LIGHTYIELD LINE(TYPICAL)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)MATCHLINESEE SHEET 2SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF10 15' 30' 60' 90'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C494724Concept 4 - PHASE 1SECTION A-ANTSEXISTING LANDSCAPINGTO REMAINCONFORMNEW CURB & GUTTERREMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTERDESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122
OAK RD13'14'12'5'12'11'11'11'14'5'11'12'R30'12'12'12'15'11'12'12'14'12'12'11'12'14'11'11'TREAT BLVD12'11'11'11'BART SUPPORT COLUMNSBUSKIRK AVEBARTR60'R60'R30'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'10'DESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)ADA CURB RAMPADA CURB RAMPRECONFIGURE ISLAND10'EXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)14'RECONFIGURE ISLANDADA CURB RAMPSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANYIELD LINE(TYPICAL)HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK(TYPICAL)10'EXISTING DRIVEWAYWIDEN SIDEWALK TO PROVIDE 10'MIN CLEARANCE AT BART COLUMNBART SUPPORTCOLUMNSCROSSWALK TOBART STATIONDESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)SEE SHEET 4 FORFUTURE IMPROVEMENTSMATCHLINESEE SHEET 3MATCHLINESEE SHEET 140 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF2TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122
TREAT BLVDJONES RD11'11'11'11'11'12'5'11'12'12'11'12'R25'R75'R65'11'11'14'12'5'11'14'11'12'6'7'IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILR35'R35'R25'SHARED LANE MARKINGS(TYPICAL)HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS(TYPICAL)14'YIELD LINE(TYPICAL)MATCHLINESEE SHEET 20 15' 30' 60' 90'4SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF3TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122
OAK RD12'5'12'11'11'11'14'5'11'12'R60'R30'14'12'12'11'12'14'11'11'TREAT BLVD12'11'11'11'BART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTR60'R30'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'16'EXISTING SIDEWALKTO REMAINDESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)CONVERT SLIP LANE TOTWO-WAY BIKE LANECONVERT FREE RIGHT TURNLANE TO BIKE LANE10'10'11'11'11'6'11'6'10'10'7'PLANTER TO CLOSE SLIPLANE ACCESSBIKE RAMPEXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)14'14'RELOCATE MASTARM SIGNALRELOCATE MASTARM SIGNALR30'R20'RECONFIGURE ISLANDREMOVEISLANDSPATH EDGE STRIPEADD "BIKES YIELD TOPEDESTRIANS" SIGNS10'EXISTING DRIVEWAYBART SUPPORTCOLUMNSCROSSWALK TOBART STATIONOAK RD11'11'11'14'16'11'11'10'7'10'11'REMOVECROSSWALKOAK RD11'11'11'14'16'11'11'10'7'10'11'RETAINCROSSWALKMATCHLINESEE SHEET 340 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: AUGUST 14, 2015OF4TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSDESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122POTENTIAL VARIATIONS (REFER TO SECTION 7 OF THE PLAN):MITIGATION 1:SIGNAL TIMING ADJUSTMENTS ONLY (NO GEOMETRIC CHANGES)MITIGATION 2:1 SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE1 SOUTHBOUND THROUGH LANE2 SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANESREMOVAL OF WEST CROSSWALKNO BIKE LANE POCKETMITIGATION 3:1 SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE2 SOUTHBOUND THROUGH LANES1 SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANERETAIN WEST CROSSWALKNO BIKE LANE POCKETSOUTHBOUND RIGHT / EASTBOUND LEFT OVERLAP
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
51 | Alta Planning + Design
Table B-11 Treat Boulevard Detailed Concept Descriptions
Mode Concept 1A: Bike Lanes Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 2: Shared Use Path and
Buffered Bike Lanes
Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track
and Southside Sidewalk
Concept 4: Shared Use Pat ,and
Southside Sidewalk
Main Street to Buskirk Avenue
Bicycle o!Add 5-foot WB bike lane
o!Add 7-foot EB bike lane
o!Add WB buffered bike lane
o!Add EB buffered bike lane
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-
way shared-use path
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-
way shared-use path
o!Add sharrows to EB outer lane
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-
way shared-use path
Pedestrian o!No change o!No change o!Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-
way shared-use path
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-
way shared-use path
o!Add 7-foot sidewalk on south side
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-
way shared-use path
o!Add 7-foot sidewalk on south side
Automobile o!Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes)
o!Narrow outer eastbound lane
(keep all lanes)
o!Convert Walgreens driveways into
two 15-foot one-way driveways
o!Remove outside WB lane (two WB lanes)
o!Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes)
o!Convert Walgreens driveways into two
15-foot one-way driveways
o!Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes)
o!Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes)
o!Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-
foot one-way driveways
o!Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes)
o!Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes)
o!Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-
foot one-way driveways
o!Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes)
o!Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes)
o!Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-
foot one-way driveways
Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road
Bicycle o!Update pedestrian islands to meet
ADA standards
o!Add WB buffered bike lane
o!Add EB buffered bike lane
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot
two-way shared-use path
o!Add EB buffered bike lane
o!Create protected intersection separating
bikes from turning vehicles at Oak Road
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot
two-way shared-use path
o!Add sharrows to EB outer lane
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-
way shared-use path
Pedestrian o!No change o!No change o!Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot
two-way shared-use path
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot
two-way shared-use path
o!Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-
way shared-use path
Automobile o!No change o!Remove SB right channelized right turn
lane and convert to buffered bike lane
(Treat Blvd / Oak Rd)
o!Convert curbside travel lanes to buffered
bike lanes
o!Remove SB right channelized right turn
lane convert WB outer lane to two-way
shared-use path from Oak Road to BART
overpass
o!Remove EB outer travel lane and convert to
buffered bike lane
o!Convert third WB travel lane to right-turn
pocket
o!Remove SB channelized right turn
o!Convert WB outer lane to two-way shared-
use path from Oak Road to BART overpass
o!Narrow EB outer lane to accommodate
expanded sidewalk
o!Convert third WB travel lane to right-turn
pocket
o!Remove northwest corner channelized right
turn lane
o!Convert WB outer lane to two-way shared-
use path from Oak Road to BART overpass
o!Remove northeast corner channelized right
turn lane
Oak Road to Jones Road
Bicycle o!No change o!Add WB buffered bike lane
o!Add EB buffered bike lane
o!Add WB buffered bike lane
o!Add EB buffered bike lane
o!Add WB cycle track (protected bike lane)
o!Add EB sharrows
o!Add WB sharrows
Pedestrian o!No change o!No change o!No change o!No change o!No change
Automobile o!No change o!Convert WB right turn lane into buffered
bike lane
o!Convert outer EB lane into buffered bike
lane
o!Remove WB channelized right turn at
Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection
o!Convert WB right turn lane into buffered
bike lane
o!Convert outer EB lane into buffered bike
lane
o!Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat
Blvd / Jones Rd intersection
o!Convert WB right turn lane into cycle track
o!Move parking to create “floating” parking
lane
o!Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat
Blvd / Jones Rd intersection
o!No change
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 52
This page is intentionally blank.
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
53 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix E: Concept 4 Cost Estimate
PHASE 1
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST
1 Mobilization & Demobilization (@ 10%) 1 LS $93,000 $93,000
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
3 Water Pollution Control 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
4 Remove Concrete 7900 SF $10 $79,000
5 Remove Curb 1300 LF $20 $26,000
6 Remove Asphalt Concrete 18200 SF $6 $109,200
7 Remove Striping 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
8 Miscellaneous Demo 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
9 Adjust Utility Box to Grade 35 EA $800 $28,000
10 Steel Railing Fence 900 LF $90 $81,000
11 Drainage Inlet and Pipe Connection 8 EA $8,000 $64,000
12 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 3500 SF $12 $42,000
13 Concrete (Sidewalk, Median, Curb Ramp) 16500 SF $15 $247,500
14 Concrete Curb 600 LF $25 $15,000
15 Curb and Gutter 1450 LF $55 $79,800
16 Signage and Striping 1 LS $45,000 $45,000
17 Lighting 1 LS $8,000 $8,000
!! CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 25% $255,000
! DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL 15% $153,000
Rounded to nearest thousand (2014 dollars) PHASE 1 - Total $1,426,000
PHASE 2
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST
1 Mobilization & Demobilization (@ 10%) 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
3 Water Pollution Control 1 LS $6,000 $6,000
4 Remove Concrete 4000 SF $10 $40,000
5 Remove Curb 300 LF $20 $6,000
6 Remove Asphalt Concrete 5000 SF $6 $30,000
7 Remove Striping 1 LS $6,000 $6,000
8 Miscellaneous Demo 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
9 Adjust Utility Box to Grade 10 EA $800 $8,000
10 Drainage Inlet and Pipe Connection 2 EA $8,000 $16,000
11 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 1200 SF $12 $14,400
12 Concrete (Sidewalk, Median, Curb Ramp) 5900 SF $15 $88,500
13 Concrete Curb 140 LF $25 $3,500
14 Curb and Gutter 420 LF $55 $23,100
15 Retaining Wall 330 SF $90 $29,700
16 Landscaping and Irrigation 1 LS $8,000 $8,000
17 Signage and Striping 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
18 Signal Improvements 1 LS $170,000 $170,000
!! CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 25% $137,000
! DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL 15% $82,000
Rounded to nearest thousand (2014 dollars) PHASE 2 - Total $764,000
PROJECT - Total $1,955,000
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 54
3
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Adam Foster
Contra Costa/Walnut Creek
resident
adamwfoster@gmail.com
9/23/2015 9:30
AM
• Concept 4 to be inadequate for a transit village/livable community
• Wide roadways that encourage high-speed vehicle movements are not welcoming to
families biking
• Concept 1B is an excellent long-range plan for the area. It will encourage people to bike
for trips to and from the transit village by safely connecting the Iron Horse trail to N.
Main Street
• Please consider the lasting negative long-term impacts that would come from
continuing to prioritize vehicles in a transit village (Concept 4) and implement Concept
1B.
Ronald Kappesser
kappesser@icloud.com
9/23/2015 10:24
AM
• disappointed to read of the plan to paint sharrows on Treat Blvd
• Concept 2, which includes bike lanes of a proven design is far safer, will do more to
encourage cycling and is no worse than your preferred concept 3 based on your own
traffic analysis
Erik Owens
er.kowens@gmail.com
9/25/2015 2:03
PM • should add protected bike lanes at Treat
Tom Willging
twillgin@gmail.com
9/25/2015 4:35
PM
• Treat "BikePed" plan mostly discourages people from using bicycles, walking, or using
public transportation to get to the Pleasant Hill BART station
• 8 lanes for motor vehicles and has only space for a shared sidewalk for cyclists and
pedestrians seems destined to continue to promote the automobile
• support for Option 1B and 2
Anita Bottari
anitabottari@sbcglobal.net
9/25/2015 5:43
PM
• intersection at Treat and Buskirk looks very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclist
• needed some kind of warning light that pedestrians are present and waiting to cross
• light can be triggered by a pedestrian much like the one on Jones in front of the
Pleasant Hill Bart station
• Please consider putting in a blinking like to show pedestrians are present and to give
them the right of way
4
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Sally Goodman
ssdgoodman@gmail.com
9/28/2015 9:44
AM
• Please accept Bike East Bay's suggestions for separating pedestrians and bikes from
traffic and each other
Dave Campbell
Advocacy Director
Bike East Bay
dave.campbell62@gmail.com
dave@bikeeastbay.org
9/28/2015 10:38
AM
• smoothing traffic flow is high on the minds of voters, and keeping 9 travel lanes for cars
is one way to do that, but disregarding the safety of residents walking and bicycling
does not poll well
• We want the road diet with bike lanes
• traffic study assumed an increased in traffic for the forecast year of 2040, yet one
scenario we are asking be modeled for a Measure J reauthorization is a reduction in
vehicle miles traveled
• road diet options (1B and 2) should be the recommended options in the Plan
• What we want: Separated Bike Lanes
• Concepts 1B and 2 from the Plan both propose converting a travel lane in each
direction to separated bike lanes (buffered bike lanes along the curb, in the Plan),
which is a great idea
• Concept 2 partially separates bicyclists from motor vehicles with curbs and islands; oth
of these are needed features for the safety of residents bicycling
• A further shortcoming of this Plan is that it completely fails to study bus service
improvements
• The Plan should also show more clearly what are the traffic impacts of options 1B and 2
(a road diet with bike lanes) to a resident driving along Treat Blvd. What will be the
additional delay, if any, for this resident when traveling from Main St to Jones Rd?
• Plan should summarize the public input to date. What has the public been saying about
the types of improvements they want on Treat Blvd?
• Plan should include a summary of these nearby related projects and if possible, talk
about how they could improve traffic flow and still allow for a road diet with bike lanes
on Treat Blvd. At a minimum, the public should have information about what level of
traffic on Treat Blvd would allow for the road diet option, and what are the tools and
additional projects necessary to achieve the road diet.
5
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Kenji Yamada
Lead Advocacy Organizer
Bike Concord
kenji@bikeconcord.org
925.338.1562
9/28/2015 9:44
PM
• Safety need for dedicated bicycle space without interruption. Nothing less than this is
acceptable
• Concepts 3 and 4 fail this standard by providing no space separated from motor traffic
for eastbound bicycle traffic between Oak Rd and Jones Rd
• Concept 2 is better, but provides an uncomfortable and somewhat unsafe experience
for both pedestrians and bicyclists by obliging them to share the same right-of-way
westward from Oak Rd
• Concept 1B is a good treatment whose only shortcoming is the absence of a sidewalk
along the south side of the street. We urge the County to choose this concept
• ***Also submitted a 108 signature petition on 10/9/15***
Lauren Bayly
lbayly62@gmail.com
9/29/2015 10:29
AM
• Please add a bike lane on Treat Blvd
• stretch from the intersection at north main going over the overpass. The sidewalk is
very narrow and pedestrians don't really appreciate having to share with a bike and the
drivers make it too difficult to share the road with them
Phil Williamson
phillipjw@comcast.net
9/29/2015 11:30
AM
• bike plan for Treat Blvd. should conform with Complete Streets guidelines to the max
extent possible and ideally include separated bike lanes on each side of Treat with
direct and protected access to bart’s heavily used bike parking areas
Caedmon Bear
Walnut Creek Resident
caedmon.bear@gmail.com
9/29/2015 7:55
PM
• reconsider concept 1B or something that is safer and encouraging to bikes and
pedestrians
• please do whatever you can to remove "sharrows" from all plans
• Examples of where this doesn't work is Newell westbound from Broadway to California
as well as on California in both directions
Dan Leaverton
Berkeley, CA
daniel.leaverton@gmail.com
9/29/2015 9:23
PM
• I support the plans advocated by Bike East Bay and Bike Walnut Creek. Please
encourage more walking and cycling by provide the safest means possible
6
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Roger Graves
Resident of Pleasant Hill
rogergraves@gmail.com
9/30/2015 1:01
AM
• wanted to respectfully request your consideration to go with a dedicated bike lane
option
Nick Lindsey
nicklindsey100@gmail.com
9/30/2015 5:17
AM
• I'm a daily commuter, so is my wife. Please build now, as well as prepare for the future
(in a smarter and sane way)
Quan
fellowohboy@yahoo.com
9/30/2015 10:12
PM
• I commute via bike to Contra Costa Centre for work every day and would find a
dedicated bike lane very useful
John McKeon
jmckeon@me.com
10/1/2015 7:31
AM • Please reconsider your stance on protected bike lanes in this project proposal
Matt Rosenthal
Walnut Creek Resident
matt.rosenthal@gmail.com
10/2/2015 9:54
AM
• I think there are plenty of bike trails and it's not an efficient use of important roadway
to put in a bike lane when the canal trail and iron horse trails already exist
7
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Bike Walnut Creek
bikewalnutcreek@gmail.com
10/2/2015 12:25
PM
• have serious concerns that input from bicyclists and current multimodal transportation
studies was not integrated into the plan
• Although the combined plan (Concept 4) attempts to balance the needs of a variety of
transportation users, the outcome is that it priorities road space for motor vehicle
traffic
• Shared Use Paths are not “Very Significant Positive” for many pedestrians, especially
compared to separated sidewalks
• “Bicycle Experience” in Concept 4 is ranked as “Significant Positive” which is an
unrealistic measure considering that the recommendation is for bicyclists to either
share space with pedestrians or motorists
• any plan with sharrows should rank “Bicycle Experience” as “Negative” and at the very
least, less than “Driver Experience”
• Bike Walnut Creek performs twice annual bike counts and found that on Newell
Avenue, which has sharrows, over 30% of bicyclists ride on the sidewalk
• Compared to the volume of bicyclists on Walnut Creek’s EBRP separated trails, the
amount of bicyclists using sharrows is paltry, indicating that the majority of Walnut
Creek transportation users do not find sharing a lane with motorists a comfortable
experience; It is clear that feedback from the local bicycling community was not
integrated into the plan
• As with Bike Concord and Bike East Bay, we will stand behind a plan which ranks both
pedestrian and bicyclist experience as “very significant positive”. No option was created
that have these, despite the title of the plan
Erin Elder
Pleasant Hill Resident
elder.reategui@gmail.com
10/2/2015 1:23
PM
• writing today to voice my support for a separate bike lane on Treat Blvd. between
Jones St. and Main St
8
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Kristin Tennessen
Walnut Creek Resident
ktenness@gmail.com
10/2/2015 9:17
PM
• Your recommended Concept 4 (combined concept) proposes street treatments that
disregard Complete Streets policies endorsed by our local cities, defy recommendations
from the NACTO guidelines, go against modern transportation trends, and contradict
with goals in your own document’s summary
• By recommending a plan that creates no protected bikeway, which separates bicyclists
from other transportation users, you ignite conflict between peds/bicyclists and
bicyclists/motorists; This does not create a safe experience for vulnerable road users
• The NACTO 7 guidelines state “On streets with posted 35 mph speeds or faster and
motor vehicle volumes higher than 3,000 vpd shared lane markings are not a preferred
treatment.“ Traffic volumes on Treat are 48,000 vpd, which is 16 times higher than the
recommended NACTO limit. Furthermore "Shared lane markings should not be
considered a substitute for bike lanes, cycle tracks, or other separation treatments
where these types of facilities are otherwise warranted or space permits."
• Without recommending an implementation that scores “very significant positive” for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and bus riders, you are wasting tax payer money by encouraging
automobile use for the vast majority of residents
• If you continue to recommend Concept 4, I suggest you amend your title to “Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan That Priorities Vehicle Movement Over Human being Quality Of
Life.”
Matt Dussing
dussing@gmail.com
10/4/2015 10:47
PM
• Please choose a concept for the Treat Blvd / I-680 plan which separates bicycle traffic
from pedestrian traffic, and both from motor traffic, along the entire street span in
both directions
• bicycles need a dedicated and convenient path separate from cars and pedestrians in
both directions between Main St and Pleasant Hill BART
• riding a bicycle on a busy mixed use sidewalk doesn't work
• If indeed it is determined only a 12 ft shared use path is possible, it would be best if 3
lanes for 2-way bike and then a pedestrian lane could be delineated. This would be
similar to the bike path in Fort Mason
• Also, no trees in the path! Don't follow Walnut Creek's very poor design along Ygnacio
Valley Rd which is exceedingly frustrating to ride along
9
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Katelyn Walker
walker.katelyn@gmail.com
Oct 7, 2015 at 1:36
PM
• Before you continue with your proposal for a "shared path", I would strongly encourage
you to go observe how well the "shared sidewalk" idea is working on Ygnacio Valley
Road – a half hour during peak commute hours (7 to 8 am or 5:30 to 6:30 pm) will give
you a good idea of what it's like out there
• Pedestrian comfort and perception of safety will be very negatively impacted if they are
forced to share a sidewalk with bicycles
• bicycle experience will be negatively impacted by sharing a sidewalk with pedestrians
• pedestrians often walk in the middle of the path or weave back and forth as they read
their phones, and if they have earphones in or there is oncoming traffic on the path
they can be nearly impossible to get around
• Having bicyclists travel the wrong way on a shared path (eastbound on the north side of
the road) is flat out dangerous
• Phase 2 doesn't make much sense – why would you take bicycles and pedestrians off
their dedicated "shared path" and make them cross Oak at a busy intersection where
wait times to cross are likely longer and the danger of accidents due to right turns is
greater? Phase 2 seems like a worse situation than Phase 1
• Putting sharrows on a busy road like Treat Blvd is dangerous, inconsiderate, and short-
sighted
10
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Greg Currey
Caltrans Pedestrian and
Bicycle Coordination and
Planning
Gregory.Currey@dot.ca.gov
510-286-5623
10/9/2015 2:30
PM
• Concept 4 (the preferred concept) does not provide meaningful improvements for
bicyclists along all portions of the study area. The highest number of recorded bicycle-
related collisions is at the intersection of Treat Boulevard and Jones Road, where only a
westbound Class III bike route, with no eastbound bicycle facility, would be provided
• Oak Road to Jones Road—among the reasons listed for not improving the eastbound
roadway was that “bicyclists should be encouraged to use the shared-use path on the
north side of the road.” However, the Plan shows that the extent of the shared-use
path will be outside of this segment
• Although the high number of bicyclists observed traveling westbound along Treat
Boulevard, but not continuing past Jones Road, could be due to the key access point for
the Iron Horse Trail, it could also indicate that this section of Treat Boulevard serves as
a barrier to bicyclists due to the high speeds, roadway width, and lack of bicycle
infrastructure
• At Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue, the 13’ median should be reconstructed to
extend through the crosswalk with either a pedestrian passageway channeled through
the median, or curb ramps with a level area of at least 48 inches long between the curb
ramps
• the existing sidewalk on the north side of Treat Boulevard will be converted to a
shared-use path, introducing the potential for increased conflicts between pedestrians
and bicyclists without offering significant improvements for pedestrians in this segment
such as widening the existing facility and providing markings to separate travel
• Concept 4, Mitigation Measure 2: This measure would remove the existing crosswalk
on the west side of the Oak Road/Treat Boulevard intersection, and would not add a
bike pocket to southbound Oak Road. While the multiple-threat scenario caused by the
two right-turn lanes should be avoided as noted in the Plan, removing an existing
crosswalk should also be avoided
• Concept 4, Mitigation Measure 3: This measure would not include a bike pocket. Per
HDM Section 403.6 (1) advisory standard, “locations with right-turn-only lanes should
provide a minimum 4-foot width for bicycle use between the right turn and through
lane where bikes are permitted.” Also note this standard when removing slip lanes to
place right-turn-only lanes adjacent to through lanes as part of the Plan
11
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Bruce "0le" Ohlson
bruceoleohlson@hotmail.com
Bike East Bay
Delta Pedalers Bicycle Club
Contra Costa Countywide
Bicycle Advisory Committee
CCTA Bicycle & Pedestrian
Advisory Committee
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle
Advisory Committee
10/9/2015 10:30
PM
• construct sidewalks on each side of the street that extend from at least North Main
Street to at least the base of the Iron Horse Trail over-crossing. These sidewalks must
be on both sides of the street. The sidewalks must be fully ten-feet wide and must
have at least seven-feet clear (without fire hydrants, sign posts, bus benches, bus
shelters, etc.)
• bicycle facility must be continuous from one end to the other. We should be sure that
the curb cuts are designed to accommodate the normal pace of a cautiously ridden
bicycle. This is somewhat faster than the 2.5 mph design standard for pedestrians. The
curb cuts should be parallel with the direction in which the bicycle is moving (i.e., not
on the point of the corner and not set back far around the curve on the side street)
• must also make sure that that the entities through which this sidewalk bike path passes
allow bicyclists to legally use these sidewalks
• I appreciate my bicycle-advocate colleague's desires to see this street put on a road
diet and buffered bike lanes included; that is my preferred outcome, too. However, I
don't see that happening given the attitudes of our elected officials and their directions
to staff
12
Commenter/Organization Date Received Summary of Comments
Grant Gerlach
Walnut Creek Resident
grantgerlach@gmail.com
10/9/2015 11:27
PM
• The north/south connectivity along the Iron horse trail is excellent but East/West travel
is unpleasant along Treat Blvd due the freeway like setting with 9 lanes of traffic
moving at high speeds and very long wait time to cross the street
• I am most interested in options 1B and 2 and would like to see this listed as the
preferred options
• Both option 1B and 2 provide adequate space for walking and biking along this corridor
leaving enough traffic lanes to support current vehicle load with a reasonable amount
of delay
• Options including Sharrows along this stretch of road is very dangerous due to the high
vehicular speeds and likelihood for drivers to weave around cyclist is a very unpleasant
experience
• forcing cyclist and pedestrians on a single shared use path causes friction and is not a
good design considering the different speeds that bikes and peds travel
• I am interested to know why Bus service was not discussed in this plan as it goes to
hand in hand with ped travel
• A road diet along this stretch of roadway is the only way to achieve the aspirations
behind making this corridor a more livable area
100 Webster Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 540-5008 phone
www.altaplanning.com
Memorandum
TO Jamar Stamps DATE November 17, 2015
FROM Brett Hondorp PROJECT Treat Boulevard Ped/Bike Plan
RE I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Ped Plan Public Comments and Next Steps
This memorandum and the attached draft budget provide requested modifications to the design plans and
report plus follow-up questions to clarify the scope of work.
Scope of Work
Below is the list of requested modifications to Concept 4 per your memo dated October 21, 2015. Follow-up
notes and questions are listed below each modification.
Task 1 Update Design Plans and Report
The modified Concept 4 will include the proposed bike crossing treatments from the initial “Concept 4” on all
four legs of the N. Main St./Geary Rd./Treat Blvd. intersection (if these markings are MUTCD approved).
Please note, the bike crossing treatments at the N. Main St. /Geary Rd. /Treat Blvd. intersection are
not in the MUTCD. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, which is recognized by Caltrans in
the “Design Flexibility in Multimodal Design” Memorandum dated April 10, 2014
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/design/2014-4-2-Flexibility-in-Design.pdf) as a resource and
guidance for design decisions, recommends similar bicycle crossing treatments.
The modified Concept 4 will allocate space in the outside travel lane (possibly by adjusting travel lanes to 10’)
on eastbound Treat Blvd. from the I-680 off-ramp to Jones Rd. as a Class II bike lane. As part of this effort,
Alta will conduct field measurements to assess the feasibility of the bicycle lane.
In addition to adding a Class II bike lane on eastbound Treat Blvd. from the I-680 off-ramp to Jones
Road, we also recommend adding a bike lane from North Main Street to the I-680 off-ramp to connect
with the existing bike lane on eastbound Treat Boulevard. This will require narrowing the travel lanes
and proposed sidewalk and shifting the sidewalk to the south between North Main Street and I-680.
This could also be considered as a future implementation.
The refined concept will also consider the removal of the northbound channelized right-turn lane of
the I-680 off-ramp on the south side of the Treat Blvd and Buskirk Avenue intersection. Alternatives
to this option include bike crossing warning signs supplemented with flashing yellow beacons to the
merging vehicles as an added yield feature.
The modified Concept 4 will include an option for future implementation that looks at widening sidewalks and
adjusting curbs/medians to accommodate a shared-use path or a protected bike facility (similar to what is
contained in Option 1b) on the south side of Treat Blvd. from Oak Rd. to Jones Rd. The existing R/W on the
south side of Treat Blvd. appears to be set back at least 10’ from the face of curb which could allow for some
adjustments and maintain at least 11’ travel lane widths.
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 2
The updated Plan will further emphasize that its intent is to identify short to medium range improvements for
implementation and that the long term ultimate improvements in this corridor would come with
reconfiguration of the I-680 ramps. New concept plans would need to be drafted at this time.
Task 2 Conduct Traffic Analysis
DKS will conduct a traffic analysis of the modified Concept 4 design to determine if the modifications result in
any traffic impacts. The scope of work is to specifically analyze the impact of including an eastbound bicycle
lane along the segment of Treat Boulevard between the I-680 NB off ramp and Jones Road. This option
includes reducing the eastbound travel lanes from 12 feet to 10 feet to accommodate an eastbound bike lane in
Concept 4. The analysis will only be limited to Concept 4 under the Future Year (2040) scenario. The synchro
software will be used for the analysis as was done for the previous analysis. The results will be summarized in
a technical memorandum. DKS will also provide a queuing analysis to assess the removal of the NB
channelized right-turn lane at the I-680 off-ramp at Buskirk Avenue.
Task 3 Public Outreach
Alta will attend up to two public meetings as part of this task.
The first public meeting will be a Community Workshop, where the updated concept will be presented and the
public can provide feedback on the plans. Alta will provide sign-in sheets, name tags, concept print-outs,
meeting facilitation, and meeting notes. Alta will work with the County to draft presentation materials for the
meeting. The County will help identify or provide a suitable venue for the workshop. Alta will provide the
County with meeting notes based on the public feedback.
The second public meeting will be a presentation to the City of Walnut Creek Transportation Commission to
solicit feedback on the updated draft concept plans. Alta will work with the County to draft presentation
materials for the meeting.
Task 4 Refine Design Plans and Report
Alta and DKS will review and refine the plans and report based on one set of consolidated, internally-
consistent comments from Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek.
Task 5 Project Management
Alta will hold up to two conference call meetings with Contra Costa County and the City of Walnut Creek to
discuss the project, methodology and deliverables.
Deliverables
Public Meeting prep, attendance and minutes
Draft Plans
o Draft Modified Concept 4 Plans (Sheets 1-4)
o Draft Updated Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
o Draft Traffic Analysis Technical memorandum
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 3
Final Plans
o Final Modified Concept 4 Plans (Sheets 1-4)
o Final Updated Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
o Final Traffic Analysis Technical memorandum
SCHEDULE OF FEES & CHARGESUpdated 11‐17‐15Project Manager Senior PlannerSenior EngineerDesigner/ Graphics EngineerPrincipal in ChargeProject Manager EngineerAdmin/ GraphicsBrett HondorpAlexandra SweetLaurentiu Dusciuc, PEErin FeehilyJason Cook, PEThomas KrakowDavid MahamaMaria TribelhornDeserae Malloriy Rate*$190 $128 $128 $83 $108$250 $210 $120 $95Update Design Plans and Report 1 6 12 2 24 45 $5,252Traffic Analysis 1 2 2 4 20 4 33 $4,566Public Outreach 8 14 6 105032149$6,415Public Meeting 48484 22133$4,147City of Walnut Creek Transportation Commission Meeting 46221 1 16$2,268Design Review and Refinement 12428112 21$2,688Project Management 4 6 212 $1,784Staff Hours15 30 24 14 37 3 8 24 5 160 $20,705Project Total$20,705* Hourly rates are for calendar year 2015, and will be adjusted if work is continued into subsequent year(s).Task BudgetTask HoursAlta Planning + Design DKS
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
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 (BOS), 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
Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (Authority) has been in the process of developing both the 2014
Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) to potentially be put to a vote
in November 2016. A TEP is a statutorily required component of a transportation sales tax. These items are
standing item for the foreseeable future. New material below is shown in italics.
As the TWIC has discussed at past meetings, the development of the CTP resulted in a dialog regarding the need
for additional revenue for transportation improvements. 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 Authority Board approved
this activity at their March, 2015 meeting.
At their November meeting, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority decided to suspend
development of the CTP. Work on the TEP will continue independent of the CTP.
At previous TWIC and Board of Supervisors (Board) meetings we have discussed the basis on which the Authority
is developing the plan, the process, and schedule. The Board has not yet endorsed the proposed transportation sales
tax. For background purposes the latest full report to the Board is available at the link below.
September 15, 2015
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2015/BOS/20150915_640/650_09-15-15_826_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=128
TEP Update
At their November 3, 2015 meeting, the Board approved a letter transmitting comments and
priorities on the TEP to the CCTA. The final letter is attached to this report.
County staff will continue to pursue these priorities at the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees and through direct communication with CCTA staff.
Process
Staff from the County and CCTA continue to communicate as necessary during the development
of the TEP and ordinance if the effort is successful.
RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should DISCUSS local transportation issues of interest to the
County and take ACTION as appropriate.
2) STATE
Legislative Report
The latest report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, is below. Mr. Watts will be present at the
December Committee meeting to discuss the state budget, Special Session/Conference Committee, Iron Horse
Corridor status, various transportation revenue proposals (see attached information regarding regional gas tax,
and energy extraction fees), and other items of interest to the Committee.
- - - - - - -
11/19/2015 Report
As an update on the Special Session Conference Committee Hearings, several of the conferees continue to work
through the issues with one another. Throughout the two Conference Committee meetings that have taken place to
date, we have active engagement between the Democrat and Republican committee members. Additionally,
industry and transportation stakeholders have been meeting with a variety of members in their districts as schedules
permit. Although the Conference Committee Co-Chairs actively considered conducting a third Conference
Committee Hearing to take place in the Central Valley, but that did not materialize.
In the meantime, news on the overall state financial picture has been released by the Legislative Analyst’s Office
(LAO), essentially finding that the state budget is in its best shape to address future economic downturns in
memory, with the state’s three principal General Fund revenue streams exceeding the adopted 2015-16 budget
assumptions by more than $3.6 billion. Moreover, without any further new budgetary commitments, the LAO are
also projecting that 2016-17 would see a buildup of reserves on the order of $11.7 billion. Admittedly, there are
risks in their assessment, but the Rainy Day Fund would be the main recipient of the increased reserves they project
and would be available to the legislature to mitigate impacts on public programs.
This budgetary news is important as the Special Session Conference Committee prepares to move ahead in January,
as a key impasse in discussions between conferees and the legislative caucuses has been over the prioritization of
budgetary resources, particularly in the context of the impact of recovering the weight fees on the state General
Fund.
Finally, the Administration today expressed its intention to release what they characterize as a “slightly” revised
Transportation Plan, possibly as soon as tomorrow.
- - - - - - -
County Sponsored Legislation
In 2015 Anthony Cannella sponsored a bill (SB 632) related to school zones which was developed by the County.
The bill was an outgrowth of the County's school siting and safety efforts. SB 632 (attached - SB 632 BILLTEXT)
allows local jurisdictions to expand school zones (or "slow zones") based on an engineering and traffic survey and
modifies statutes related to "when children are present" signage. SB 632 is a two year bill and will return in 2016.
In a potentially related effort, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is developing a
proposal for an automated speed enforcement (ASE) bill in 2016, information is attached to this report. The
Committee discussed ASE in 2015 and authorized staff to examine the ASE concept.
An ASE bill could be a potential compliment to SB 632:
- A criticism of SB 632 is inadequate enforcement is present, additional school zone signage will not be taken
seriously. An ASE system could address that concern.
- A concern related to ASE is where implementation would occur. SB 632 could constrain and define the limited
areas in which ASE would be authorized.
Staff recommends continuing to advocate for SB 632 and continue to coordinate with SFMTA in
their ASE advocacy efforts.
RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should DISCUSS state legislative activities of interest to the
County, including specific recommendations above and take ACTION as appropriate.
3) FEDERAL
- - - - - - -
11/19/2015 Report from Mark Watts
15 months after the Congress enacted the first extension of MAP-21 (the federal transportation authorization
measure) in July, 2014 and, later, four short-term extensions, a select group of House and Senate leaders met
today in a process parallel to what we are pursuing in California: new funding for transportation. The
Congress has established a Conference Committee, as has been formed here, and yesterday, they began
addressing the differences between each chamber’s bill in the hopes of passing a final version within the next
few weeks.
MAP-21 is scheduled to expire on November 20th, but the House has passed a short two-week extension
giving them until December 4th to finalize an agreement with the Senate on a full transportation bill. At this
writing, the Senate is expected to pass their short-term bill before this Friday when the current extension
expires. As reported widely, Conference Committee Chairman Bill Shuster and the rest of the Committee
leaders intend to deliver their conference report (i.e., the final bill) by November 30th.
As they stand now, both the House and Senate bills each would cover six years, but neither body identified
sufficient new funding to pay for more than three years. Consequently, some negotiators have suggested that
the bill be shortened by one or two years so that the amount of funding available could be condensed to
increase annual spending.
A further parallel between Congress’ approach and California’s is that most of the work will be conducted
behind the scenes; while the Conference Committee met yesterday, Committee members and in particular,
Committee staff, continue to work on the bill on a daily basis.
I have been tracking the Conference Action to better understand and to be be prepared in the event there will
be necessary state reconciliation legislation.
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
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):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
BOS to CCTA re TEP November 2015
Energy Extraction Fees
Regional Gas Tax
SB 632 BILLTEXT
Controller's ASE Report Fact Sheet
Energy Extraction FeeMTC Policy Advisory CouncilFuel Extraction Fee Subcommittee
What’s Wrong With This Picture?•Six states — Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, California, Oklahoma, and Wyoming — account for 80% of all oil produced in the U.S.•California is the 3rd leading oil-producing state and the 10thnatural gas-producing state in the U.S.•California is the only major mineral-rich state lacking any form of state extraction fee.
Severance Fees•Extraction, or severance, fees are designed to ensure the public receives a lasting benefit from the depletion of non-renewable resources.•By maximizing collection of fossil fuel revenue and ensuring it is adequately distributed, California will increase the benefits of energy development.
Alaska Severance Fee Facts •Oil-related revenue from fees and taxes fund 72% of Alaska's treasury, including an annual oil revenue share check for every Alaskan citizen.•Alaska sets aside approximately 11% of the proceeds it receives from oil and gas companies into the Alaska Permanent Fund. As of 2007, the fund had grown to more than $40 billion. •California receives 30% of its oil from Alaska.
MTC Should Lead the Call for Extraction Fees toFocus the Funds onTransportation and Housing
Here’s Our Plan To Get a Seat at the Table
Leadership Role1.MTC should build a coalition to seek legislation or a ballot measure.Some constituency examples:oTransit agenciesoHousing advocatesoCommunity collegesoEnvironmental activistsoEnergy producing communitiesoSenior groups
Leadership Role(continued)2.MTC should design a simplified distribution formula for a severance fee, with revenues flowing into permanent trust funds (not the general fund).
Trust Fund Distribution OptionsPermanent Housing FundProvides Debt Funding for Smart Growth Workforce Housing Permanent Transportation Capital FundCommunity College State Scholarship Fund New Transit Project InvestmentsProvides Community Funding for All Qualified California Students For Energy Extraction Related Uncovered Emergencies Establish an Environmental Mitigation Fund Community Fund Ensure local/regional governments have access to revenue to support long-term economic developmentFor Local Energy Extraction Impacts
SENATE BILL No. 632
Introduced by Senator Cannella
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Baker and Bonilla)
February 27, 2015
An act to amend Section 22358.4 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 632, as introduced, Cannella. Vehicles: prima facie speed limits:
schools.
(1) Existing law establishes a 25 miles per hour prima facie limit
when approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof,
contiguous to a highway and posted up to 500 feet away from the school
grounds, with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are
going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the
noon recess period. The prima facie limit also applies when approaching
or passing school grounds that are not separated from the highway by
a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by
children and the highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning
sign. A violation of that prima facie limit is an infraction.
Existing law additionally 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 facie 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. The prima facie limit
would also apply when approaching, at that same distance, or passing
school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence,
99
gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children
and the highway is posted with one of those signs.
Existing law additionally 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 25 miles per hour prima facie speed limit when
approaching at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from a school building
or grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school
warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, while
children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours
or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit would also apply
when approaching, at that same distance, or passing school grounds
that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other
physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway
is posted with one of those signs.
This bill would allow 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 facie speed limit when approaching,
at a distance of less than 1,320 feet from, or passing, a school building
or grounds thereof, contiguous of to a highway and posted with a school
warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour 24 hours
a day. This bill would provide that a 25 miles per hour prima facie limit
in a residence district, on a highway, with a posted speed limit of 30
miles per hour or slower, applies, as to those local authorities, when
approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,320 feet from a school building
or grounds thereof. This bill would also authorize a local authority, on
the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, to extend the maximum
distance to establish a prima facie speed limit and school warning signs,
as specified. This bill would also allow the 15 miles per hour or 25
miles per hour prima facie speed limit to apply 24 hours a day.
By authorizing a change in the prima facie limits, the bill would
expand the scope of an existing crime, thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
99
— 2 —SB 632
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 22358.4 of the Vehicle Code is amended
line 2 to read:
line 3 22358.4. (a) (1) Whenever If a local authority determines
line 4 upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the prima
line 5 facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour established by paragraph (2)
line 6 of subdivision (a) of Section 22352 is more than is reasonable or
line 7 safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine
line 8 and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour,
line 9 whichever is justified as the appropriate speed limit by that survey.
line 10 (2) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1)
line 11 shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the
line 12 speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state
line 13 highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of
line 14 Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the
line 15 highway.
line 16 (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision
line 17 of law, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine
line 18 and declare prima facie speed limits as follows:
line 19 (A) A 15 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district,
line 20 on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or
line 21 slower, when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 1,320
line 22 feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds of a school
line 23 building, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school
line 24 warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour,
line 25 while children are going to or leaving the school, either during
line 26 school hours or during the noon recess period. hour. The prima
line 27 facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of less
line 28 than 500 feet from, or passing, school grounds that are not
line 29 separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical
line 30 barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway
line 31 is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit
line 32 of 15 miles per hour.
line 33 (B) A 25 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district,
line 34 on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or
line 35 slower, when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 1,320 feet
line 36 from, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a
line 37 highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a
line 38 speed limit of 25 miles per hour, while children are going to or
99
SB 632— 3 —
line 1 leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon
line 2 recess period. hour. The prima facie limit shall also apply when
line 3 approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 1,320 feet from, school
line 4 grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate,
line 5 or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children
line 6 and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates
line 7 a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
line 8 (2) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply
line 9 only to highways that meet all of the following conditions:
line 10 (A) A maximum of two traffic lanes.
line 11 (B) A maximum posted 30 miles per hour prima facie speed
line 12 limit immediately prior to and after the school zone.
line 13 (3) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply
line 14 to all lanes of an affected highway, in both directions of travel.
line 15 (4) When determining the need to lower the prima facie speed
line 16 limit, the local authority shall take the provisions of Section 627
line 17 into consideration.
line 18 (5) (A) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph
line 19 (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of
line 20 the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a
line 21 state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department
line 22 of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the
line 23 highway.
line 24 (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), school
line 25 warning signs indicating a speed limit of 15 miles per hour may
line 26 be placed at a distance up to 500 1,320 feet away from school
line 27 grounds.
line 28 (C) For purposes of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), school
line 29 warning signs indicating a speed limit of 25 miles per hour may
line 30 be placed at any distance between 500 and 1,000 1,320 feet away
line 31 from the school grounds.
line 32 (D) A local authority shall reimburse the Department of
line 33 Transportation for all costs incurred by the department under this
line 34 subdivision.
line 35 (E) Notwithstanding the maximum distance established in this
line 36 section, a local authority may, upon the basis of an engineering
line 37 and travel survey documenting school attendance boundaries or
line 38 travel patterns to and from a school, or both, extend the maximum
line 39 distance to establish a prima facie speed limit and school warnings
99
— 4 —SB 632
line 1 signs, as defined in this section, to a distance or specific locations,
line 2 or both, consistent with the findings of the travel survey.
line 3 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 4 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
line 5 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
line 6 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
line 7 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
line 8 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
line 9 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
line 10 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
line 11 Constitution.
O
99
SB 632— 5 —
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER Ben Rosenfield
Controller
Todd Rydstrom
Deputy Controller
415-554-7500 City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place • Room 316 • San Francisco CA 94102-4694 FAX 415-554-7466
Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation:
Survey Findings and Lessons Learned Around the Country
Report Fact Sheet
REPORT PURPOSE:
•The Controller’s Office surveyed six jurisdictions that implemented ASE programs
to learn about the various implementation approaches and to obtain lessons
learned for San Francisco’s own advancement of an ASE program (See page 4 for
program summary by City).
GENERAL INFORMATION:
•As of October 7, 2015, 22 people have lost their lives while traveling on San
Francisco city streets.
•Traffic deaths and injuries are preventable and unacceptable.
•Between 2008 and 2012, unsafe speeding was the top primary collision factor.
•ASE is a safety technique that uses cameras with vehicle speed sensors to snap
photos of motor vehicles traveling above a defined threshold.
o Most jurisdictions surveyed define that threshold at 10 MPH over the
speed limit
SURVEY FINDINGS:
•Effectiveness measures and results vary by jurisdiction, but all demonstrate that
ASE is an effective tool to improve road safety.
o Portland reported a 53% reduction in fatalities since program inception.
o Chicago reported a 31% decline in speeding vehicles.
o New York City found a 13.4% decline in crashes with injuries that were
within approximately 500 feet of installed speed cameras
•The two most prevalent issues in garnering support for speed cameras are (1)
demonstrating to the public that the purpose is improving safety rather than
generating revenue and (2) combating the public perception that speeding is an
acceptable driver behavior.
•The majority of ASE programs are led by police departments; however, the
jurisdictions that most recently implemented ASE programs, Chicago and New
York, are led by their department of transportation.
415-554-7500 City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place • Room 316 • San Francisco CA 94102-4694 FAX 415-554-7466
•Programs are staffed with a combination of in-house and contractor support.
o Based on survey results, all jurisdictions perform a review prior to issuing
a citation; however, the jurisdictions’ review process differs by the number
of reviews and who reviews.
For jurisdictions where the police department leads the ASE
program administration, trained police personnel review speed
camera photos to determine if a violation occurred. For example,
Denver, Seattle and Washington D.C. trained police department
staff to review the violation photos for validity.
In Chicago, one of the two surveyed jurisdictions where the
department of transportation is the lead agency, a police officer
does not determine if a violation occurred. Instead, before a
citation is issued, three reviewers must verify that it is a speeding
violation. Department of Finance staff reviews and issues the speed
camera citations.
•Most jurisdictions use both fixed and mobile cameras.
•All jurisdictions except New York City provide notice to the public about speed
camera locations.
•Half of all jurisdictions fine speed camera violators a reduced amount compared to
a traditional speeding ticket issued by a police officer.
•Most jurisdictions place citation responsibility on the registered vehicle owner and
configure the camera to only capture the violator’s license plate rather than the
driver
•All jurisdictions that submitted this data reported that their revenues cover the
cost of the program.
•Most surveyed jurisdictions direct at least a portion of the revenues to safety
improvements.
•Every jurisdiction surveyed encrypts speed camera data and only uses the data for
law enforcement purposes. All jurisdictions reported having a data use policy that
also extends to their vendors.
LESSONS LEARNED:
•Engage the public early and share facts about the effectiveness of speed cameras
and dispel myths about cameras being used for purposes other than to reduce
speeding.
•Keep citation fee rates lower than moving violations and direct revenue to safety
improvements.
•Include school zones in the designated enforcement area.
Page 2 of 4
415-554-7500 City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place • Room 316 • San Francisco CA 94102-4694 FAX 415-554-7466
•Use mobile cameras because they can move to address new areas of concern and
spread out enforcement to reach a greater number of locations.
•Encrypt data to ensure privacy of personal information like names and addresses.
•Place citation issuance to the registered vehicle owner for simpler administration
and enhance privacy as the camera will only capture the car’s license plate.
•Require reporting of program metrics to evaluate and monitor effectiveness.
Vision Zero
•One of Vision Zero’s policy goals is to support authorizing legislation for
Automated Speed Enforcement at the state level.
•Vision Zero was adopted as a City policy in 2014 to build better and safer streets, educate
the public on traffic safety, enforce traffic laws, and prioritize resources to implement
effective initiatives that save lives.
•To achieve Vision Zero, all modes must travel at a safe speed.
o ASE is a tool to address excessive speeding.
o Although it has been challenging in the past to authorize the use of ASE
in California and it has failed in the legislature due to opposition, it is
an effective tool to curb excessive speed and save lives.
o WalkFirst surveyed members of the San Francisco public and found
support for the use of ASE to deter excessive speeding.
•Vision Zero is a multipronged approach to safety that includes multiple city departments
such as the SFMTA, SFDPH, SFPD, Public Works, SFEnvironment, SF Port, SFFD, SFPUC and
Mayor’s Office.
•Interagency collaboration is at the core of Vision Zero SF. Agencies, city departments,
stakeholders, community advocacy groups and elected officials across the city are
working together to develop, fund and implement effective strategies to save lives.
CONTROLLER’S PROJECT TEAM:
•Corina Monzón, Project Manager, 554-5003 or corina.monzon@sfgov.org
•Claire Phillips, Analyst, 554-7569 or Claire.phillips@sfgov.org
Page 3 of 4
Jurisdiction Camera Type ASE Enforcement
Area
Alert Drivers to
Camera
Locations
MPH Above
Posted Speed
Limit for
Violation
Citation Fine
Schedule Revenue Use Revenue
Distribution
# of cameras Annual
Citations
Chicago Fixed School and park
zones Yes 10
$35 for 10 mph
$100 for 11+
mph
General Fund,
5% for safety
initiatives
City 144 528,032
Denver Mobile School and
construction zones Yes 10
$40-$80 based
on type of
violation area
Safety programs City 4 196,956
New York City Fixed and
Mobile School zones No 10 $50 General Fund 20 445,065
Portland Mobile
State highway
construction zones
and any street or
roadway with a
history of speeding
problems
Yes 10
$110-$1,150
based on
enforcement area
and mph
General Fund
and traffic safety 70% State
30% City 4 33,486
Seattle Fixed and
Mobile
School and
construction zones Yes 6 $234
Safety
improvements in
school zones
City 17 41,185
Washington D.C.Fixed and
Mobile
Recent incidents of
speeding-related
crashes and
fatalities, proximity
to school zones
and other places
where children or
other vulnerable
populations are
present, and
known sites of
chronic speeding
Yes 11 $100-$300
based on mph General Fund District 87 359,795
ASE Implementation: At a Glance
City
Page 4 of 4
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the
Committee for 2015.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
See attached Status Report on Referrals to the Committee.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW Status Report and DIRECT staff to forward the report to the Board of Supervisors with
revisions as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
2015 TWIC Report - Status of 2015 Referrals
Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2015 Submitted: December 7, 2015 TWIC Meeting Page 1 of 5 c:\egnyte\shared\transportation\activeedits\twic\report\new 2015 twic report - status of 2015 referrals.doc F REFERRAL STATUS 1. Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure. Recommended the Board ADOPT positions of various state transportation bills as follows (Various dates): SUPPORT/SB 321 (Beall - Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes: Rates: Adjustments) 6/1/2015 Received progress reports from the County’s legislative advocate regarding Iron Horse Corridor title & related obligations approving meetings with state officials on the same topic. Various Dates Received reports regarding the status of the Iron Horse Corridor with the state, provided direction to staff, traveled to Sacramento to meet with Caltrans and CalSTA leadership. Various Dates. Activities also relate to Referral #s 12 & 15. The Committee recommendation a position of SUPPORT for AB 1362 (Wolk) regarding stormwater funding. 3-2-15 The Committee transmitted comments to the state legislature regarding school safety and siting. 3-2-15 The Committee received a report on automated speed enforcement (speeding cameras) and directed staff to bring the information to the BOS 3-2-15 The Committee received reports regarding the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s efforts to augment Measure J with a potential new local transportation sales tax, directed staff as appropriate, forwarded recommendations and draft communication to the Board of Supervisors. Also Relates to Referral #3 Various Dates. 2. Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure-related grants to be prepared by the Public Works and Conservation & Development Departments. ACCEPTED report and AUTHORIZED the Public Works Director to submit grant applications to MTC and Caltrans for Active Transportation Funding: Fred Jackson First Mile/Last Mile Connection Project, Appian Way Complete Streets Project, Pacheco Boulevard Pedestrian Bridge/culvert extension east of Las Juntas Elementary, Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project, Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project, with the following considered: Danville Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements, San Miguel Drive Pedestrian Improvements, Olympic Boulevard Corridor Connection between IHT and Lafayette-Moraga Trail, Pedestrian Improvements at I-680/Treat Overcrossing, Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure, Port Chicago Highway/Willow Pass Road Bike & Pedestrian Improvement Project 5-4-15 CONSIDERED Governor's Executive Order B-29-15 (Continued State of Emergency -Drought Conditions - Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.) and DIRECTED staff to bring a report to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) when appropriate. 5-4-15
Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2015 Submitted: December 7, 2015 TWIC Meeting Page 2 of 5 c:\egnyte\shared\transportation\activeedits\twic\report\new 2015 twic report - status of 2015 referrals.doc REFERRAL STATUS Received report on countywide grant distribution 7-16-15 ACCEPTED report and AUTHORIZED the Public Works Director to submit grant applications Public Works Director be authorized to submit, on behalf of the County, grant applications for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) 2015/2016 funding cycle for the projects discussed above which have been determined to be the most competitive for a funding award. Various Dates ACCEPTED report and AUTHORIZED the Public Works Director to submit grant applications to CCTA for Statewide Transportation Improvement Program funds. 7-16-15 The Committee reviewed and authorized submittal, on behalf of the County, Caltrans and MTC grant applications for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Cycle 2. 6-1-15 Authorized submittal of Highway Safety Improvement Program Cycle 7 Grant. 6-1-15 Reviewed and authorized submittal of Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant including the following 1) Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project - Phase 2 and 2) Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lane Project. 6-1-15 The Committee reviewed and authorized the public Works Director on behalf of the County, to submit grant applications to CCTA for the 2016 STIP funding cycle per staff recommendations. 7-16-15 3. Monitor the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) including efforts to implement Measure J. No specific items were brought to the Committee in 2015. Reports on Measure J related grants and projects can be found under Referral #17. Efforts to augment Measure J are covered under Referral #1. Various Dates 4. Monitor EBMUD and CCWD projects and activities. No items were brought to the Committee in 2015. 5. Review issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, including but not limited to Delta levees, flood control, dredging, drought planning, habitat conservation, development of an ordinance regarding single-use plastic bags and polystyrene, and water quality, supply and reliability. The Committee directed staff to bring a consolidated report to the BOS when appropriate regarding the Governor's Executive Order B-29-15 (Continued State of Emergency -Drought Conditions - Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.). 5-4-15 The Committee received a report on the proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and provided direction to staff. 7-16-15 6. Review issues associated with County flood control facilities. The Committee received a report regarding the Statewide Stormwater Funding Initiative and other
Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2015 Submitted: December 7, 2015 TWIC Meeting Page 3 of 5 c:\egnyte\shared\transportation\activeedits\twic\report\new 2015 twic report - status of 2015 referrals.doc REFERRAL STATUS funding mechanisms directing staff to report back and bring a SUPPORT letter for AB 1362 (Wolk) to the BOS when appropriate. 3-2-15 7. Monitor creek and watershed issues and seek funding for improvement projects related to these issues. Related items discussed in Referral #6. 8. Monitor implementation of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy. The Committee received quarterly updates and progress report from CCHS on the County’s IPM Program activities from the IPM Coordinator and directed staff to bring updates to the BOS. Various Dates The Committee provided direction to staff regarding responses to constituent comments on the IPM program via the IPM Advisory Committee and Agricultural Commissioner. Various Dates The Committee received a report on the status of AB 551: Rental property: Bed bugs (Nazarian) 9-5-15 The Committee directed the Department of Agriculture to develop a policy regarding drought tolerant landscaping. 9-5-15 9. Monitor the status of county park maintenance issues.including, but not limited to, transfer of some County park maintenance responsibilities to other agencies and implementation of Measure WW grants. The Committee received a report on Measure WW recommendations, provided recommendations and direction to staff on project and communication with constituents on project development. 11/2/15 10. Monitor the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan. No items were brought to the Committee in 2015. 11. Review the ability to revise the County design standards for residential streets to address traffic calming and neighborhood livability issues when these roads are built. No items were brought to the Committee in 2015. 12. Monitor and report on the Underground Utilities Program. The Committee received a report on Rule 20A underground program. 5-4-15 Related items covered in referrals #1 and #15. Various Dates 13. Monitor implementation of Letter of Understanding with PG&E for maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa County. DRAFT - Received report on status of coordination between Cities, County and PG & E for streetlight maintenance, and authorized staff request. 12-7-15 Received comments from PG&E staff regarding the status of LED conversion 5-4-15. 14. Freight transportation issues, including but not limited to potential increases in rail traffic such as that Received a report on pedestrian-rail safety issues. 6-1-15
Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2015 Submitted: December 7, 2015 TWIC Meeting Page 4 of 5 c:\egnyte\shared\transportation\activeedits\twic\report\new 2015 twic report - status of 2015 referrals.doc REFERRAL STATUS proposed by the Port of Oakland and other possible service increases, safety of freight trains, rail corridors, and trucks that transport hazardous materials, the planned truck route for North Richmond; and the deepening of the San Francisco-to-Stockton Ship Channel. 15. Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program. The Committee received a report from City of San Ramon staff regarding overcrossing plans in the City of San Ramon over the Iron Horse Trail. 5-4-15 Received various reports on the Iron Horse Corridor status at the state from staff and the County’s legislative advocate. Additional information available under Referral #1. Various Dates The Committee heard a report on Kinder Morgan’s Integrity Management Program and directed staff to bring the presentation to the appropriate Municipal Advisory Committees and to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on consent. Various Dates 16. Monitor and report on the eBART Project. No items were brought to the Committee in 2015. 17. Review transportation plans and services for specific populations, including but not limited to County Low Income Transportation Action Plan, Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area, Priorities for Senior Mobility, Bay Point Community Based Transportation Plan, Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan, and the work of Contra Costans for Every Generation. The Committee received a report and provided direction to staff on Olympic Corridor Trail Study. 7-16-15 DRAFT - The Committee received a report and provided direction to staff on the I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan. 12-7-15 18. Monitor issues of interest in the provision of general transportation services, including but not limited to public transportation and taxicab Received multiple reports on proposed implementation framework responsive to prior Committee direction and State taxicab legislation from CAO staff and input from the Treasurer-Tax Collector, Sheriff’s Department, and County Counsel. Various Dates.
Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2015 Submitted: December 7, 2015 TWIC Meeting Page 5 of 5 c:\egnyte\shared\transportation\activeedits\twic\report\new 2015 twic report - status of 2015 referrals.doc REFERRAL STATUS services CAO will report back in 2016 including: 1) consider the pros/cons of a Joint Powers Agreement vs. a Memorandum of Understanding in the context of how many taxi's operate in the County, 2) how will new ride sharing services will be affected by a new local regulatory structure, and 3) identify areas where the state may preempt local jurisdictions. (11/2/15) 19. Monitor the statewide infrastructure bond programs. No items were brought to the Committee in 2015.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2016 Calendar and
the Committee Mailing List.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2016 Calendar.
Referral Update:
The Committee should review and adopt the 2016 Draft TWIC Calendar.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2016 Calendar.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
2016 TWIC Calendar
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Chair
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III, Vice Chair
2016 Meeting Schedule
DATE ROOM TIME
January 4 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
February 1 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
March 7 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
April 4 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
May 2 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
June 6 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
July 11* 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
August 1 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
September 12* 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
October 3 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
November 7 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
December 5 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
*Provision made for 4th of July Holiday
*Provision made for Labor Day Holiday
The Agenda Packets will be mailed out prior to the meeting dates.
For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff
Direct Line: 925-674-7833
Main Transportation Line: 925-674-7209
John.Cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 11.
Meeting Date:12/07/2015
Subject:CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the
Committee for 2016
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.:
Referral Name: This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
See attached recommended referrals to the Committee for 2016. One change has been made to
Referral #18.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2016, and take ACTION as
appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
2016 DRAFT TWIC Referrals
DRAFT 2015 Referrals to the Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Committee
(Submitted to TWIC at their December 7, 2015 meeting)
1. Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
2. Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works
and Conservation and Development Departments.
3. Monitor the Contra Costa Transportation Authority including efforts to implement Measure J.
4. Monitor EBMUD and Contra Costa Water District projects and activities.
5. Review issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, including but not limited to
Delta levees, flood control, dredging, drought planning, habitat conservation, development of an ordinance
regarding single-use plastic bags and polystyrene, and water quality, supply and reliability.
6. Review issues associated with County flood control facilities.
7. Monitor creek and watershed issues and seek funding for improvement projects related to these issues.
8. Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management policy.
9. Monitor the status of county park maintenance issues including, but not limited to, transfer of some County
park maintenance responsibilities to other agencies and implementation of Measure WW grants and
expenditure plan.
10. Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan.
11. Review the ability to revise the County design standards for residential streets to address traffic calming
and neighborhood livability issues when these roads are built.
12. Monitor and report on the Underground Utilities Program.
13. Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights
in Contra Costa.
14. 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 trucks that transport hazardous materials, the planned truck route for North Richmond; and the
deepening of the San Francisco-to-Stockton Ship Channel.
15. Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program.
16. Monitor and report on the eBART Project.
17. Review transportation plans and services for specific populations, including but not limited to County Low
Income Transportation Action Plan, Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area,
Priorities for Senior Mobility, Bay Point Community Based Transportation Plan, Contra Costa County
Mobility Management Plan, and the work of Contra Costans for Every Generation.
18. Monitor issues of interest in the provision of general transportation services, including but not limited to
public transportation and taxicab/rideshare services.
19. Monitor the statewide infrastructure bond programs.
g:\conservation\twic\2016\2016 draft twic referrals.docx