Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02112016 - TWIC Agenda Pkt            TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE February 11, 2016 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, 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 December 7, 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. REVIEW issues associated with the recently issued municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. (Cece Sellgren, Department of Public Works).   6. CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).   7. RECEIVE update on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Goods Movement Plan and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).   8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 10th, 2016.   9.Adjourn   TWIC Packet Page Number 1 of 83 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 TWIC Packet Page Number 2 of 83 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act TWIC Packet Page Number 3 of 83 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:02/11/2016   Subject:Administrative Items. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development). 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. TWIC Packet Page Number 4 of 83 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:02/11/2016   Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for December 7, 2015, Transportation, Water and infrastructure Committee Meeting.  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 December 7, 2015 Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 12-7-15 TWIC Mtg Sign-In Sheet 12-7-15 DRAFT TWIC Meeting Minutes TWIC Packet Page Number 5 of 83 TWIC Packet Page Number 6 of 83 D R A F T 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   Present: Candace Andersen, Chair      Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair    Attendees: Michelle Blackwell (EBMUD)  Warren Lai (CCC Public Works)  Jason Chen (CCC Public Works)  Tanya Drlik (IPM Coordinator)  Dave Campbell (Bike East Bay)  Kenji Yamada (Bike Concord)  Jamar Stamps (CCC DCD)  John Cunningham (CCC DCD)                   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 December 7, 2015 Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.       The Committee unanimously approved the December 7, 2015 Meeting Record.   5.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. (Susan Cohen, Department of public Works).       The Committee unanimously received and approved the Report.   6.ACCEPT Integrated Pest Management report, and take ACTION as appropriate. (Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator)       The Committee unanimously accepted the Report, directed staff to: bring the report to the full BOS (on consent), continue with annual reports but bring the matrix back to TWIC if a substantial issue arises, and delay work on the bed bug ordinance until the status of AB 551 (Nazarian) is known.   7.ACCEPT report on I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan and take ACTION as appropriate.    TWIC Packet Page Number 7 of 83 7.ACCEPT report on I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan and take ACTION as appropriate. (Jamar Stamps, Department of Conservation and Development)       The Committee accepted and unanimously approved the Report.   8.CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)       The Committee received and unanimously approved the Report.   9.REVIEW Status Report and DIRECT staff to forward the report to the Board of Supervisors with revisions as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)       The Committee reviewed and unanimously approved the Report.   10.REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2016 Calendar. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)       The Committee unanimously reviewed and approved the 2016 Calendar and the Committee Mailing List.   11.CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2016, and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)       The Committee considered and accepted the Report.   12.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, February 11, 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 TWIC Packet Page Number 8 of 83 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order):  Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act For Additional Information Contact: Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us TWIC Packet Page Number 9 of 83 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:02/11/2016   Subject:UPDATE on recently issued Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: 5   Referral Name: 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, and water quality, supply, and reliability.  Presenter: Cece Sellgren, Department of Public Works Contact: Cece Sellgren (925)313-2296 Referral History: The County Watershed Program last brought the issue of the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to the TWI Committee on July 11, 2015. At that time, the proposed permit was in an initial draft form.  Referral Update: Subsequent to the last TWI Committee meeting, Watershed Program staff attended numerous meetings with staff from San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) to negotiate elements of the proposed permit. The County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District provided written comments on the draft permit, and Watershed Program staff and elected officials provided testimony at the November 18, 2015, meeting of the Water Board. The NPDES Permit was adopted on November 19, 2015. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): The Public Works Department has initiated the development of a strategic plan for stormwater management. This plan will assess the level of effort needed to successfully comply with the new NPDES permit. It will estimate staff, consultant, and contractor resources required. Evaluation of funding options and opportunities, in order to fully comply with the permit, is an integral component of the plan. The Public Works Department recommends initiating compliance with the new permit, while exploring additional funding sources to ensure the County fully complies with the NPDES permit. TWIC Packet Page Number 10 of 83 Fiscal Impact (if any): The County Watershed Program’s activities have been historically funded by a Stormwater Utility Fee. These funds have been adequate to fund NPDES compliance, as well as other related water quality activities. Expenditures exceeded revenues for the first time in FY 14/15. This was largely due to expenditures to achieve the 40% trash reduction mandate. Expenditures are anticipated to exceed revenues again in FY 15/16. The Stormwater Management Strategic Plan will address funding needs and evaluate potential sources to close the funding gap. Attachments MRP-NPDES Implementation Schedule TWIC Packet Page Number 11 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 C.1 Compliance with Discharge Prohibitions and Receiving Water Limitations C.1.a. - Upon a determination by either the Permittee(s) or the Water Board that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standard, the Permittee(s) shall notify, within no more than 30 days, and thereafter submit a report to the Water Board that describes controls or best management practices (BMPs) that are currently being implemented, and the current level of implementation, and additional controls or BMPs that will be implemented, and/or an increased level of implementation, to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards. C.2.a Street and Road Repair Maintenance C.2.b Sidewalk/Plaza Maintenance and Pavement Washing C.2.c Bridge and Structure Maintenance and Graffiti Removal C.2.d Stormwater Pump Stations The Permittees shall maintain records of inspection, maintenance, and implementation of corrective actions (including when discharge drops below 3.0 mg/L for Dissolved Oxygen at Permittee-owned or - The Permittees shall report on the implementation of and compliance with BMPs for the rural public works construction and maintenance activities in their Annual Report, including reporting on increased maintenance in priority areas. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR The Permit shall provide training incorporating these BMPs to rural public works maintenance staff at least twice within this permit term C.2.f Corporation Yard BMP Implementation (if not covered under IGP) The Permittees shall list activities conducted in the corporation yard that have BMPs in the site specific SWPPP, date of inspections, the results of inspections, and any follow-up actions, including the date corrective actions were implemented, in their Annual Report. For FY 15-16, report on implement of SWPPPs, inspections, and follow up actions. Starting in FY 16-17, also list activities conducted in the corp yard that have BMPs in the site specific SWPPP 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.2.f Corporation Yard BMP Implementation (if not covered under IGP)Inspection corporation yards on an annual basis between September 1 and September 30 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.a New Development and Redevelopment Performance Standard Implementation C.3.a.ii. - Provide a brief summary of the method(s) of implementation of Provisions C.3.a.i.(1)–(8) in the 2016 Annual Report 2016 AR only C.3.b.iii. - All elements of Provision C.3.b.i.-ii. shall be fully implemented immediately, including a database or equivalent tabular format that contains all the information listed under Reporting (Provision C.3.b.iv.). C.3.b.iv.(1) - Provide a complete list of development projects that are subject to the requirements of Provision C.3.b.i.(2). For each project, indicate the type of stormwater treatment system required or the specific exemption granted, pursuant to Provision C.3.b.i.(2)(a) and (b). If no projects are subject to 2017 AR only Implemention Level/Reporting Schedule Notification within 30 days. Report to be submitted in conjuntion with the Annual Report, unless the Water Board directs an earlier submittal, and shall constitute a request to the Water Board for amendment of the permit. Submit any modifications to the report required by Water Board within 30 days of notification. C.1 - Compliance with Discharge Prohibitions and Receiving Water Limitations 2017 AR2016 AR C.2 - Municipal Operations The Permittees shall report on implementation of and compliance with BMPs in the Annual Report. Permit Section Implementation Task C.2.e C.3.b C.3 - New Development and Redevelopment implement immediately Regulated Projects Rural Public Works Construction and Maintenance twice during permit term maintain records 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 1 TWIC Packet Page Number 12 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task C.3.b.iv.(2) - For each Regulated Project approved during the fiscal year reporting period, the specificed information (see C.3.b.iv.(2)(a)-(n)) shall be reported electronically in the fiscal year Annual Report, in tabular form (as in the Provision C.3.b. Sample Reporting Table): 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.c Low Impact Development (LID)C.3.c.ii.(2) - For specific tasks listed that are reported using the reporting tables required for Provision C.3.b.iv, a reference to those tables will suffice.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.d Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems C.3.d.ii. - Permittees shall use the reporting tables required in Provision C.3.b.iv.(2)2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.e.i.(3) - For the alternative compliance options described in Provision C.3.e.i.(1) and (2), offsite and Regional Projects must be completed within three years after the end of construction of the Regulated Project. This may be extended, up to five years after the completion of the Regulated Project, with prior Executive Officer approval. C.3.e.ii. - Applicable Special Projects per provision C.3.e.ii may be treated with one or a combination of the following two types of non-LID treatment systems: 1) Tree-box-type high flowrate biofilters, or 2) Vault- C.3.e.iv. - Annual reporting shall be done in conjunction with reporting requirements under Provision C.3.b.iv 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.e.iv. - Any Permittee choosing to require 100% LID treatment onsite for all Regulated Projects and not allow alternative compliance under Provision C.3.e, shall include a statement to that effect in each Annual Report. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.e.v.(1) - Permittees shall track any identified potential Special Projects, including those projects that have submitted planning applications but that have not received final discretionary approval. C.3.e.v.(2) - In each Annual Report, Permittees shall report to the Water Board on these tracked potential Special Projects using Table 3.1 found at the end of Provision C.3. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.e.v.(3) - Once a Special Project has final discretionary approval, it shall be reported in the Provision C.3.b. Reporting Table in the same reporting year that the project was approved. In addition to the column entries contained in the Provision C.3.b. Reporting Table, the Permittees shall provide supplemental information for each approved Special Project (see C.3.e.v.(3)). C.3.f Alternative Certification of Stormwater Treatment Systems C.3.f.iii. - Projects reviewed by third parties shall be noted in reporting tables for Provision C.3.b.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.g.v. - All HM Projects shall meet the HM Standard in Provision C.3.g.ii. immediately. For Contra Costa Permittees, Projects receiving final planning entitlements on or before January 3, 2018 may be allowed to use the Contra Costa design standards from the previous Permit. After January 3, 2018, for Contra Costa Permittees, Projects shall comply with Contra Costa design standards, including any modifications made. C.3.g.vi.(1) - New HM Applicability Maps or equivalent information prepared pursuant to Provision C.3.g.i, for those Permittees who do not have an approved Map, shall be submitted, acceptable to the Executive Officer, not later than the second Annual Report following the Permit’s effective date. 2017 AR only C.3.g.vi.(2) - Contra Costa Permittees shall, with the 2017 Annual Report, submit a technical report, acceptable to the Executive Officer, consisting of an HM Management Plan describing how Contra Costa will implement the Permit’s HM requirements (e.g., how it will update or modify its practices to meet Permit requirements). See provision for additional details. 2017 AR only C.3.g.vi.(3) - Reporting of HM projects shall be as described in Provision C.3.b.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.g.vi.(4) - Permittees shall report collectively, with each Annual Report, a listing, summary, and date of modifications made to the BAHM, including the technical rationale. This shall be prepared at the Countywide Program level and submitted on behalf of participating Permittees. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR within 3 years after end of construction Immediate compliance; however, per C.3.e.iii.(2) the definitions for FAR and gross density applicable to Provisions C.3.b C.3.g C.3.e Regulated Projects Alternative or In-Lieu Compliance with Provision C.3.b Report in year the project was approved Immediate compliance Hydromodification Management February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 2 TWIC Packet Page Number 13 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task C.3.g.vi.(5) - In addition, for each HM Project approved during the reporting period, Permittees shall collect and make available the information specified in C.3.g.vi.(5). Information shall be reported electronically, and, where appropriate, in tabular form. C.3.h.i. - Each Permittee shall implement an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Verification Program including, at a minimum, the elements outlined in C.3.h.ii.(1)-(7). C.3.h.ii.(7) - Develop and implement an Enforcement Response Plan for all O&M inspections that serves as a reference document for inspection staff so that consistent enforcement actions can be taken to bring development projects into compliance. The ERP must contain the enforcement procedures, enforcement tools and field scenarios, timely correction of identifyied problems outlined in C.3.h.ii.(7)(a)-(c). C.3.h.v.(1) - The database or equivalent tabular format required in Provisions C.3.b.ii.(4) and (5) shall be maintained by the Permittees. Upon request from the Executive Officer, information from this database or equivalent tabular format shall be submitted to Board staff for review. The requested information may include specific details on each inspection conducted within particular timeframes, such as several fiscal years. C.3.h.v.(2) - On an annual basis, before the wet season, provide a list of newly installed (installed within the reporting period) stormwater treatment systems and HM controls to the local mosquito and vector control agency and the Water Board. This list shall include the facility locations and a description of the stormwater treatment measures and HM controls installed. C.3.h.v.(3) - Each Permittee shall report the information specified in C.3.h.v.(3)(a)-(f) in the Annual Report each year.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.h.v.(4) - Each Permittee shall certify in the 2017 Annual Report that an ERP has been completed by July 1, 2017. 2017 AR only C.3.i Required Site Design Measures for Small Projects and Detached Single-Family Home Projects On an annual basis, discuss the implementation of the requirements of Provision C.3.i, including ordinance revisions, permit conditions, development of standard specifications and/or guidance materials, and staff training 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.j.i.(1)-(5) - Prepare and submit documentation of a framework or workplan that includes a statement of purpose, and describes tasks and timeframes for completion of the GI Plan elements listed in Provision C.3.j.i , which has been approved by the Permittee's governing body, mayor, city manager, or county manager by July 30, 2017. See C.3.j.i.(1)-(5) for a complete description of the required elements of a GI Plan. 2017 AR provide documentat ion framework approved by June 30, 2017 2019 AR submit completed GI Plan C.3.j.i.(2)(g) - For street projects not subject to Provision C.3.b.ii (i.e., non-Regulated Projects), Permittees may collectively propose a single approach with their Green Infrastructure Plan for how to proceed should project constraints preclude fully meeting the C.3.d sizing requirements. See C.3.j.i.(2)(g) for further details regarding this option. Maintain records Annually, no later than September 30. C.3.j C.3.g C.3.h C.3.j.i. - Green Infrastructure Program Plan Development Address pursuit of this option in the framework or workplan to be submitted by June 30, 2017. Include the proposed approach in the completed Green Infrastructure Plan due with the 2019 Annual Report. Immediately, except as follows: (1) July 1, 2016 for Provision C.3.h.ii.(6) and all requirements pertaining to pervious pavement systems in Provisions C.3.h.ii.(1)-(5), C.3.h.iv., and C.3.h.v. (2) July 1, 2017 for Provision C.3.h.ii.(7). Maintain records Permittees must have an ERP in place by July 1, 2016. Operation and Maintenenance of Stormwater Treatment Systems Hydromodification Management February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 3 TWIC Packet Page Number 14 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task C.3.j.ii. - Early Implementation of Green Infrastructure Projects C.3.j.ii.(1) - Prepare and maintain a list of green infrastructure projects, public and private, that are already planned for implementation during the permit term and infrastructure projects planned for implementation during the permit term that have potential for green infrastructure measures. C.3.j.ii.(2) - Submit the list with each Annual Report and a summary of planning or implementation status for each public green infrastructure project and each private green infrastructure project that is not also a Regulated Project as defined in Provision C.3.b.ii. Include a summary of how each public infrastructure project with green infrastructure potential will include green infrastructure measures to the maximum extent practicable during the permit term. For any public infrastructure project where implementation of green infrastructure measures is not practicable, submit a brief description of the project and the reasons green infrastructure measures were impracticable to implement. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C..3.j.iii.(1) - Permittees shall collectively or individually, track processes, assemble and submit information, and provide informational materials and presentations as needed to assist relevant regional, State, and federal agencies to plan, design, and fund incorporation of green infrastructure measures into C.3.j.iii.(2) - In each Annual Report, Permittees shall report on the goals and outcomes during the reporting year of work undertaken to participate in processes to promote green infrastructure. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.j.iii.(3) - In the 2019 Annual Report, Permittees shall submit a plan and schedule for new and ongoing efforts to participate in processes to promote green infrastructure. 2019 AR only C.3.j.iv.(1) - The Permittees shall, individually or collectively, develop and implement regionally-consistent methods to track and report implementation of green infrastructure measures including treated area and C.3.j.iv.(2) - In each Annual Report, Permittees shall report progress on development and implementation of the tracking methods.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.3.j.iv.(3) - In the 2019 Annual Report, Permittees shall submit the tracking methods and report implementation of green infrastructure measures including treated area, and connected and disconnected impervious area on both public and private parcels within their jurisdictions. 2019 AR only The Inspection Plan shall be updated annually including adding the list of planned inspections the 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR For each facility identified in Provision C.4.b.ii.(2)(d), the Permittee shall maintain a database or equivalent tabular system The Permittees shall include the list (i.e. inventory) of all industrial and commercial facilities requiring inspections identified in Provision C.4.b.ii.(2)(d) in each Annual Report. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Each Permittee shall implement and update, as needed, its ERP Corrective actions shall be implemented before the next rain event, but no longer than 10 business days after the potential and/or actual non-stormwater discharges are discovered. C.3.j.iv. - Tracking and Reporting Progress Industrial and Commercial Business Inspection Plan (Inspection Plan) maintain records C.3.j.iii. - Participate in Processes to Promote Green Infrastructure C.4 - Industrial and Commercial Site Controls C.4.b C.3.j C.4.c Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) update as needed within 10 business days after the discharge February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 4 TWIC Packet Page Number 15 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task Inspections Permittees shall include inspection information in each Annual Report (see section C.4.d.iii)2016 AR Starting in FY 16-17, slight modification on inspection information collected and reported on. 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Inspections Evaluate frequency of discharges by business category and identify trends. To address any observed 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Provide inspection training annually 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Report on training (see C.4.e.iii)2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.5.b Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) Each Permittee shall require timely correction of all potential and/or actual discharges. Active discharges shall be required to cease immediately. Corrective actions shall be implemented before the next rain event, but no longer than 10 business days after the potential and/or actual discharges are discovered. The Permittee’s website shall be updated with the central contact point to report spills and dumping by June 30, 2016.6/30/16 Permittees shall provide the following information in the 2016 and 2020 Annual Reports: (1) The spill and dumping reporting phone number and the web address, if used; (2) A screen shot of the Permittee’s website showing the central contact point; and (3) A discussion of how the central contact point – spill and dumping reporting phone number and, if used, the web address – is being publicized to Permittees’ staff and the public. 2016 AR 2020 AR Tracking and Case Follow-up Maintain a water quality spills, dumping, and complaints tracking and followup in an electronic database or equivalent tabular system. To include complaint information AND investigation information. Tracking and Case Follow-up Permittees shall provide the following information in the Annual Report: (1) Number of discharges reported; (2) Number of discharges reaching storm drains and/or receiving waters; and (3) Number discharges resolved in a timely manner 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Staff Training C.5.d C.5.c C.4.e within 10 business days after the discharge C.4.d Spill and Dumping Complaint Response Program C.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination maintain records February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 5 TWIC Packet Page Number 16 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task In the 2017 Annual Report, each Permittee shall provide the following: (a) minimum standards and BMPs for each of the various types of mobile businesses; (b) its enforcement strategy; (c) a list and summary of the specific outreach events and education conducted to the different types of mobile businesses operating within a Permittee's jurisdiction; (d) the number of inspections conducted at mobile businessess and/or job sites in 2016-2017; (e) discuss enforcement actions taken against mobile businesses in 2016- 2017; (f) Permittee’s inventory of mobile businesses operating within a Permittee's jurisdiction; and (g) a list and summary of the county-wide or regional activities conducted, including sharing of mobile business inventories, BMP requirements, enforcement action information, and education. 2017 AR In the 2019 Annual Report, each Permittee shall include at least the following: (a) changes to minimum standards and BMPs for each of the various types of mobile businesses since the 2017 Annual Report; (b) changes to the Permittee’s enforcement strategy; (c) minimum standards and BMPs developed for additional types of mobile businesses; (d) a list and summary of specific outreach events and education conducted to each type of mobile businesses operating within the Permittee’s jurisdiction during the Permit term; (e) a discussion of the inspections conducted at mobile businesses and/or job sites; (f) Permittee's inventory of mobile businesses operating within the Permittee’s jurisdiction; and (g) a discussion of the enforcement actions taken against mobile businesses during the permit term. 2019 AR C.5.f Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Map In the 2016 and 2019 Annual Reports, Permittees shall discuss how they make MS4 maps available to the public and how they publicize the availability of the MS4 maps.2016 AR 2019 AR C.6.a.Legal Authority for Effective Site Management C.6.a.i and ii. - Permittees shall have the ability to require and implement effective stormwater pollutant controls year-round to prevent discharge of pollutants into the storm drains, and implement progressively stricter enforcement to achieve expedient compliance and cleanup at all public and private construction sites. C.6.b Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) C.6.b.i. and ii. - Each Permittee shall implement and update, as needed, its ERP - a reference document for inspection staff to take consistent actions to achieve timely and effective compliance at all public and private construction sites in accordance with Provisions C.6.b.ii.(1)-(3). C.6.c.Best Management Practices Categories C.6.c.i.and ii. - Permittees shall require all construction sites to have specific, and seasonally and phase- appropriate, effective BMPs in the following six categories: 1. Erosion Control; 2. Run-on and Run-off C.6.d.Plan Approval Process C.6.d.i. and ii.(1)-(3) - Permittees shall review erosion control plans for consistency with local requirements and the appropriateness and adequacy of proposed BMPs for each site before issuance of grading permits C.6.e.i. - Permittees shall conduct inspections to determine compliance with local ordinances (grading and stormwater) and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs in the six categories listed in C.6.c.i in C.6.e.ii.(1) - By September 1 of each year, each Permittee shall remind all site developers and/or owners disturbing one acre or more of soil, hillside projects, and high priority sites to prepare for the upcoming 9/1/2016 9/1/2017 9/1/2018 9/1/2019 9/1/2020 C.6.e.ii.(2)-(4) - Inspections shall be conducted monthly during the wet season (October - April) at the sites specified in C.6.e.ii.(2)(a)-(c). The contents of these Inspections shall conform to Provision C.6.e.ii.(3) and C.6.e.iii.(1) - In the 2016 Annual Report, each Permittee shall certify the criteria it uses to determine hillside developments. If the Permittee is using maps of hillside developments areas or other written criteria, include a copy in the Annual Report. 2016 AR only C.6.e.iii.(2) - In each Annual Report, each Permittee shall summarize the information specified in C.6.e.iii.(2)(a)-(i). C.6.e. 2020 AR2019 AR Inspections monthly (October - April) Inspections Control of Mobile Sources C.6 - Construction Site Control C.5.e Corrective actions shall be implemented before the next rain event, but no longer than 10 business days after the potential and/or actual discharges are discovered. Corrective actions can be temporary and more time can be allowed for permanent corrective actions. If more than 10 business days Immediate 2018 AR2017 AR Immediate Immediate Immediate February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 6 TWIC Packet Page Number 17 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task C.6.e.iii.(3) - Beginning with the 2016-2017 Annual Report, each Permittee shall summarize the information outlined in C.6.e.iii.(3)(a)-(g). C.6.e.iii.(4) - In each Annual Report, each Permittee shall evaluate its respective electronic database or tabular format and the summaries produced in C.6.e.ii.(4). This evaluation shall include findings on the 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.6.e.iii.(5) - The Executive Officer may require that the information recorded and tracked by C.6.e.ii.(4) be submitted electronically or in a tabular format. C.3.f.i. and ii. - Permittees shall provide training or access to training at least every other year to municipal staff responsible for conducting construction site stormwater inspections. C.6.f.iii. - Permittees shall include in each Annual Report the following information: training topics covered, dates of training, and the number of the Permittees’ inspectors attending each training. If there was no training in that year, so state. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.7.a.ii.(1) - Inspect and maintain storm drain inlet markings of at least 80 percent of municipality maintained inlets to ensure they are legibly labeled with a no dumping message or equivalent once per permit term. C.7.a.ii.(2) - Storm drain inlet markings of newly developed privately-maintained streets shall be verified prior to acceptance of the project. Permittees shall require maintenance of the storm drain inlet markings through the development maintenance entity. C.7.a.iii. - In the 2020 Annual Report, each Permittee shall (1) state how many municipally-maintained storm drain inlets it has, (2) certify that at least 80 percent of municipality maintained storm drain inlet markings are legibly labeled with an appropriate stormwater pollution prevention message during the permit term; (3) include a picture of a labeled municipality maintained inlet; and (4) certify that all privately maintained streets had storm drain inlet markings verified prior to acceptance of the project and were required to maintain the storm drain inlet markings through the development maintenance entity. 2020 AR only C.7.b.ii.(1) - Target a broad audience with a minimum of one outreach campaign with specific stormwater runoff pollution prevention messages. The outreach campaign(s) should utilize various electronic and print media, and paid and free media to be reach the different target audiences. The advertising C.7.b.ii.(2) - Permittees shall conduct a post-campaign effectiveness assessment/evaluation to identify and quantify the audiences' knowledge, trends, and attitudes and/or practices; and to measure the overall population's awareness of the messages and behavior changes achieved by the outreach campaigns. Effectiveness assessment/evaluation may be done regionally or county-wide. C.7.b.iii. - In the Annual Report following the post campaign effectiveness assessment/evaluation, each Permittee (or the Countywide Program, if the effectiveness assessment/evaluation was done county-wide or regionally) shall provide a report of the effectiveness assessment/evaluation completed which, at Staff TrainingC.6.f C.7.a C.6.e. Storm Drain Inlet Marking C.7.b 2020 AR Permittees shall submit the information within 10 working days of the Executive Officer's requirement. Submittal of the During permit term During permit term 2019 AR once during permit term Immediate. Every other year beginning in Fiscal Year 2015/16. Inspections C.7 - Public Information and Outreach 2018 AR2017 AR In the AR following completion of the post-campaign effectiveness assessment/evaluation. Outreach Campaigns - Permittees shall continue to particpate in or contribute to outreach campaigns, with the goal of signficantly increasing overall awareness of stormwater runoff pollution prevention messages and behavior changes in target audiences. February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 7 TWIC Packet Page Number 18 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task C.7.c.ii.(1) - Each Permittee shall maintain and publicize one point of contact for information on stormwater issues, watershed characteristics, and stormwater pollution prevention alternatives. This point of contact can be maintained individually or collectively and Permittees may combine this function with the spill and dumping complaint central contact point required in C.5. C.7.c.ii.(2) - Each Permitte shall place and maintain information on stormwater issues, watershed characteristics, and stormwater pollution prevention alternatives on its website. In lieu of posting the detailed informational pages directly on their individual websites, Permittees may choose to provide links from their websites to the countywide Program's and/or BASMAA's websites. Each Permittee shall publicize its website. C.7.c.iii. - In the 2016 Annual Report, each Permittee shall list the point of contact, discuss how this point of contact and stormwater pollution website are publicized and maintained, and certify that it has a website dedicated to providing and maintaining information on stormwater issues, watershed 2016 AR only C.7.d.ii. - Each Permittee shall annually participate and/or host a mix of public outreach and citizen involvement events according to its population, as shown in Table 7.1. C.7.d.iii. - In each Annual Report, each Permittee shall list the events (name of event, event location, and event date) participated in; identity whether the event is public outreach or citizen involvement; and assess the effectiveness of efforts with appropriate measures (e.g., success at reaching a broad spectrum of the community, number of participants compared to previous years, post-event effectiveness assessment/evaluation results, quantity/volume of materials cleaned up and comparisons to previous efforts). C.7.e Watershed Stewardship Collaborative Efforts C.7.e.iii. - In each Annual Report, each Permittee shall state the level of effort, describe the support given, state what efforts were undertaken and the results of these efforts, and provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of these efforts. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.7.f School-Age Children Outreach C.7.f.iii. - In each Annual Report, each Permittee shall state the level of effort, spectrum of children reached, and methods used, and provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of these efforts.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.7.g Outreach to Municipal Officials At least once per permit cycle, or more often. Permittees shall summarize efforts in the 2020 Annual Report.2020 AR C.8.c San Francisco Estuary Receiving Water Monitoring The Permittees shall participate in implementing an Estuary receiving water monitoring program, at a minimum equivalent to the San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program by contributing their fair- share financially on an annual basis. $ to RMP $ to RMP $ to RMP $ to RMP $ to RMP Creek Status Monitoring Sampling shall occur once per year during the appropriate index period (April 15-June 30) with consideration of antecedent rainfall. Contra Costa Permittees shall collect at least 10 samples per year.1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr Stormwater Pollution Prevention Education - Permittees shall continue to maintain a point of contact to provide the public with stormwater pollution prevention information. C.8.d C.7.c C.7.d Immediate Immediate C.8 - Water Quality Monitoring 2019 AR2016 AR 2020 AR2018 AR2017 ARPublic Outreach and Citizen Involvement Events February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 8 TWIC Packet Page Number 19 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task i. Chlorine 10 locations per year 10/yr 10/yr 10/yr 10/yr 10/yr ii. Temperature 4 reaches per year 4/yr 4/yr 4/yr 4/yr 4/yr iii. Continuous Monitoring of DO, T, pH, EC 2 sites per year in Spring, 2 sites per year in Summer 2/yr 2/yr 2/yr 2/yr 2/yr iv. Toxicity in Water Column 1 site per year 1/yr 1/yr 1/yr 1/yr 1/yr v. Toxicity and Pollutants in Sediment 1 site per year 1/yr 1/yr 1/yr 1/yr 1/yr vi. Pathogen Indicators 5 sites per year 5/yr 5/yr 5/yr 5/yr 5/yr Review Creek Status Monitoring (C.8.d) results annually and develop a list of all results exceeding thresholds described therein. review results review results review results review results review results The Permittees shall develop a work plan for each SSID project and submit the work plans with the Urban Creeks Monitoring Report (UCMR) such that a minimum of half the required number of SSID projects are started (at a minimum, have a workplan) by the third year of the permit term. 3/15/16 3/15/17 3/15/18 3/15/19 3/15/20 The Permittees shall conduct SSID investigations according to the schedule in each SSID project work plan and shall report on the status of SSID investigations annually in the UCMR. SSID projects are intended to be oriented toward taking action(s) to alleviate stressors and reduce sources of pollutants; thus the Permittees shall attempt to complete all steps for half their required SSID projects, at a minimum, during the permit term. 11/30/20 When a Permittee(s) determines that discharges to its stormwater collection system(s) contribute to an exceedance of a water quality standard or an exceedance of a trigger threshold such that the water body’s beneficial uses are not supported, the Permittee(s) shall submit a report in the UCMR that describes BMPs that are currently being implemented, and the current level of implementation, and additional BMPs that will be implemented, and/or an increased level of implementation, to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of WQSs. The report shall include an implementation schedule. 3/15/16 3/15/17 3/15/18 3/15/19 3/15/20 The Permittees shall submit an SSID report in each UCMR which summarizes the actions taken in C.8.e.i-iii above. The SSID report shall include a running summary of all SSID projects (C.8.e.ii), including start date, brief problem definition, and schedule for each project. As projects progress, the SSID report shall describe findings and monitoring results and outline steps for the upcoming year for each ongoing project. The Permittees shall submit the SSID report with each UCMR. 3/15/16 3/15/17 3/15/18 3/15/19 3/15/20 C.8.f Pollutants of Concern Monitoring See Table 8.4 for POC Monitoring Parameters, Effort and Type 9/30/19 Reporting i. Water Quality Standard Exceedance When data collected pursuant to C.8.a.- C.8.f. indicate that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standard, the Permittees shall notify the Water Board within no more than 30 days of such a determination and submit a follow up report in accordance with Provision C.1 requirements. ii. Electronic Reporting The Permittees shall submit to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) all results from monitoring conducted pursuant to Provisions C.8.d. Creek Status, C.8.e. SSID Projects (as applicable), and C.8.f. Pollutants of Concern. Data that CEDEN cannot accept are exempt from this requirement. Data shall be submitted in SWAMP formats and with the quality controls required by CEDEN. Data collected during the previous October 1–September 30 period shall be submitted by March 15 of each year. 3/15/16 3/15/17 3/15/18 3/15/19 3/15/20 iii. Urban Creeks Monitoring Report The Permittees shall submit a comprehensive Creek Status Monitoring Report no later than March 15 of each year, reporting on all data collected during the foregoing October 1–September 30 period. (See C.8.g.iii for specifics) 3/15/16 3/15/17 3/15/18 3/15/19 Stressor/Source Identification (SSID) Projects C.8.d C.8.e as necessary C.8.g February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 9 TWIC Packet Page Number 20 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task iv. Pollutants of Concern Monitoring Reports By October 15 of each year of the permit (beginning in 2016), the Permittees shall submit a report describing the allocation of sampling effort for POC monitoring for the forthcoming year and what was accomplished for POC monitoring during the preceding water year. The report shall include (for preceding year and projected for forthcoming year): monitoring locations, number and types of samples collected, purpose of sampling (management question addressed), and analytes measured. Any data not reportable to CEDEN should also be included in this report. 10/15/16 10/15/17 10/15/18 10/15/19 10/15/20 v. Integrated Monitoring Report No later than March 15 of the fifth year of the permit term, Permittees shall submit an Integrated Monitoring Report in lieu of the annual Urban Creeks Monitoring Report. (See C.8.g.v for specifics)3/15/20 C.9.a Maintain and Implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy or Ordinance and Standard Operating Procedures In their Annual Reports, the Permittees shall certify they are implementing their IPM policy or ordinance and standard operating procedures, report trends in quantities and types of pesticide active ingredients used, and explain any increases in use of pesticides of concern to water quality as listed in the introduction section of this Provision. In their Annual Reports, the Permittees shall provide a brief description (e.g., one or two sentences) of two IPM tactics or strategies implemented in the reporting year. To the extent possible, different IPM actions should be described each year, so that a range of IPM actions is described over the permit term. C.9.b Train Municipal Employees In their Annual Reports, the Permittees shall report the percentage of municipal employees who apply pesticides who have received training in their IPM policy or ordinance and IPM standard operating procedures within the last year. This report shall briefly describe the nature of the training, such as tailgate training provided by a Permittee’s IPM coordinator, IPM training through the Pesticide Applicators Professional Association, etc. C.9.c Require Contractors to Implement IPM In their Annual Reports, the Permittees shall state how they verified contractor compliance with IPM policies. This verification shall include, at a minimum, an evaluation of lists of pesticides and amounts of C.9.d Interface with County Agricultural Commissioners In their Annual Reports, the Permittees shall briefly describe the communications they have had with county agricultural commissioners and report follow-up actions to correct violations of pesticide regulations. Public Outreach to Consumers at the Point of Purchase Public Outreach to Residents that Contract for Pest Control and Landscape ServicesC.9.e C.9 - Pesticide Toxicity Control Starting in the 2017 AR, Permittees shall report on trends and quantities of pesticide active ingredient usage. 2018 AR 2019 AR2016 AR In each Annual Report, Permittees shall describe their actions taken in the three outreach categories. Outreach conducted at the county or regional level shall be described in Annual Reports prepared at that respective level; reiteration in individual Permittee reports is discouraged. Reports shall include a brief description of outreach conducted in each of the three categories, including level of effort, messages and target audience. 2020 AR C.8.g February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 10 TWIC Packet Page Number 21 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task Pubilc Outreach to Pest Control Professionals C.9.f Track and Participate in Relevant Regulatory Processes In their Annual Reports, the Permittees shall summarize participation efforts, information submitted, and how regulatory actions were affected. Permittees who contribute to a county, regional, or state-wide effort shall submit one report at the county or regional level. Duplicate reporting is discouraged. Permittees who do not contribute to a regional or county-wide effort shall list their own participation efforts, information submitted, and how regulatory actions were affected. C.9.g Evaluate Implementation of Pesticide Source Control Actions This task is necessary to gauge how effective the implementation actions taken by Permittees are in (a) achieving TMDL targets and (b) avoiding future pesticide-related toxicity in urban creeks. Once during the permit term, Permittees shall conduct a thoughtful evaluation of their IPM efforts, how effective these efforts appear to be, and how they could be improved. In their 2019 Annual Reports, the Permittees shall submit this evaluation, which shall include an assessment of the effectiveness of their IPM efforts required in Provisions C.9.a-e and g; a discussion of any improvements made in these efforts in the preceding five years; and any changes in water quality regarding pesticide toxicity in urban creeks. This evaluation shall also include a brief description of one or more pesticide-related area(s) the Permittee will focus on enhancing during the subsequent permit term. Work conducted at the county or regional level shall be evaluated at that respective level; reiteration in individual Permittee evaluation reports is discouraged. 2019 AR Permittees shall reduce trash discharges from 2009 levels, described below, to receiving waters in accordance with the following schedule: 60% by 7/1/16 (performance guideline)7/1/16 70% by 7/1/17 (mandatory)7/1/17 80% by 7/1/18 (mandatory)7/1/18 100% or no adverse impact to recieving water from trash by 7/1/22 (mandatory)--> 7/1/22 Permittees shall have an opportunity to correct and/or revise, based on improved information, the 2009 trash levels and trash generation areas in their February 2014 maps by submitting the correction and/or revision no later than the 2016 Annual Report deadline. 2016 AR Permittees shall ensure that lands that they do not own or operate but that are plumbed directly to their storm drain systems in Very High, High, and Moderate trash generation areas are equipped with full trash capture systems or are managed with trash discharge control actions equivalent to or better than full trash capture systems. The efficacy of the latter shall be assessed with visual assessments in accordance with C.10.b.ii. If there is a full trash capture device downstream of these lands, no other trash control is required. Permittees shall map the location or otherwise record the location of all such lands greater than 10,000 ft2 that are plumbed directly to their storm drain systems by July 1, 2018, including the trash control status of these areas. This information shall be retained the Permittees for inspection upon Due by 2018 AR but only need to submit upon request ii. Trash Generation Area Management i. Schedule C.10.a C.9.e C.10 - Trash Load Reduction Starting in the 2017 AR, Permittees shall report on trends and quantities of pesticide active ingredient usage. 2018 AR 2019 AR2016 AR In each Annual Report, Permittees shall describe their actions taken in the three outreach categories. Outreach conducted at the county or regional level shall be described in Annual Reports prepared at that respective level; reiteration in individual Permittee reports is discouraged. Reports shall include a brief description of outreach conducted in each of the three categories, including level of effort, messages and target audience. 2020 AR February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 11 TWIC Packet Page Number 22 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task iii. Mandatory Minimum Full Trash Capture Permittees must install and maintain a mandatory minimum number of full trash capture devices as stated in MRP 1.0. See C.10.a.iii for details MRP 2.0 notes in this section that a stormwater treatment facility implemented in accordance with Provision C.3 is also deemed a full capture system if the facility, including its maintenance, prevents the discharge of trash to the downstream MS4 and receiving waters and discharge points from the facility, including overflows, are appropriately screened or otherwise configured to meet the full trash capture screening specification for storm flows up to the full trash capture one year, one hour storm hydraulic Storm drain inlet type full trash capture devices in Low or Moderate trash generation areas shall be maintained a minimum of once per year.1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr Storm drain inlet type full trash capture devices in Very High or High trash generation areas shall be maintained a minimum of twice per year at least 3 months apart. If inspection frequency is excessive after 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr All other full trash capture devices shall be maintained a minimum of one time per year.1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr 1x/yr If any device is found plugged/blinded or greater than 50% full, must increase frequency of mainteance to i. Full Trash Capture Systems Permittees shall retain device specific maintenance records, (per C.10.b.i.b). A summary of this information shall be reported in each Annual Report which may be limited to the number of full capture 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR i. Full Trash Capture Systems Permittees shall certify annually that each of their full trash capture systems is operated and maintained to meet full trash capture system requirements.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR ii.b.i. - iii Visual Assessment of Outcomes Permittees must conduct observations within a TMA of the sidewalk, curb, and gutter, or locations associated with trash generation sources. Conduct observations at randlonly selected locations covering at least a 10% of a TMA's street miles; or at strategic locations with justification they are representative of a trash generation in the TMA and will represent the effectiveness of the control actions implemented. 4-9 times/yr 4-9 times/yr 4-9 times/yr 4-9 times/yr 4-9 times/yr ii.b.iv Special Study Assessment Method Permittees may put forth substantial evidence that certain management actions or sets of actions when performed to a specified performance yield a certain trash reduction outcome reliably. If this evidence is presented and accepted by the E.O., Permittees may claim a similar trash trash reduction outcome by demonstrating that they have performed these same actions within TMAs to the same performance standard as accepted by the E.O. iv. Source Control Permittees jurisdiction-wide actions to reduce trash at the source may be valued toward trash load reduction up to 10%. To claim percent reduction value, Permittees must provide substantive and credible evidence that these actions reduce trash by the claimed value. A Permittee may reference studies in 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Permittees shall conduct receiving water monitoring and develop receiving water monitoring tools and protocols and a monitoring program designed to answer certain management questions (see C.10.b.v).2017 AR 2018 AR if Receiving Water Monitoring at represenative sites to begin October 2017 or if third party used to develop Plan, monitoring to begin no later than October 2018.10/1/2018 10/1/2019 if third party v. Receiving Water Monitoring Report and Proposed Monitoring Program See C.10.f for Reporting Requirements v. Receiving Water Monitoring Development and Testing Plan as needed Assuming On-Land Cleanup Effectiveness Study Would be Conducted and Completed by end of FY C.10.a C.10.b i. Full Trash Capture Systems a. Maintenance February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 12 TWIC Packet Page Number 23 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task C.10.c Trash Hot Spot Selection and Cleanup The Permittees shall clean selected Trash Hot Spots to a level of “no visual impact” at least one time per year for the term of the permit. Documentation the clean up activity to be retained by the Permittees and must include trash condition before and after cleanup of the hot spot using photo documentation wiht a minimum of one photo per 100 ft of hot spot length. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.10.d Trash Load Reduction Plans Each Permittee shall maintain, and provide for inspection and review upon request, a Trash Load Reduction Plan, including an implementation schedule to meet the C.10.a Trash Load Reduction requirements. A summary of any new revisions to the Plan shall be included in the Annual Report. Optional Trash Load Reduction Offset Opportunities i. Additional Creek and Shoreline Cleanup A Permittee may offset part of its provision C.10.a trash load percent reduction requirement by conducting additional cleanup of creek and shoreline areas beyond trash hot spot cleanups required by C.10.c if the additional cleanup efforts are conducted at a frequency of at least twice per year and sufficient to demonstrate sustained improvement of the creek or shoreline area. The maximum offset that may be claimed is 10%. 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr ii. Direct Trash Discharge Controls A Permittee may offset an additional part of its provision C.10.a trash load percent reduction requirement by implementing a comprehensive Direct Discharge plan approved by the E.O. for control of direct discharges of trash to receiving waters from non-storm drain system sources. The maximum offset that may be claimed is 15% percent using the C.10.e.i formula. The Direct Discharge plan shall be submitted no later than than February 1 of the first year in which the offset will be reported in the following Annual 2/1/2016 2/1/2017 2/1/2018 2/1/2019 2/1/2020 Submittal of corrected or revised 2009 trash generation rate baseline map 2016 AR If a Permittee cannot meet the 60% trash load reduction performance guideline, that Permittee must 2016 AR If a Permittee cannot meet the 70% trash load reduction requirement for FY 2016-2017, that Permittee 2017 AR If a Permittee cannot meet the 80% trash load reduction requirement for FY 2018-2019, that Permittee 2019 AR See C.10.f for other annual report submittals (summary of trash control actions, hot spot clean ups, 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Permittes shall report on progress of the Monitoring Program in the 2018 Annual Report and submit a 2018 AR - 2019 AR - 2020 AR - For Permittees claiming a C.10.e.i offset (additional creek and shoreline cleanups), a summary description 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR For Permittees claiming a C.10.e.ii offset (Direct Discharge Plan), a summary of the control actions 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR The Permittees shall report by February 1, 2016, a list of the watersheds (or portions therein) where mercury control measures are currently being implemented and those in which control measures will be implemented (C.11.a.ii(1)) during the term of this permit as well as the monitoring data and other information used to select these watersheds. 2/1/16 The Permittees shall report in their 2016 Annual Report the specific control measures (C.11.a.ii(2)) that are currently being implemented and those that will be implemented in watersheds identified under C.11.a.iii(1) and an implementation schedule (C.11.a.ii(3)) for these control measures. (See C.11.a.iii.(2) for report specifics). 2016 AR Beginning with the 2017 Annual Report and continuing in all Annual Reports, Permittees shall update all the information required under C.11.a.iii(2) as necessary to account for new control measures implemented, but not described, in the 2016 Annual Report. 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Reporting Implement Control Measures to Achieve Mercury Load Reductions. C.11 - Mercury Control C.11.a Maintain and provide for inspection and reivew upon request. Submit with the respective AR any new revisions to the Plan. C.10.f February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 13 TWIC Packet Page Number 24 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task The Permittees shall submit, for Executive Officer approval, by April 1, 2016, a full description of an adequate measurement and estimation methodology and rationale for the approaches used to assess mercury load reductions achieved through mercury source control, stormwater treatment, green infrastructure projects, and other stormwater management measures implemented during the term of this permit. 4/1/16 Beginning with the 2016 Annual Report, Permittees shall report annually the loads reduced using the approved estimation methodology to demonstrate cumulative mercury load reduced from each control measure implemented since the beginning of permit term. Permittees shall submit all supporting data and information necessary to substantiate the load reduction estimates, including appropriate reference to the control measures described in the reporting required under C.11.a. (See C.11.b.iii.(1) for additional specifics) 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR In their 2018 and subsequent Annual Reports, the Permittees shall submit, for Executive Officer approval, any refinements, if necessary, to the measurement and estimation methodologies to assess mercury load reductions in the subsequent permit. 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR For all Permittees combined, these county-specific average annual mercury load reductions from green infrastructure projects total 48 g/yr during each of the final three years of the permit. The green infrastructure load reduction performance criteria shall be assessed for compliance at the end of year 4 and will be computed as the average load reduction of years 3-5 (year 5 load reductions shall be estimated according to the predicted benefit of control measures that Permittees commit to implement in year 5). Sep-19 Mercury Load Reduction 9 g/year for final 3 years of permit through green infrastructure implementation 9 g/yr 9 g/yr 9/yr The Permittees shall submit in their 2017 Annual Report (as part of reporting for C.11.b.ii(1)), the quantitative relationship between green infrastructure implementation and mercury load reductions. This submittal shall include all data used and a full description of models and model inputs relied on to establish this relationship. 2017 AR The Permittees shall submit in their 2019 Annual Report an estimate of the amount and characteristics of land area that will be treated through green infrastructure implementation by future years 2020, 2030, and 2040. This submittal shall include all data used and a full description of models and model inputs relied on to generate this estimate. 2019 AR The Permittees shall submit in their 2019 Annual Report a reasonable assurance analysis to demonstrate quantitatively that mercury reductions of at least 10 kg/yr will be realized by 2040 through implementation of green infrastructure projects. This submittal shall include all data used and a full description of models and model inputs relied on to make the demonstration and documentation of peer review of the reasonable assurance analysis. 2019 AR The Permittees shall submit as part of reporting for C.11.b.ii(2), beginning with their 2019 Annual Report, an estimate of the amount of mercury load reductions resulting from green infrastructure implementation during the term of the permit. This submittal shall include all data used and a full description of models and model inputs relied on to generate this estimate. 2019 AR C.11.d Prepare Implementation Plan and Schedule to Achieve TMDL Allocations Permittees shall submit the plan and schedule in the 2019 Annual Report.2019 AR C.11.c C.11.b Assess Mercury Load Reductions from Stormwater Plan and Implement Green Infrastructure to reduce mercury loads February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 14 TWIC Packet Page Number 25 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task The Permittees shall report on the status of the risk reduction program in each of their Annual Reports, including a brief description of actions taken, an estimate of the number of people reached, and why these people are deemed likely to consume Bay fish. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR The Permittees shall report the findings of the effectiveness evaluation of their risk reduction program in their Annual Report on year four of the permit term.2019 AR Implement sufficient control measures to achieve county-specific load reductions shown in Table 12.1 and demonstrate achievement of these load reductions by using the accounting methods established according to provision C.12.b. 90 g/yr 90 g/yr 560 kg/yr 560 kg/yr 560 kg/yr Report list of the watersheds (or portions therein) where PCB control measures are currently being implemented and those in which control measures will be implemented during the term of this permit as well as the monitoring data and other information used to select these watersheds. 2/1/16 Report specific control measures that are currently being implemented and those that will be implemented in identified watersheds and an implementation schedule.2016 AR Update all the information as necessary to account for new control measures implemented but not described in the 2016 Annual Report.2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Submit, for Executive Officer approval, by , a full description of the measurement and estimation methodology and rationale for the approaches used to assess PCBs load reductions achieved through PCBs source control, stormwater treatment, green infrastructure projects, and other stormwater management measures implemented during the term of this permit. 4/1/16 Report annually the loads reduced using the approved estimation methodology to demonstrate cumulative PCBs load reduced from each control measure implemented since the beginning of permit term. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Submit for EO approval any updates, if necessary, to the measurement and estimation methodologies to assess PCBs load reductions.2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Implement sufficient green infrastructure projects to achieve county-specific load reductions shown in Table 12.2 and demonstrate achievement of these load reductions by using the accounting methods.24 g/yr 24 g/yr 24 g/yr Report quantitative relationship between green infrastructure implementation and PCBs load reductions 2017 AR Estimate the amount and characteristics of land area that will be treated through green infrastructure implementation by future years 2020, 2030, and 2040.2019 AR Demonstrate with reasonable assurance that PCBs reductions of at least 3 kg/yr will be realized by 2040 through implementation of green infrastructure projects.2019 AR Estimate of the amount of PCB load reductions result from green infrastructure implementation during term of the permit.2019 AR 2020 AR C.12.d Prepare Implementation Plan and Schedule to Achieve TMDL Wasteload Allocations Prepare a plan and schedule for PCBs control measure implementation and provide reasonable assurance that sufficient control measures will be implemented to attain the PCBs TMDL wasteload allocations. Plan shall identify all technically and economically feasible PCBs control measures to be implemented (including green infrastructure projects); and (2) include a schedule according to which these technically and economically feasible control measures will be fully implemented; and (3) provide an evaluation and quantification of the PCBs load reduction of such measures as well as an evaluation of costs, control measure efficiency and significant environmental impacts resulting from their implementation. 2019 AR C.11.e. C.12 - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Controls C.12.c Plan and Implement Green Infrastructure to Reduce PCBs Loads Implement green infrastructure projects during the term of the permit to achieve PCBs load reductions of 120 g/year over the final three years of the permit term. Additionally, Permittees shall provide reasonable assurance of PCBs load reductions of at least 3 kg/yr throughout the Permit area by 2040 through implementation of green infrastructure plans. C.12.a C.12.b Implement Control Measures to Achieve PCBs Load Reductions Permittees shall continue implementing existing or initiate new PCBs source and treatment control measures and pollution prevention strategies to achieve PCBs load reductions throughout the area covered by the permit. Assess PCB Load Reductions from Stormwater Develop and implement an assessment methodology and data collection program to quantify PCBs loads reduced through implementation of any and all pollution prevention, source control, and treatment control efforts required by the provisions of this permit or load reductions achieved through other relevant efforts not explicitly required by the provisions of this permit. Use the assessment methodology to demonstrate progress toward the interim load reduction Implement a Risk Reduction Program February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 15 TWIC Packet Page Number 26 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task C.12.e Evaluate PCBs Presence in Caulks/Sealants Used in Storm Drain or Roadway Infrastructure in Public Rights-of-Way Collect at least 20 composite samples (throughout the Permit area) of the caulks and sealants used in storm drains or roadway infrastructure in public rights-of-way and analyze this material for PCBs in such a way as to be able to detect a minimum PCBs concentration of 200 parts per billion. 2017 AR C.12.f Manage PCB-Containing Materials and Wastes during Building Demolition and Renovation Activities At the time of submittal of an application for a demolition or renovation (demo/reno) permit, require the applicant to determine whether PCBs are present in the structure and, if so, to take follow up actions prior to issuance of the permit. This requirement shall apply only to potential PCB- containing structures which are structures built or remodeled between the years 1950 and 1980. Single-family residential structures are excluded. Summarize implementation steps for requiring permit applicants to do the following: (1) Sample caulking around concrete joints, masonry joints, doors, and windows. Sample exterior paint, mastics, glazing, and coating on acoustic tiles. (2) Have the samples analyzed for total PCBs. (3) In lieu of sampling and analysis, the demo/reno permit applicant may assume the building materials contain PCBs at concentrations equal to or greater than 50 parts per million and manage these materials in accordance with U.S.EPA regulations. (4) Submit all analytical results, with the potential PCB-containing structure address and permit applicant contact information to the Permittee and to the Water Board. (5) Where PCBs are present or assumed present in any building material at a concentration equal to or greater than 50 parts per million, prior to issuance of a demo/reno permit the Permittee shall require and verify that the demo/reno proponent has a letter or email from U.S. EPA, Region IX or Water Board stating that PCBs-containing materials have been adequately removed. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.12.g Fate and Transport Study of PCBs: Urban Runoff Impact on San Francisco Bay Margins Conduct or cause to be conducted studies aimed at better understanding the fate, transport, and biological uptake of PCBs discharged from urban runoff to San Francisco Bay margin areas. Studies focus on understanding the in-Bay transport of PCBs discharged in urban runoff, the sediment and food web PCBs concentrations in margin areas receiving urban runoff, the influence of urban runoff on the patterns of food web PCBs accumulation, especially in Bay margins, and the identification of drainages where urban runoff PCBs are particularly important in food web accumulation. Submit a workplan in 2016. Report on status of the studies in 2017 Annual Report. Report in the 2019 IMR the findings and results of the studies completed, planned, or in progress as well as implications of studies on potential control measures to be investigated, piloted or implemented in future permit cycles. 2016 AR 2017 AR 2019 IMR Conduct or cause to be conducted an ongoing risk reduction program with the potential to reach 3000 individuals annually who are likely consumers of San Francisco Bay-caught fish.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Evaluate the effectiveness of the risk reduction program in Year 4.2019 AR In the 2016 Annual Report, the Permittees shall certify that legal authority currently exists to prohibit the discharge of wastewater to storm drains generated from the installation, cleaning, treating, and washing of copper architectural features, including copper roofs. In the 2016 Annual Report, the Permittees shall report how copper architectural features are addressed through the issuance of building permits. 2016 AR The Permittees shall report annually permitting and enforcement activities.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.13.a C.12.i Implement a Risk Reduction Program Manage Waste Generated from Cleaning and Treating of Copper Architectural Features, Including Copper Roofs, during Construction and Post-Construction. C.13 - Copper Controls February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 16 TWIC Packet Page Number 27 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task In the 2016 Annual Report, the Permittees shall certify that legal authority currently exists to prohibit the discharges to storm drains of water containing copper-based chemicals from pools, spas, and fountains. In the 2016 Annual Report, the Permittees shall report how copper-containing discharges from pools, spas, and fountains are addressed to accomplish the prohibition of the discharge. 2016 AR The Permittees shall report annually on any enforcement activities.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.13.c Industrial Sources The Permittees shall highlight copper reduction results in the industrial inspection component in the C.13 portion of each Annual Report.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR C.14 Not applicable for CCCWP Groundwater pumped from a monitoring well, used for groundwater basin management, which is owned and/or operated by a Permittee is allowed if the following requirements are met. Twice a year (once during the wet season and once during the dry season), representative samples shall be taken from each aquifer that potentially will discharge or has discharged into a storm drain. 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr 2x/yr The Permittees shall maintain records of these discharges, BMPs implemented, and any monitoring data collected. Pumped Groundwater, Foundation Drains, and Water from Crawl Space Pumps and Footing Drains The Permittees shall maintain records of these discharges, BMPs implemented, and any monitoring data collected. Individual Residential Car Washing and Required BMPs Permittees shall encourage individuals to direct car wash waters to landscaped areas or commercial car wash facilities. Individual Residential Car Washing and Required BMPs Permittees shall discourage through outreach efforts individual residential car washing within their jurisdictional areas that discharge directly into their storm drain systems. Discharge Type – Swimming Pool, Hot Tub, Spa, and Fountain Water Discharges Permittees shall require new or rebuilt swimming pools, hot tubs, spas, and fountains have a connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining events. The Permittees shall keep records of the authorized major discharges of dechlorinated pool, hot tubs, spa and fountain water to the storm drain, including BMPs employed; such records shall be available for Discharge Type – Swimming Pool, Hot Tub, Spa, and Fountain Water Discharges Permittees shall improve their public outreach efforts and education efforts and ensure that implementation of the required BMPs and compliance in commercial, municipal, and residential facilities. Discharge Type – Irrigation Water, Landscape Irrigation, and Lawn or Garden Watering Permittees shall implement the Illicit Discharge Enforcement Response Plan from C.5.b as necessary for ongoing large-volume landscape irrigation runoff to their storm drain system.2016 AR 2017 AR 2018 AR 2019 AR 2020 AR Discharge Type – Irrigation Water, Landscape Irrigation, and Lawn or Garden Watering Promoting outreach messages regarding the use of less toxic options for pest control and landscape management C.16 Not applicable for CCCWP C.14 - City of Pacifica and San Mateo County Fecal Indicator Bacteria Controls (N/A) C.15 - Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges C.16 - Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance C.17 - Annual Reports maintain records No Reporting IndicatedC.15.b No Reporting Indicated maintain records maintain records Conditionally Exempted Non-Stormwater Discharges Pumped Groundwater from Non-Drinking Water Aquifers C.13.b Manage Discharges from Pools, Spas, and Fountains that Contain Copper-Based Chemicals. February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 17 TWIC Packet Page Number 28 of 83 MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights Show Challenging Provisions MRP 2.0 Schedule of Key Reporting Requirements - Yellow Highlights show challenging Provisions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Implemention Level/Reporting SchedulePermit Section Implementation Task The Permittees shall submit Annual Reports electronically in all cases and in paper copy upon request by September 15 of each year. Each Annual Report shall report on the previous fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30. The annual reporting requirements are set forth in Provisions C.1 – C.16. 9/30/16 9/30/17 9/30/18 9/30/19 9/30/20 The Permittees shall collaboratively develop a common annual reporting format for acceptance by the Executive Officer by April 1, 2016.4/1/16 The Annual Report Form may be changed by April 1 of each year for the following annual report, to more accurately reflect the reporting requirements of Provisions C.1 – C.16, with the agreement of the Permittees and by the approval of the Executive Officer. 4/1/17 4/1/18 4/1/19 4/1/20 C.18 No deadlines C.18.d To approve and incorporate an alternative method or methods of distributing the county load reductions C.20 Order Expiration and Report of Waste Discharge This Order expires on December 31, 2020, five years from the effective date of this Order. The Permittees must file a Report of Waste Discharge in accordance with Title 23, California Code of Regulations, not later than 180 days in advance of such date as application for reissuance of waste discharge requirements. 6/30/20 (ROWD); 12/31/20 (expires) C.21 MRP 1.0 rescinded Order No. R2-2009-0074 is hereby rescinded on the effective date of this Order, which shall be January 1, 2016, provided that the Regional Administrator of U.S. EPA, Region IX, does not object.12/1/15 C.22 Assumed Effective Date The Effective Date of this Order and Permit shall be January 1, 2016, provided that the Regional Administrator of U.S. EPA, Region IX, does not object.12/1/15 C.21 - Rescission of Old Orders C.22 - Effective Date C.17 Annual Reports C.20 - Expiration Date C.19 - Standard Provisions C.18 - Modifications to this Order February 11, 2016 TWI Committee Meeting MRP 2.0 - Key Provisions to Implement Page 18 TWIC Packet Page Number 29 of 83 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:02/11/2016   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) Background: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (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 December meeting, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority decided to suspend development of the CTP. Work on the TEP will continue independent of the CTP. TWIC Packet Page Number 30 of 83 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 In late 2015 the Authority re-assessed the approach they were taking in soliciting input from the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee, progress was not being made. The Authority subsequently changed the method by which they engaged the EPAC, changing moderators and meeting with various "caucuses" to focus on the various special interests in the County. Noting that "time is running out for a November 2016 ballot measure " the Authority Board agreed to have two Special TEP Board meetings a month for the foreseeable future. These special meetings are being held immediately after the regularly held monthly full Authority Board meeting and Planning Sub-Committee meeting. As of the distribution of this report, three special meetings have been held. Staff will provide a summary of the direction the process is going at our TWIC meeting. More useful to the Committee, and the BOS, is how the process is evolving relative to the BOS position on the potential sales tax as established in our October 2014, and November 2015 comment letters. The November 2015 letter is attached to this report. That summary is below. Local Streets and Road/Maintenance Funding: As you may recall, the BOS supported the Regional Transportation Planning Committee's (RTPCs) position on local streets and road funding which ranged from 25-30%. BOS support was inclusive of complete streets concepts. Status: The Authority continues to work with the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) and the Pubic Manager's Association (PMA)/City County Engineering Advisory Committee (CEAC) on this issue. A decision has not yet been made but concepts that have been discussed include, increase this funding category but earmark additional funds for specific purposes (bike/ped, complete streets, etc.), make eligibility for the additional funding contingent upon some performance standard related to the use of the funds (again bike/ped, complete streets, etc), and no restriction of the funds has also been discussed. For this last option, it is thought by some that existing, adopted complete streets requirements are sufficient to ensure responsible use of the funds. As the dialog between the Authority and the PMA/CCEAC group is ongoing, and the County is participating, staff is not independently pursuing this issue. Accessible Services/Mobility Management: The BOS made several specific recommendations relative to this issue, summarized: provide for a countywide mobility management program (MMP), make eligibility for transit funding be contingent upon participation in the MMP, examine local examples (Santa Clara County) of successful models, ensure existing programs will be kept whole during any transition period.  Status: County staff has been attending both West County and Central/East/ accessible transit meetings with the Authority, advocates, and transit operators on this issue. Discussions have been positive and will continue. There is general support with staff and the CCTA Board for the concepts in the County's November 2015 letter. Some concern during discussion at the Decebmer 2nd CCTA Planning Committee meeting was raised regarding the proposed requirement for transit funding, specifically that eligibility be contingent upon participation in countywide mobility management program. Staff is working to address this concern with Authority staff and will bring further recommendations to the BOS.  Improved Land Use Coordination: The Board requested that the Authority examine the possibility of TEP policies that support development which would reduce congestion.  TWIC Packet Page Number 31 of 83 Status: After initially receiving a somewhat negative response at the December 2nd Authority Planning Committee meeting, general support for the concept seems to be gaining momentum. At the February 3, 2016 Special TEP Authority Board meeting several board members advocated for policies that would support commercial development and jobs in the County. Two issues are discussed, the specific mechanism on how to support this type of development, and ensuring that there is a very clear transportation nexus. There is still substantial concern that, paraphrased is, "...as a transportation agency, the Authority should focus on purely transportation issues...." Conversion to Vehicle Miles Traveled Metric: The BOS requested that the Authority further examine local implication of a statewide shift away from level of service (LOS) as a traffic impact metric, to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).  Status: At the December 16, 2015 Authority Board meeting the Counties comment was acknowledge. Citing the VMT/LOS issue, the Authority made the decision to suspend development of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). CTP development will continue in 2017 and include a more comprehensive integration of VMT related issues.  Project Priorities: The Board included a list of priorities in our November 2015 communication as seen in the attached. Status: Specific projects have not yet been discussed during the TEP development process. Staff will continue to engage and pursue these priorities when appropriate. Bicycle Transportation Issues : The BOS commented that Contra Costa County has the lowest trip-by-bike rate in the Bay Area and that an "aspirational program" would be useful in improving this ranking. Status: This issue has been discussed between County and Authority staff, there was an acknowledgement that more leadership could be shown in this area. Due to an active advocate community, there is substantial dialog at the Authority regarding improvements to bicycle facilities. TEP Process Staff from the County and the Authority continue to communicate as necessary during the development of the TEP and ordinance if the effort is successful. During the December 2nd Authority Planning Committee meeting, the possibility of the need for a joint CCTA/Contra Costa County BOS meeting was raised. At least one such meeting was held during the Measure C to Measure J process. The Committee and the BOS may wish to discuss this. RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should DISCUSS local transportation issues of interest to the County and take ACTION as appropriate including making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at their March 1, 2016 meeting. 2) STATE Legislative Report Two reports from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, are attached. Mr. Watts will be present at the February meeting to discuss the state budget, Special Session/Conference Committee, and status of state transportation revenues. Please note in the February 2016 State Report the effect of the gas tax swap on funding as "catastrophic". Also attached is a California Transportation Commission Letter to the Legislature regarding the Transportation Funding Crisis. As of the writing of this report County staff is working with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to respond to this situation. An update will be provided at the February TWIC Meeting. TWIC Packet Page Number 32 of 83 - - - - - - - Transportation Funding/Project Impact: Again, the State gas tax swap is projected to result in the possible deletion or delay of the Contra Costa projects below in the State Transportation Improvement Program: Contra Costa County Contra Costa rail Walnut Creek BART TOD Intermodal Project 5,300  Contra Costa rail Hercules Railroad Station Building 5,100  Contra Costa 80 Central Ave Interchange, Phase 2 (Local Road Realign.)2,000  Contra Costa local Kirker Pass Rd, North Bound Truck Climbing Lane 2,650  Contra Costa 680 Southbound HOV Gap Closure, N Main-Livorna Road 15,557  Contra Costa 80 San Pablo Dam Road Interchange, Phase 2 9,200  Contra Costa 680 Route 4 Interchange, Widen Route 4, Phase 3 36,610  - - - - - - -  County Sponsored Legislation Senate Bill 632 (Cannella) Prima facie speed limits: schools: In 2015 Anthony Cannella sponsored this bill which is related to school zones. The original language was developed by the County. The bill was an outgrowth of the County's school siting and safety efforts. SB 632 allows local jurisdictions to expand school 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 has returned in 2016. Due to numerous technical issues raised in the legislation, it was referred to the California Traffic Control Devices Committee. The Committee took the issue up in December 2015 and formed a School Zone Subcommittee to address the issue. The subcommittee had a conference call on January 29th in which County staff participated. The Committee requested data and evidence supporting the need for the legislation. County staff's response to this request is attached. The Subcommittee is meeting again on February 9th to discuss the legislation. Other State Legislation of Interest to the County SB 313 (Monning) Local Government: Zoning Ordinances: School Districts: This bill was initiated as an agricultural preservation bill requiring school districts, when voting to prempt local city/county zoning ordinance, to make findings demonstrating why that preemption is necessary. This mechanism is similar, if not identical to language submitted by the County to the state legislature in 2014 as a part of our school siting reform efforts. This bill has a new author, previously carried by Cathleen Galgiani it is now lists Bill Monning as the sponsor. The County supported the bill when Galgiani was the sponsor, the recommendation is to again support the legislation. AB 1665 (Bonilla): Transactions and use taxes: County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority: This bill is addressed in the attached report from Mr. Watts. The bill will be addressed at the February 8th Legislation Committee meeting. Staff will report out the results of that discussion. AB 1592 (Bonilla): Autonomous Vehicles: Pilot Project: This bill is addressed in the attached report TWIC Packet Page Number 33 of 83 from Mr. Watts. CCTA has requested support from the County. A fact sheet on the bill is attached as is a draft letter for the Committees consideration. RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should DISCUSS state legislative activities of interest to the County, including specific recommendations noted above and take ACTION as appropriate. 3) FEDERAL No report in February.  RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any federal issues of note and ACTION as appropriate. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report above. Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact. Attachments CCC to CCTA Re: TEP - Nov 2015 2016 Transportation Bill Report February 2016 State Report DRAFT BOS Support Letter - AB 1592 AB 1592 Fact Sheet CCC 2016 Positions on Legislation of Interest CTC Letter to Legislature-State Trans Funding Crisis CCC Memo to CTCDC Re: School Zones TWIC Packet Page Number 34 of 83 The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553 John Gioia, 1" District Candace Andersen, 200 District Mary N. Piepho, 3nt District Karen Mitchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District November 3, 2015 Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Contra Costa County Subject: Transportation Expenditure Plan & Potential Sales Tax Measure Dear Chair Pierce: David Twa Clerk of the Board and County Administrator (925) 335-1900 On November 3, 2015, the Board of Supervisors (Board) approved the following comments be transmitted to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. This letter details our position on policies and funding levels for the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), currently under development by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority). At its September 15,2015 meeting the Board received a report on TEP issues and formally recommended the positions detailed below. This comment letter does not constitute an endorsement by the Board of the concept of a 2016 transportation sales tax. The Board will consider that broader issue at a future meeting in the context of the Board's assessment of the need for new funding for transportation and other services. Local Streets and Roads: As you are aware, the demand for increased maintenance funding is a national, statewide, and local problem. In reviewing data regarding the County's maintenance needs, it is clear that a substantial increase in Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements funding is necessary. An analysis performed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has shown that in unincorporated Contra Costa County over a 24 year period, we have a revenue shortfall of $442 million to address pavement and directly related non- pavement needs. Expanding on that analysis, assuming 30% revenues from a new TEP, TWIC Packet Page Number 35 of 83 Julie Pierce, Chair-CCTA November 3, 2015 Page2 o£8 there would continue to be a $350 million shortfall over the same period. These figures don't include the maintenance demand for the 111 bridges in unincorporated County. In addition to our current maintenance shortfall, we also have a need for more funding to implement and maintain complete street projects in our unincorporated communities to serve all of the users of our roads and enhance neighborhoods. Considering the above, the Board supports the funding levels for local streets and roads (maintenance and improvements) in a new TEP that the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) have taken. Specifically, SWAT at 25%-30%, TRANSPAC at 30%, TRANSPLAN at 30% and WCCTAC at 28%. This support includes complete streets concepts as detailed below. The Board recognizes the importance of improving and maintaining our local streets and roads for all modes of transportation. Recommendations from SWAT, TRANSPAC and WCCTAC include funding for complete streets and multi-modal projects within the local streets and roads category. TRANSPLAN recommends 30% for local streets maintenance and improvements and also recommends additional funding amounts for projects for bike and pedestrian improvements, safe transportation for schools as well as Transportation for Livable Communities. During our discussion on maintenance needs, the topic of progress at the state regarding transportation finance reform was considered. While the Board has hope that the State will reform transportation financing practices, our data show that even if the maximum funding increases considered during the recent special session of the State legislature were enacted, we would continue to have a substantial maintenance backlog. We understand there is an interest in establishing a reporting mechanism to provide additional accountability and tracking of maintenance funding. The Board is supportive of this and is willing to work with the Authority and other member agencies to develop a mechanism to ensure that maintenance expenditure practices are transparent. Accessible Services/Mobility Management/Paratransit: As we indicated in our October 21,2014 comment letter on the Countywide Transportation Plan, the issue of improvements to transit for the elderly and people with disabilities (accessible services) is a priority for the Board. This issue is longstanding; the Board made similar comments in 2002 during the effort to reauthorize Measure C. The Board is making these comments due to the forecasted growth of the target population1 and increasing costs2 . 1 65+ Bay Area population is forecasted to grow 137% by 2040. Data sources: 2010 Census, California Department ofFinance, ABAG 260% increase in paratransit cost per trip from 2004 to 2013 (average of all Contra Costa County transit agencies) Data source: 2004-2013 National Transit Database TWIC Packet Page Number 36 of 83 Julie Pierce, Chair-CCTA November 3, 2015 Page3 of 8 The Board believes this issue requires substantial, deliberate attention given that accessible transit responsibilities are diffused in Contra Costa County, making progress challenging. Accessible transit in the County consists of four different public Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) para transit providers, program specific transit providers, city-based providers and the County itself has certain transportation obligations related to health care and the Older Americans Act. This structure grew organically over time and as such, no single organization falls naturally into a leadership role. With the recommendations below, we want to provide a countywide direction and improve services to our shared constituency while providing much needed cost controls. In our October 2014 comment letter we indicated that accessible service would need, in addition to additional funding, fundamental administrative changes if we are to respond adequately in a cost-effective manner to the projected demand for service. The recommendations below build on those earlier comments and are consistent with the 2013 Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan (CCMMP), as well as the unfulfilled recommendations in the 2004 Contra Costa Paratransit Improvement Study. The recommendations in this letter and found in the CCMMP are also consistent with MTC's Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan Update for the Bay Area. The MTC Plan has the recommendation of "strengthening mobility management" which includes the designation of a Consolidated Transportation Services Agency3 (CTSA). The designation of a CTSA is also a recommendation in the 2013 CCMMP. The Board supports the following relative to accessible services in a new TEP: 1) The TEP should, in addition to providing additional operations funding, fund a countywide mobility management4 program as recommended in the CCMMP5• The CCMMP includes preliminary cost figures for implementation which may need to be refined as we move ahead. As implementation progresses, the Board strongly 3 CTSA: Adapted from several public sources: Created under AB 210 (1979-"Social Services Transportation Improvement Act"). The purpose of the Act was to improve the quality of transportation services to low mobility groups while achie\ing cost savings, lowered insurance premiums and more efficient use of vehicles and funding resources. The legislation took the middle course between absolutely mandating and simply facilitating the coordination of transportation services. Designation of CTSAs and implementation of other aspects of the Act were seen as a flexible mechanism to deal with the problem of inefficient or duplicative transportation services. 4 Mobility Management Defined: Mobility management (MM) is a strategic approach to the coordination of transportation service, revenue streams, technology implementation, and customer service. MM directs passengers to the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation option using information, incentives, and other voluntary measures. Best implemented on a larger scale, a mobility-managed service area provides a full range of well synchronized mobility services in a cost effective manner. 5 A small non-profit, "Mobility Matters" (formerly, "Senior Helpline Services") has begun providing some mobility management in Contra Costa County. However, that organization has limited funding thorough grants expiring in 2016. TRANSPAC provides Mobility Matters some Measure J funds (20a-Sr/Disabled Transportation) for a volunteer driver program. No Measure J funds are used for mobility management functions. TWIC Packet Page Number 37 of 83 Julie Pierce, Chair -CCTA November 3, 2015 Page4 of8 recommends consideration of a transition to the mobility management/brokerage6 model used in Santa Clara County. 2) Currently, Measure J has eligibility requirements placed on local jurisdictions in order to receive Local Streets & Maintenance funding. As mentioned in the Local Streets and Roads section above, additional requirements are being considered for supplementary maintenance funding. Similar to those requirements, the Board is proposing that eligibility for transit funding under a new TEP be contingent upon participation in the implementation of the mobility management program and other identified improvements to accessible services. 3) Implementing the service model proposed in #1 above is a substantial investment. We believe that the County and Authority Board members would benefit from a tour of the Santa Clara County accessible services operation, OUTREACH. The OUTREACH operation is non-profit based and is a national model for cost-effective procurement, contracting and operations7• During a time where our own transit operations show a trend of increasing costs, the OUTREACH model has shown reduced costs8• The Board is requesting attendance from Authority members on this tour tentatively scheduled for December. 4) One barrier to progress on this issue is the understandable resistance to any changes in service to a sensitive population. As we move ahead with this effort, an explicit commitment should be made by all agencies involved to insulate current accessible transit customers from service degradations or interruptions. The Authority should be aware that the Board is fully committed to pursuing improvements to accessible transit. The Santa Clara County mobility management/brokerage model includes County support by way of competitive pricing on vehicle maintenance, vehicle parking and bulk fuel purchases. The Board is currently exploring the possibility of duplicating that service in Contra Costa. Improved Land Use Coordination: In our October 2014letter and at our September 15th discussion, the Board discussed the need for economic development and balancing jobs 6 A mobility management operation can, over time, transition to a "brokerage" model. A brokerage model splits functions related to ADA paratransit/accessible service with a transit agency. Those functions span a continuum starting with administrative responsibilities (contracting with service providers, monitoring performance, customer service) all the way up to a full service brokerage (central call center/dispatch, management of a coordinated system, etc). Adapted from FTA Report #0081, "Accessible Services for All": http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents. 'FTA Reoort No. 0081.odf#nage=39 7 Federal Transit Administration, "Accessible Transit Services for All" December 2014 www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FT A Reoort No. 0081.pdf#page=246 8 19% decrease in cost per trip from 2004 to 2013 Data source: 2004-2013 National Transit Database TWIC Packet Page Number 38 of 83 Julie Pierce, Chair-CCTA November 3, 2015 PageS of8 and housing to make more efficient use of our transportation infrastructure. The following statistics underscore the structural problems that challenge our transportation network as well the potential benefits of addressing these problems: 1) The five cities in the Bay Area with the longest commute times are all in Contra Costa County9; 2) Contra Costa is second only to Solano for having the lowest number of jobs relative to housing10 and is forecast to be the only County in the Bay Area with fewer jobs than housing units in 2040 11 ; and 3) Travel patterns are imbalanced resulting in substantially underutilized infrastructure. For example, State Route 4 in East Contra Costa County carries approximately 2.3 times as many vehicles in the commute direction as in the non-commute direction12 • Long and congested commute patterns cause residents to spend more of their time commuting than in other, more valuable activities and contribute substantially to unhealthful and climate-altering emissions. A primary cause of this unbalanced, inefficient and resource-intensive transportation pattern is that it can be difficult to find jobs and housing in close proximity, or to find jobs and housing connected by transit. The potential sales tax measure now under consideration may present an opportunity to better address a root cause of the transportation challenges we face. The Board would like to discuss with the Authority and other stakeholders the possibility of developing policies in the TEP for promoting development that reduces congestion and makes better use of transit and other existing infrastructure. We propose that conversation include two types of approaches: a) funding allocations; and b) new policy incentives. To stimulate discussion, we have included some initial ideas below on each of these two approaches. We would welcome a discussion on these and other ideas that others may have. Initial Ideas on the Funding Allocation Approach: The TEP could allocate a portion of the future funds to a congestion reduction program related to stimulating certain types of new development. Funds for such a program could be used to stimulate certain infill and other development that demonstrates positive impacts on the transportation system, such as reduced demand on the most congested freeways and roads, better 9 MTC's "Vital Signs": Oakley, Brentwood, Antioch, Hercules, Pittsburg 10 ABAG : San Francisco Bay Area: State of the Region: Economy/Population/Housing-2015 (Figure 4 .27 (Jobs to Housing Ratio, Bay Area Counties)) 11 ABAG: Draft Plan Bay Area: Forecast of Jobs, Population, & Housing, March 2013 (Table 14 (SF Bay Area County Housing and Job Growth, 2010-2040)) 12 MTC's Vital Signs TWIC Packet Page Number 39 of 83 Julie Pierce, Chair -CCTA November 3, 2015 Page 6 of 8 utilization of transit, greater off-peak utilization, reduced average commute times, and reduction of out-of-county commute trips. This could take the form of development in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) near transit or other types of development that achieve the demand reduction goal. For Contra Costa County, jobs/housing balance is a key concern. A focus on developing employment centers that would offer well-paying jobs proximate to housing (i.e. priority industrial areas or priority employment areas) could have merit. Stimulating development that establishes well-paying jobs in East County, for example, could reduce strain on Highway 4, offer a far easier commute for East County residents and make better use of prior transportation investments by stimulating the counter commute. Subject to feasibility studies, demonstration of congestion reduction, and Authority approvai, iocal jurisdictions could request funding for projects that would stimulate development that would reduce congestion. Such investments could include transportation infrastructure (e.g. improvements to transit and roadways in areas targeted for job growth). However, to realize the congestion reduction benefit of the desired development, a broader range of investments could be considered, such as advanced telecommunication/broadband infrastructure, water, sewer, power, impact fee offsets, land assembly, or other investments. The analysis should consider not only the direct growth in jobs (and housing) likely to result from the investment, but also the net growth in jobs (certain jobs such as advanced manufacturing can have relatively high job multipliers). Initial Ideas on the Policy Incentives Approach: The TEP might include additional policy incentives to promote infill and other development that reduces congestion. For example, the TEP could include incentives for local agencies to adopt and implement certain land-use policies such as PDAs, priority industrial areas or priority employment areas, greater density along transit or employment targets. Alternatively, incentives could be linked to certain TEP funding categories. For instance, economic development/jobs-housing balance/congestion reduction goals could be criteria for allocating funding to any competitively awarded pots of funds. Finally, the Board hopes there can be a discussion regarding if and how the potential measure can address the fundamental shifts in the statewide transportation planning and funding landscape resulting from recent landmark greenhouse gas reduction legislation (for instance the State's replacement of the Level of Service (LOS) metric with a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) metric). At this time, it may be appropriate to consider revisions to the Authority's Growth Management Program and Technical Procedures that would incrementally and strategically adapt to the new VMT standard while maintaining the local benefits of the current LOS standard. TWIC Packet Page Number 40 of 83 Julie Pierce, Chair-CCTA November 3, 2015 Page 7 of 8 The Board would welcome discussion on these and other ideas related to these challenging land use and transportation issues. Bicycle Transportation Issues: Contra Costa County currently has the lowest rate of trips-by-bike rate in the Bay Area according to the MTC 13 • Please consider a strategic approach to developing and prioritizing bicycle project and program activities to reverse this rate to improve the County's ranking. One component of that strategic approach could be to further expand and improve the County's network of separated, Class I trails. These facilities often have a substantial number of users, traveling at varying speeds, on a single path. For example, a "bicycle expressway" could be a separate project in the Iron Horse corridor that would accommodate faster cyclists. This would increase usage, safety, and comfort for both cyclists and pedestrians and merits consideration during development of the TEP. Major Projects: The following is an update to the Board's priority project list transmitted in our October 2014 comment letter. The Board also intends on pursuing these priorities at the appropriate Regional Transportation Planning Committees. The TriLink/State Route 239: This project continues to be a priority. In the interest of advancing a project within a shorter time frame, the Board is requesting that the Vasco- Byron Highway connector phase be prioritized in the TriLink program of projects. The Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lanes: This project addresses congestion and safety along in this critical TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN connector road. The northbound project, estimated to cost $18 million, is scheduled for construction in 2018 and will provide a northbound truck climbing lane and paved shoulders for future Class II bike lanes between Clearbrook Drive in the City of Concord and the easternmost Hess Road intersection in the unincorporated area. The project is needed to improve safety for motorists and bicyclists along this stretch of road that experiences high truck traffic and is a major commute corridor between Central and East County. With sustained grades steeper than eight percent, trucks are unable to match the speed of other vehicles on the roadway, causing significant congestion and creating a safety hazard. The southbound project will add a truck climbing lane in the opposite direction and is estimated to cost over $20 million. There is no date yet for construction, but project development activities are expected to be started within the next few years. Capitol Corridor Voucher Program: This is a new proposed program that the Board is requesting WCCTAC and CCTA explore. WCCTAC is currently involved in a high capacity transit study that would explicitly or effectively extend BART service in West 13 MTC: Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area-2009 Update. TWIC Packet Page Number 41 of 83 Julie Pierce, Chair -CCTA November 3, 2015 Page 8of8 Contra Costa County. Given that a service expansion of this type is typically a long-term process; a more immediate solution should be considered. The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) currently operates the Capitol Corridor service through Contra Costa County. In order to provide some service increase to West Contra Cost residents in the short term, a TEP-funded, Capitol Corridor voucher program for Contra Costa residents should be considered. The CCJP A is currently involved in a Capitol Corridor Vision Planning process, which calls for coordination with WCCTAC and CCTA relative to the high capacity transit study. Either the CCJPA planning process or the WCCTAC High Capacity Transit Study may be an appropriate mechanism by which to explore this concept. Marsh Creek Trail: The Board also suggests consideration of an emerging transportation project: a multi-use path in the Marsh Creek corridor that would connect east and west County on or near Marsh Creek Road. This project is in the concept stage and discussion among local jurisdictions has begun. The project would be a significant community asset and may mature enough in the next year to warrant eligibility for funding. The following projects continue to be a priority: North Richmond Truck Route, I- 680 HOV Gap Closure, Iron Horse/Lafayette-Moraga Trail Connector, Vasco Road Safety Improvements, and Northern Waterfront Goods Movement Infrastructure. The Board of Supervisors greatly appreciates staff and consultant assistance during our deliberations on TEP development. We look forward to your response and additional engagement on this critical issue. Sincerely, Gioia, Chair ra Costa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District I C: David Twa, County Adntinistrator Sharon Anderson, County Counsel Julie Bueren, Director-Public Works Department John Kopchik, Director -Conservation and Development Patricia Tanquary, CEO -Contra Costa Health Plan Sherry McCoy, Chair-WCCTAC Don Tatzin, Chair-SWAT Robert Taylor, Chair, TRANSPLAN Loella Haskew, Chair-TRANSPAC TWIC Packet Page Number 42 of 83 Smith, Watts &Hartmann, LLC. Consulting and Governmental Relations 980 Ninth Street, Suite 2000  Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508  Fax: (916) 266-4580   MEMORANDUM    TO:  John Cunningham    FROM:  Mark Watts    DATE:  January 26, 2016    SUBJECT: Legislation of Interest      Presented below are brief summaries of newly introduced 2016 legislation for your consideration.  These include two bills, AB 1665 (Bonilla) and AB 1592 (Bonilla). In addition, I have provided  summaries of the two recently introduced transportation funding bills, AB 1591 (Frazier) and the  Governor’s’ Transportation Budget Plan (waiting for it to be available in print); I have not made  recommendations for these, but the information provided would be a usable guide for Board  discussion.      In addition, accompanying this memo is a broader overview of where the Transportation Funding  legislative process and proposals stand as of now.     AB 1665 (Bonilla)      Status: Introduced, January 6, 2016; may be heard February 6.    Summary: In 2013 AB 210 included a provision to allow Contra Costa County to adopt an ordinance  proposing the imposition of a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation  programs at a rate of no more than 0.50% that, in combination with other specified taxes, exceeds  the 2% statutory limitation.   AB 1665 (Bonilla) would additionally authorize this same taxing authority for a countywide  transportation program to be available to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, as well as the  County, and extend the period of authorization from 2020 to 2024.     The bill further proposes to replace the County as the entity to impose the tax with the  Transportation Authority    Recommendation: Committee Discussion    AB 1592 (Bonilla)     Status: Introduced, January 14, 2016; may be heard February 14.    TWIC Packet Page Number 43 of 83 2 Summary: This measure would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to conduct a pilot  project for the testing of autonomous vehicles if the testing is conducted only ay (1) a business park  designated by the authority and (2) the GoMentum Station; it further requires that the autonomous  vehicle may only operate at speeds of less than 35 miles per hour.    Current law authorizes autonomous cars to operate on public roads for testing purposes, but under  limiting conditions that include: (1) a driver is seated in the driver’s seat and must be capable of  taking control of the vehicle, (2) the vehicle must have a steering wheel, and (3) the vehicle has brake  pedals and an accelerator that can be controlled by the vehicle operator. Because the vehicles that  the Authority would like to test are not so equipped, this bill is necessary to permit operation on  portions of public roads at the facilities enumerated in the bill.    Recommendation: Support    Governor’s Transportation Funding Plan:    Governor Brown has formalized the proposal he rolled out last September by incorporating it into the  state budget he unveiled earlier this month. This plan would generate approximately $3.6 billion  annually and includes a number of protections and reforms called for by various Republicans last  year.    Key Revenue elements:    • Road Improvement Charge – $2 billion from a new $65 fee on all vehicles, including hybrids  and electrics;  • Stabilize Gasoline Excise Tax – $500 million by setting the gasoline excise tax beginning in  2017‐18 at the historical average of 18 cents, eliminating the current annual adjustments, and  adjusting the tax annually for inflation;  • Diesel Excise Tax – $500 million from an 11‐cent increase in the diesel excise tax beginning in  2017‐18, adjusted annually for inflation;  • Cap and Trade – $500 million (see below) in additional Cap and Trade proceeds for complete  streets and transit; and,  • Caltrans Efficiencies – $100 million in cost‐saving reforms.    Key Reform Elements:    Streamlined Project Delivery   • Limited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption;   • Removes the sunset date for the federal delegation of environmental reviews so they can be  completed concurrent with the state review;  •  Advance project environmental mitigation to get early buy‐in on activities and reduce late  challenges that delay projects;   Innovative procurement methods,   • Authorizes additional projects (6) for procurement by Caltrans using the Construction  Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) process.   • Extension of P3 law through 2027.   TWIC Packet Page Number 44 of 83 3     Key Transit Elements:    The transportation‐funding package would provide these additional amounts for transit and  alternative fuel vehicles:  • Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program – $400 million (for $600 million total)  • New Low Carbon Road Program (Complete Streets) – $100 million  • Low Carbon Transportation – $500 million    AB 1591 (Frazier)    Mr. Frazier has been meeting with transportation stakeholders during the legislative interim recess to  gather input for his transportation proposal. Assemblymember Frazier’s proposal (AB 1591) was  introduced in January and his office indicates that it is intended to raise more than $7 billion annually  to be used for trade corridor improvements and road maintenance and rehabilitation.  Key Revenue elements:    Gas Tax:   Increases the excise tax on gasoline by 22.5 cents per gallon    Indexes the gas tax using the Consumer Price Index every three years thereafter;   9.5 cents used to restore funding lost from declining tax revenues due to rate adjustments by  the Board of Equalization.   Revenue raised from the gas tax increase (over $3.3 billion annually) will be split 50/50  between the state and local agencies;   A nominal portion is aside to encourage state‐local partnerships.     Diesel Tax:   Increases the diesel fuel tax by 30 cents a gallon, also indexed.    Revenues of $840 million annually will be directed to the state's trade corridors    Registration Fee:     Increases the vehicle registration fee by $38 annually (just over 10 cents a day).   Directs those funds ($1.254 billion) to road maintenance and rehabilitation.     EV Fee (Surcharge):     Imposes an electric vehicle surcharge of $165;    Cap and Trade:     20% (approximately $400 million annually) for major freight corridors. Communities near our  major freight corridors have borne the brunt of the nation's goods movement system.   TWIC Packet Page Number 45 of 83 4  10% ($200 million) more for intercity rail and transit, for a total of 20% of the auction  proceeds.     Truck Weight Fees:     Restoring the truck weight fees, which directs $1 billion to the State Highway Account        TWIC Packet Page Number 46 of 83 Smith, Watts &Hartmann, LLC. Consulting and Governmental Relations 925 L Street, Suite 220  Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508  Fax: (916) 266-4580   MEMORANDUM    TO:  John Cunningham    FROM:  Mark Watts    DATE:  January 26, 2016    SUBJECT: TWIC Report:    Transportation Funding, Special Session and the State Budget        This report provides an overview of the past year’s activities related to transportation funding, as well  as an overview of the current state of activity.     Recap of 2015 Activities    Legislative Special Session.     In late June, the Governor accompanied by legislative leadership, announced the formation of a  Legislative Special Session on Transportation & Infrastructure. As is typically the case, this Special  Session ran concurrently with the regular session, and the main advantage of such a Session is that it  is free from many of the normal legislative deadlines and rules.    In late summer, the Special Session committee hearings were conducted to consider several bills  introduced at that time; prominent among these were SBX1 1 (Beall) and SCAX1 1 (Huff). Senator  Beall’s bill provided a funding framework that would generate $4.3 billion, annually, while the  measure by Senator Huff was a constitutional amendment to “lock‐box” the new revenues that might  emerge from the Special Session.     Transportation & Infrastructure Conference Committee.     During the Interim Recess (Fall) a Conference Committee was established and two conference  committee meetings were conducted. Although these hearings were very well attended by industry  and transportation stakeholders, little or no action was taken by the conference committee  members.     Governor’s Initial Transportation Funding Proposal.   As the regular legislative session wound down in September, Governor Brown unveiled a $3.6 billion  funding proposal that he indicated he would approve if the Legislature adopted it. A strong coalition  of transportation stakeholders, Fix Our Roads, lead by the California Alliance for Jobs, cities, counties  TWIC Packet Page Number 47 of 83 2 and including others, provided public support for the Governor’s proposal, which included many TV  and press interviews.   While the legislature was adjourned in the final three months of the year, the Fix Our Roads coalition  partners met regularly with conference chairs, Senator Jim Beall and Assemblymember Jimmy  Gomez, and various members of the Conference Committee to prepare for a renewed effort in 2016.   Current Developments, 2016  2016‐17 State Budget released.   Governor Brown proposed in early January a $122.6 billion General Fund budget plan for 2016‐17  that makes significant increases in funding for education, health care and state infrastructure, while  bolstering the state's Rainy Day Fund and paying down state debts and liabilities.   The Governor's budget proposes a supplemental deposit of $2 billion into the state's Rainy Day Fund ‐  this increases the balance from 37 percent today to 65 percent of its constitutional target of 10% of  the General Fund. Building up the fund is a key policy goal of the Governor to hold off deep budget  cuts in the next economic downturn.   He also indicated during his presentation that his administration had been planning for the  impending end of the Prop 30 taxes by doing multi‐year forecasts and assuming it is not re‐ enacted.  Essentially, his team structured the Proposition so that there would be a step down in revenues, with  half the sales tax component midway through the fiscal year, then hit fully in the next year; the same  approach applies to the personal income tax, which ends in 2018.   Governor Brown’s Transportation Budget Proposal.   In the meantime, Governor Brown has formalized the proposal he rolled out last September by  incorporating it into the state budget he unveiled earlier this month. His plan remains at  approximately $3.6 billion and includes a number of protections and reforms suggested by the  Republican Caucuses last year. It appears the Governor has put his transportation plan into the  budget as a demonstration of his interest in helping to reach agreement on a funding solution,   Price Based Gas Tax Adjustment (Tax Swap).   The Transportation Commission has recently alerted the transportation community at public  meetings about the shortcomings of annual gas tax swap and how it affects the State Transportation  Improvement Program (STIP, for short), as well as city/county roads and state repairs.  With the  sustained, relatively low price of fuel, the swap mechanism exacerbates the funding picture by  reducing transportation revenue at a time when we need to increase investment in our mobility  system.         As the Commission considers the upcoming five‐year STIP for 2016, the effect of this swap  mechanism on a portion of the existing gas taxis projected to be catastrophic.  As a result of reduced  revenue due to the swap, $876 million in 2015 alone, the 2016 Fund Estimate adopted by the CTC in  August included virtually no money for new projects in the updated program.  Now, the Department  TWIC Packet Page Number 48 of 83 3 of Finance is estimating a further reduction in the excise tax for the coming year and that has  prompted Caltrans to prepare a revised fund estimate reflecting the additional decline in revenue.   The Commission adopted these revisions at its January meeting.      Last year, due to declining prices, the BOE reduced the gas excise tax by 6 cents (bringing it to 12  cents), generating a loss of almost $1 billion in revenue this year and if BOE uses the same formula it  has been using to calculate its next annual adjustment, it will trigger an additional 3 cents reduction  effective July 1, which would create another reduction of about $450 million.   The Governor’s funding proposal includes a plan to replace the tax swap by setting the gas tax at 18  cents (its historical average) and then applying an index annually tied to the CPI.   Revised Senate Plan (SBX1 1, Beall).   Senate Transportation & Housing Chair Jim Beall has also been working on a bill since last April. As co‐ chair of the conference committee, he has continued to refine and amend his bill to reflect  discussions he has had with Senate Republicans, the environmental community and others. It is  anticipated that Senator Beall will amend his present bill, SBX1 1, within the next week after he has  had opportunity to present his proposal to the Democratic caucus. His new bill will be larger than the  $3.6 billion package that the Governor unveiled last September.   New Assembly Plan (AB 1591, Frazier).   Assembly Transportation Chair Jim Frazier has been meeting with numerous transportation  stakeholders throughout the state in an effort to gather input for a transportation proposal he has  been working on for more than a year.   Frazier’s proposal was released as AB 1591 a day before the Governor released his 2016/17‐budget  plan. According to Frazier, AB 1591 will raise more than $7 billion annually to be used for trade  corridor improvements and road maintenance and rehabilitation.             TWIC Packet Page Number 49 of 83 1 The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553-1293 John Gioia, 1st District Candace Andersen, 2nd District Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District Karen Mitchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District   February 3, 2016    Honorable Susan A. Bonilla   California State Assembly, 14th District  State Capitol, Room 4140  Sacramento, CA 95814‐4900    Re:  AB 1592 (Bonilla) Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Project – SUPPORT     Dear Assemblywoman Bonilla:    On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, I am writing to express our support for AB 1592 (Bonilla),  which would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to conduct a pilot project for the testing of  shared autonomous vehicles not equipped with a steering wheel, brake pedal, or  operator.      California is on the cusp of transforming everyday transportation, increasing road safety, improving traffic congestion  and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.  However, it is critical that the state is committed to supporting the growth  of advanced technologies to ensure that California remains a global leader in innovation and becomes a potential  hotbed for investment, development and job creation.       In 2012, Senate Bill 1298 was signed into law, authorizing the operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads for  testing purposes and requiring the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to adopt regulations by January  2015.  While DMV is still drafting the final regulations for the full deployment of autonomous vehicles on public roads, it  is imperative that research, development and testing of such rapidly advancing technologies are not stalled.           AB 1592 supports safe testing of low‐speed, multi‐passenger, electric autonomous vehicles at GoMentum Station – the  largest secure transportation technology proving grounds in the nation, and a private business park in Contra Costa  County, to be designated by CCTA.     Contra Costa County is proud to support AB 1592 (Bonilla) which will help cultivate safe, innovative, convenient, and  complementary modes of transportation in our community.  I would like to thank you for your leadership on this  important policy matter and if you have any questions, please contact John Kopchik, Director of Conservation and  Development at 925‐674‐7819 or john.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us.     Sincerely,        Candace Andersen  Chair  Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors    David Twa Clerk of the Board and County Administrator (925) 335-1900 Contra Costa County TWIC Packet Page Number 50 of 83 AB 1592: Advancing the Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Contact: Ryan Morimune or Luis Quinonez, Office of Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla, (916) 319-2014, ryan.morimune@asm.ca.gov or luis.quinonez@asm.ca.gov Summary: AB 1592 will authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to conduct a pilot project for the testing of electric, low-speed, multi-passenger autonomous vehicles. Background: With the advent of autonomous vehicles and the rapid development of autonomous technologies and connected vehicle applications, California is on the cusp of transforming everyday transportation, increasing road safety and improving mobility. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a public agency which is spearheading the testing and development of autonomous and connected vehicle technologies in Northern California. As a regional leader in transportation, CCTA developed GoMentum Station at the 5,000 acre, former United States Navy weapons station in Concord, CA, where the convergence of automobile manufacturers, communications companies, technology companies, researchers and public agencies are testing next generation transportation technologies that will redefine mobility. Need for legislation: In 2012, Senate Bill 1298 was signed into law, authorizing the operatation of autonomous vehicles on public roads for testing purposes. This bill required the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to adopt regulations for the operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, including any testing, equipment, performance, and insurance standards no later than January 1, 2015. In September 2014, DMV enacted regulations setting forth the requirments for testing autonomous vehicles, but they are still drafting the final set of regulations for the full deployment of autonomous vehicles for public operation. CCTA currently hosts autonomous vehicle testing at GoMentum Station because it is a private, secure facility located within the Concord Naval Weapons Station. CCTA is planning to expand their testing program, but current law does not authorize the operation of autonomous vehicles without a steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator, and operator on public roads, even if they intersect private property. AB 1592 authorizes CCTA to continue to cultivate safe, convenient, innovative, complementary and alternative modes of transportation at GoMentum Station and a private business park within Contra Costa County, designated by CCTA. For California to remain on the cutting edge of transportation technology and a potential hotbed for investment, development, and new jobs, it is imperative that the State continues to support the growth of testing programs that advance autonomous vehicle technology. This bill: Specifically, this bill:  Authorizes CCTA to conduct a pilot project for the testing of autonomous vehicles not equipped with a steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator or operator.  The autonomous vehicle shall operate at speeds less than 35 miles per hour.  Testing shall be conducted only at GoMentum Station at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station and a privately owned business park designated by CCTA, including any public roads intersecting the designated property. TWIC Packet Page Number 51 of 83 Support:  Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Sponsor) Contact: Ryan Morimune Office of Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla 916-319-2014 ryan.morimune@asm.ca.gov Luis Quinonez Office of Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla 916-319-2014 luis.quinonez@asm.ca.gov TWIC Packet Page Number 52 of 83 Adopted Positions on Legislation of Interest – 2016 (Information Updated from Last Month is in bold/italics) Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes AB 1 a (Alejo) Transportation funding Watch Watch AB 2 (Alejo) Community Revitalization Authority Staff Recommendation: Watch Watch Support AB 2a (Perea) Transportation projects: comprehensive lease agreements Watch Watch AB 4 (Linder) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service Watch Watch Support & Seek Amendment AB 6 (Wilk) Bonds: Transportation: School Facilities Watch Watch AB 8 (Gatto) Emergency Services: Hit-and-Run Incidents Pending Watch AB 21 (Perea) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit: Scoping Plan Staff Recommendation: Watch Support ??? AB 23 (Patterson) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Staff Recommendation: Watch Oppose (Martinson) Pending; (Keene) Pending Watch AB 33 (Quirk) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Scoping Plan (Martinson) Pending; (Keene) Pending Watch AB 148 (Holden) School Facilities: General Obligation Bond Measure Watch AB 157 (Levin) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Staff Recommendation: Watch Staff Recommendation: Support Watch Support & Seek Amendment AB 1591 (Frazier) Transportation Funding (Road Maintenance Rehab Program/ AB 194 (Frazier) High-occupancy toll lanes Staff Recommendation: Support Watch Watch Support AB 227 (Alejo) Transportation funding Pending Watch Support TWIC Packet Page Number 53 of 83 Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes AB 518 (Frazier) Department of Transportation Watch Watch AB 1265 (Perea) Transportation projects: comprehensive development lease agreements Watch Support AB 1284 (Baker) Bay Area state-owned toll bridges: Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee Staff Recommendation: Watch Watch AB 1344 (Jones) County office of education: charter schools Staff Recommendation of Oppose Oppose Oppose AB 1659 (Rodriguez) Vehicles: Prima Facie Speed Limits: Schools WAS: SB 632 (Cannella) Vehicles: prima facie speed limits: schools. Support Support? Watch Legislation based on CCC proposal AB 1665 (Bonilla) Transactions and use taxes: County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Pending Watch AB 1592 (Bonilla) Autonomous Vehicles: Pilot Project SB 1 (Gaines) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Staff Recommendation: Watch Oppose (Martinson) Pending; (Keene) Pending Watch SB 1 a (Beall) Transportation funding Support Support SB 5 (Vidak) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Staff Recommendation: Watch Oppose (Martinson) Pending; (Keene) Pending Watch SB 8 (Hertzberg) Taxation Pending Watch SB 9 (Beall) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Staff Recommendation: Watch Watch Watch SB 16 (Beall) Transportation funding Staff Recommendation: Watch Support Support Staff Recommendation: Support and Seek Amendments TWIC Packet Page Number 54 of 83 Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes SB 32 (Pavley) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit Support (Martinson) Pending; (Keene) Pending Watch SB 39 (Pavley) Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Watch Watch Oppose SB 40 (Gaines) Air Quality Improvement Program: Vehicle Rebates Pending Watch SB 114 (Liu) Education facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016 Staff Recommendation of Watch Watch SB 313 (Monning) Local government: zoning ordinances: school districts Support Support Watch SB 491 (Committee on Transportation and Housing) Omnibus bill Staff Recommendation: Watch Watch Watch SB 654 (De Leon) Hazardous waste: facilities permitting Watch Watch CA ACA 4 (Frazier) Local government transportation projects: special taxes: voter approval Staff Recommendation: Watch Staff Recommendation: Support (Holzem) Watch; (Buss) Support Support Staff Recommendation: Support SCA 1 a (Huff) Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures. Support in Concept Watch SCA 7 (Huff) Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures (Holzem) Watch; (Buss) Support Watch G:\Transportation\Legislation\2016\Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2016.docx TWIC Packet Page Number 55 of 83 LUCETIA DUNN, Chair BOB ALVARADO, Vice Chair DARIUS ASSEMI YVONNE B. BURKE JAMES EARP JAMES C. GHIELMETII CARL GUARDINO FRAN INMAN CHRISTINE KEHOE JAMES MADAFFER JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE SENATOR JIM BEALL, Ex Officio ASSEMBLY MEMBER JIM FRAZIER, Ex Officio Will Kempton, Executive Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMU ND G. BROWN Jr., Governor C ALIFORN IA T RAN SPORTAT ION COMMIS SI O N 1120 N STREET, MS-52 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 P. 0. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 FAX (916) 653-2134 (916) 654-4245 http://www.catc.ca.gov State Transportation Funding Crisis C ontinues to W orse n January 27,2016 Members, California State Legislature: This letter is to inform you of recent actions by the California Transportation Commission (Commission) that will reduce funding for state transportation projects by three-quarters of a billion dollars over the next five years. On top of an already significant shortfall in funding for repairs to our existing system, th e Commission recently approved a reduced estimate of $754 million to the funds expected to be available over the five-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) period. This means that in addition to no new projects for the upcoming STIP , programmed projects must be deleted or delayed. The effect of this reduction on the state's transportation system will be nothing short of catastrophic. Attached is a list of those projects that may be delayed or removed from the new STIP in each legislative district. The Commission strongly urges legislators to work together to develop a compromise that will result in a significant down payment on our transportation infrastructure needs and provide for meaningful reforms to the state's transportation program. Failure to act and to act quickly will have serious consequences for the future of California. Sincerely, \,I<~Jf;~ L UC Ef* A DUNN Chair . c::;:--.:> ,--·-'1 ~~o.-r- JAi1Es EARP Member ~~~~ CHRISTINE KEHOE Member ~ BOB ALVARADO Vice Chair . l / . ...-I / j ' '-----:/V L--"----- JAMES C. GHIELMETTI Member ~~ f AMES MADAFFER Member "--(/ v #~"' .;: :;-,.__ ..c:J. At:.r ~/V... j~VONNE B. BURKE DARIUS ASSEMI Member Member Member Member Member TWIC Packet Page Number 56 of 83 Honorable Members ofthe California State Legis lature January 27, 2016 Page 2 of2 c: Brian Kelly, Secretary, California State Transportation Agency Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation Executive Directors, Metropolitan Planning Organizations Executive Directors, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies Matt Cate, Executive Director, California State Association of Counties Chris McKenzie, Executive Director, League of California Cities TWIC Packet Page Number 57 of 83 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Projects at Risk for STIP Deletion or Delay Total Programmed Assembly Senate County Route Project Title ($thousands) District(s) District(s) Alameda rail Daly City BART Station lntermodallmprovements * 200 19 11 Alameda 84 East-West Connector in Fremont * 12,000 20 10 Alameda/Contra Costa 680 Freeway Performance Initiative, Phase 2 4,000 20,27 10,15 Alameda/Contra Costa rail BART Station Modernization Program * 16,726 15,16 7,9 Alameda/Santa Clara rail Oakland to San Jose Double Track, Segment 2A 7,000 18,20, 9,10,15 27,28 Alpine loc Hot Springs Creek Bridge Replacement 265 71 38 Alpine loc Hot Springs Road Reconstruction 340 71 38 Amador 88 Pine Grove Improvements * 3,951 5 8 Butte loc Midway Bridges Across Butte Creek, Replacement * 1,499 3 4 Butte 70 Passing Lanes, Cox-Palermo, Segment 2 * 3,000 3 4 Butte 70 Passing Lanes, Palermo-Ophir, Segment 1 * 22,400 3 4 Calaveras 4 Wagon Trail Expressway * 5,235 5 8 Calaveras 4 Wagon Trail Expressway (Programmed in Alpine) 1,400 5 8 Colusa loc Citywide, Various locations, Rehabilitation and Pedestrian Safety 700 3,4 4 Contra Costa rail Walnut Creek BART TOO lntermodal Project * 5,300 16 7 Contra Costa rail Hercules Railroad Station Building 5,100 . 15 9 Contra Costa 80 Central Ave Interchange, Phase 2 (Local Road Realign.) * 2,000 15 9 Contra Costa loc Kirker Pass Rd, North Bound Truck Climbing Lane * 2,650 14 7 Contra Costa 680 Southbound HOV Gap Closure, N Main-Livorna Road * 15,557 16 7 Contra Costa 80 San Pablo Dam Road Interchange, Phase 2 * 9,200 15 9 Contra Costa 680 Route 4 Interchange, Widen Route 4, Phase 3 * 36,610 14 7 ElDorado so W Placerville Interchanges, Ray Lawyer Dr Interchange, Phase 2 * 5,542 7 1 Fresno 41 Excelsior Expressway, Wid en to 4 Lanes * 2,142 31 14 Fresno 180 New freeway, Segment 3: Smith Ave-Frankwood Ave * 49,400 23 8,14 Glenn loc Lassen Street, Sycamore-Wood St, Reconstruction 503 3 4 Glenn loc County Roads 306-200-305, Rehabilitation 1,050 3 4 Glenn loc Sixth Street, South City Limit-North City Limit, Rehab. 350 3 4 Glenn loc Tehama Street, UPRR-Woodward Ave, Reconstruct 750 3 4 Glenn loc Road M 1/2, Route 32-Bryant Street, Reconstruct 630 3 4 Humboldt 101 Eureka-Arcata Corridor Improvement 30,000 2 2 Humboldt loc Highland and Koster Rehab ilitation 400 2 2 Humboldt loc Hawthorne, Felt & 14th Street Rehabilitation 400 2 2 Humboldt 101 Eureka-Arcata Corridor-Mitigation 3,000 2 2 Imperial 8 Imperial Avenue Interchange, Reconstruct * 33,650 56 40 In yo 395 Olancha-Cartage 4-Lane Expressway 88,500 26 8 lnyo loc Seibu Lane, Paiute Reservation-Schools, Bike Path 480 26 8 lnyo 395 Olancha-Cartage Archaeologica l Pre-Mitigation 5,000 26 8 Kern 58 Westside Parkway Connector * 33,001 34 16 Kern 46 Widen to 4 Lanes, Segment 4A, Lost Hill Rd-East of 1-5 * 4,100 32 16 Kern 14 Kern, Freeman Gulch Widening, Segment 1 * 31,088 34 16 Kern 14 Kern, Freeman Gulch Widening, Segment 2 * 7,610 34 16 Kings 198 12th Avenue Interchange, Hanford, Landscaping 1,376 32 14 Lake 29 Widen to 4 Lanes, Segment 2C * 24,027 4 2 Lake loc Lakeport Blvd at S. Main St, Improve Intersection * 194 4 2 Lake loc S. Main Street, Lakeport-Route 175, Widen, Bike Lane * 4,369 4 2 Lake loc Soda Bay Road, Route 175-Manning Creek, Widen, Bike lane 662 4 2 Lassen loc County Rehab B (Pumpkin Center, Ash Valley Roads) * 1,950 1 1 California Transportation Commission 1of5 January 27, 2016 TWIC Packet Page Number 58 of 83 Total Programmed Assembly Senate County Route Project Title ($thousands) District(s) District(s) Lassen foe City Street Rehabilitation 1,846 1 1 Lassen foe City Street Rehabilitation 955 1 1 Lassen foe City Street Rehabilitation 956 1 1 Lassen foe City Street Rehabilitation 2,320 1 1 Lassen foe Beaver Creek Bridge #7C-82 (Hwy Bridge Program Match), Replace * 254 1 1 Lassen foe Center Road, Route 395-Johnstonville Road, Reconstruct 2,890 1 1 Lassen foe New Main Street-Johnstonvi lle Road Connection 100 1 1 Lassen foe Skyline Road East/Extensi on, Phase 2 3,900 1 1 Los Angeles gsep Burbank Airport/Rail Station Pedestrian Grade Separation * 7,000 43 25 41,48,49, 22,24,25, Los Angeles rail Light Rail Vehicles * 102,400 51,53,54, 26,30,32, 59,62,63, 33 ,35 64,70 Los Angeles 138 Widening Segment 6, 87th Street E-96th Street E * 13,700 36 21 Los Angeles 138 Widening Segment 13, 190th Street E-Route 18 * 41,900 36 21 Madera 99 Madera, Ave 12-Ave 17, Widen to 6 Lanes * 5,845 5 12 Madera 99 South of Madera, Ave 7-Ave 12, Widen to 6 Lanes * 3,000 5 12 Marin foe Parkade Area Circulation Improvements 255 10 2 Mariposa foe Silva Road, Post Miles 10-11.092, Rehabilitation 531 5 8 Mariposa foe Triangle Road , Post Miles 11.8-14.11, Rehabilitation 838 5 8 Mariposa foe Merced Falls Road, Post Miles 10 .00-12 .50, Rehab ., Phase 1 912 5 8 Mariposa foe Ben Hur Road, Post Miles 15 .00-18 .50, Reconstruction 1,115 5 8 Mendocino foe Laytonville, Branscomb Road, Multi-Use Bridge 385 2 2 Mendocino bus Revenue Vehicle Replacements, Six (6) * 88 2 2 Mendocino foe Gobbi Street/Waugh Lane Intersection, Traffic Signal 532 2 2 Mendocino foe Low Gap Road/N. Bush Street Intersection, Roundabout 703 2 2 Mendocino foe Ukiah Downtown Streetscape Improvements, Phase 1 1,155 2 2 Mendocino 101 N. State St Interchange Improvements, Roundabout, Phase 1 468 2 2 Mendocino 1 (Main St) Bike & Pedestrian Access Improvements 1,485 2 2 Mendocino 101 Willits Bypass Relinquishment * 3,442 2 2 Mendocino 101 Sherwood Road-Geometric Upgrade * 3,500 2 2 Mendocino foe East Side Potter Valley Road, Rehabilitation, Phase 1 * 3,150 2 2 Merced 99 Livingston 6-Lane Widening, Northbound and Southbound * 2,070 21 12 Merced 99 Livingston 6-Lane Widening, Southbound 34,250 21 12 Modoc foe County Road 55, Route 395-County Road 247A, Rehab. * 75 1 1 Modoc foe Pedestrian Imp rovements Alturas Central Business District 942 1 1 Modoc foe Oak and Juniper Streets, From Route 299 to 19th Street, Rehab . 890 1 1 Modoc loc County Road 87, in Ad in, Route 299-County Road 91, Rehab. 632 1 1 Modoc foe County Road 111, Route 139-County Road 108, Rehab. 687 1 1 Modoc foe Alturas, on East Street, Modoc Street-4th street, Rehab . 962 1 1 Modoc foe County Road 114, Route 139-County Road 101, Rehab. 407 1 1 Modoc foe County Road 272, Lassen-Modoc Co Line to Day Road, Rehab. 196 1 1 Mono foe Meridian Roundabout and Signal Relocation 2,610 5 8 Mono 203 (W Minaret Rd), Sidewalk & Safety 575 5 8 Mono foe Airport Road, Rehabilitation 1,273 5 8 Mono foe Countywide Pr eventive Maintenance Program 1,100 5 8 Monterey ra i l Capitol Corridor Extension -Kick Start * 18,856 29,30 12,17 Monterey 1 Operational Improvements, Carmel * 3,000 29,30 12,17 Monterey rail Coast Daylight/Caltrain Track Improvements * 300 29,30 12,17 Monterey bus Monterey Salinas Transit Buses 2,000 29,30 12,17 Monterey Joe lmjin Road Widening to 4 Lanes * 1,650 29,30 12,17 California Transportation Commission 2of5 January 27, 2016 TWIC Packet Page Number 59 of 83 County Monterey Monterey Monterey Napa Napa Napa Napa Napa Napa Nevada Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Placer Plumas Plumas Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Diego San Diego San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Route Project Title 101 South County Frontage Roads 68 Corral de Tierra Intersection 156 4-Lane Expressway, Castroville-Prunedale loc Devlin Road & Vine Trail Extension lac Eucalyptus Drive Extension loc California Avenue Roundabouts 128 Petrified Forest Road Intersection Improvements loc Hopper Creek Pedestrian Path, Oak Circle-Mission loc 49 rail Airport Boulevard Rehabilitation La Barr-McKnight Widening Passing Siding, Laguna Niguel-San Juan Capistrano Widening, Segment 1, Route 73-0so Parkway * * * * * * * * * * * 5 5 57 405 HOV Lane Buffer Removal/Continuous Access, Route 57-Route 91 * 5 rail loc loc loc 15 60 215 loc loc loc loc loc loc loc 5 bus loc 51 51 156 10 210 Lambert Road Interchange Improvements Auxiliary Lane Southbound, University-Route 133 HOV Lanes, Route 55-Route 57 Sacramento-Roseville Track Improvements Graeagle-Johnsonville Road Reconstruction North Loop, Phase 1 * * * * CV Link, Palm Springs-Coachella, Multi-Use Path, Phase 1 * French Valley Parkway Interchange * Truck Climb/Descend Lanes with Shoulders Southbound Connector (SHOPP} Grant Line Road, Waterman-Masher, Widen, Signals ITS Master Plan, Phase 4 Implementation Green Valley Road, E. Natoma-Sophia, Widen, Bike * * * * Zinfandel Drive, Olson Or-White Rock Rd, Improvements * 14th Avenue Extension, Power Inn-Florin Perkins * Hazel Avenue, Sunset-Madison, Widen, Signals Old Town Florin Streetscape Improvements, Phase 2 HOV Lanes/Soundwalls, Route 50-Laguna Blvd, Phase 1 39 CNG Replacement Buses, Spare Parts Laguna Creek Trail-North Camden Spur * * * Northbound Transition Lane, E Street-Eivas, Close E Street On ramp * Ramp Meters at Various Locations on Routes 51, 80, 99 4-Lane Expressway, San Juan Bautista HOV Lanes Haven Avenue-Ford Street Highland Avenue-San Bernardino Avenue, Widen * 58 4-Lane Expressway, Kramer Junction, Phase 1 * 215 215 rail Mt Vernon/Washington Street Interchange Improvement • Barton Interchange Reconstruction * Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization * Soundwalls, Manchester Avenue-Route 78 HOV Extension, Manchester Avenue-Route 78 Chinatown Broadway Complete Streets, Phase 4 * * 5 5 foe 99 Turner Road Interchange Operational Improvements * 120 McKinley Avenue, New Interchange * loc Stockton Avenue, 2nd Street-Doak Blvd, Widen * rail Stockton to Escalon Double Track, Segment 4 * 101/46 Interchange Improvements, Phase 3 Roundabouts 46 Cholame, Convert to 4-Lane Expressway California Transportation Commission 3of5 Total Programmed ($thousands) 5,000 1,700 28,000 1,665 1,154 1,070 475 500 1,332 3,000 3,000 78,949 3,600 22,100 15,851 36,262 3,000 2,327 2,581 2,000 41,545 31,555 8,975 3,800 2,312 3,000 700 4,008 7,000 3,328 2,000 18,500 500 900 11,500 38,881 39,745 25,000 155,095 38,523 22,611 2,000 36,000 49,000 1,910 3,061 12,300 1,000 23,000 1,100 55,200 Assembly District(s) 29,30 29,30 29,30 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 73 73 65,69 55 74 69 6 1 1 42,56 75 42,61 67 9 9 6,7 8 7 6 9 7,9 7,8,9 8 7 7 30 31,35 40 34 47 47 78 76 76 17 9 12 12 12,13 35 35 Senate District(s) 12,17 12,17 12,17 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 36 36 29,32,34 29 37 34 1,4 1 1 28 28 23,31 24 6 6 1 4 6 1 6 6 1,4,6 6 6 6 12 20,23 23 18 20 20 39 36 36 11 5 5 5 5 17 17 January 27, 2016 TWIC Packet Page Number 60 of 83 County San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Shasta Shasta Shasta Sierra Sierra Sierra Siskiyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Sisk iyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Sisk iyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Siskiyou Solano Stanislaus Stanislaus Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Route Project Title Wye, Convert to 4-Lane Expressway * 46 101 Brisco Road Interchange Improvements/Auxi li ary Lane * loc Coun t ywide ITS Improvements 1 Operational Improvements, Pacifica, Calera Parkway, Phase 1 * loc El Camino Real Grand Bou levard Initiative * 92/82 Interchange Improvements * 92 Route lOllnterchange Improvements 101 Willow Road Interchange Reconstruction, Phase 1 rail Siding Upgrade and Extension 217 Fow ler and Ekw ill Streets Extensions 101 Carpenteria Creek-Sycamore Creek, W iden 246 East of Lompoc, Widen, Landscaping 101 Adobe Creek Bike/Pedestrian Br idge rail BART Extension, Berryessa -Santa Clara 680 Soundwall, Cap itol -Mueller 1 Harkins Slough Road Interchange 1 Freeway Service Patrol 1 Mar Vista Bike/Pedestrian Overcross i ng loc Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Segment 7 loc loc loc 1/9 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail , Segment 18 Airport Boulevard Improvements , Casserly Road Bridge Replacement Intersection Modifications 41st-Soquel Auxiliary Lanes, Bi ke/Pedestrian Bridge * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 loc loc 5 loc Brown i ng Street, Canby Road-Churn Creek Road, Complete Street * Sacramento River Trail to Downtown, Multiple Street Pedestrian lmprov. * Redd i ng-Anderson, Knighton-Churn Creek Overcrossing, 6-lanes Smithneck Creek Road Rehabilitation 89 loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc loc lo'c loc loc loc loc loc loc 132 108 99 loc loc Truck Pull -Outs Smithneck Creek Bike Path South Oregon Street, Law r ence-4H Way Oregon Street, Miner Street-North End, Rehabilitation Li nco ln Road, Un ion Avenue, Angel Valley Road , Rehab. Rehabilitate 6th & Ridgeview Vista Drive Rehabilitation Ream Avenue Rehabilitation South 9th Street Rehabilit ation Overlay & Rehabilitation of Various Streets Big Springs Road Rehabilit ation, Phase 1 Dunsmuir Rood Rehabilitation Ca liforn ia Street Rehabi litation Howell Aven ue Rehabilitation Matthews & Carlock Streets Pedestrian Improvements Mount Shasta Boulevard Rehabilitation Ager Road Rehabilitation * Jepson Parkway, Leisure Town Road, Commerce-Orange 4-Lane Expressway, Dakota Ave-Route 99, Phase lA * Widen McHenry Avenue, Route 108~McHenry Bridge * Pelandale Avenue Interchange Reconstruction * Replace 5th Street Feather River Bridge, Improve Approaches * Kirkwood Roa d Bridge, Jewett Creek * California Transportati on Commission 4of 5 Total Programmed ($thousands) 19,100 6,624 4,298 6,900 1,991 5,000 Assembly District(s) 35 35 19,22,24 22 19 22 23,839 22 17,399 24 12,450 37 11,372 37 15,890 37 390 37 4,350 24 14,672 25,27,28 4,361 25,27 7,340 30 150 29 6,064 29 805 29 950 1,195 125 1,329 4,000 275 400 12,122 500 750 500 867 597 785 497 1,795 242 340 812 2,700 188 130 370 376 184 1,650 9,360 9,641 4,100 4,336 17,415 265 30 30 29,30 29 29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 21 12 12 3 3 Senate District(s) 17 17 11,13 13 13 13 13 13 19 19 19 19 13 10,15 10,15 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 12 5 5 4 4 January 27, 2016 TWIC Packet Page Number 61 of 83 Total Programmed County Route Project Title ($ thousands) Tehama Joe Baker Road at Brickyard Creek Bridge * 130 Tehama 99 Los Mol inos Enhancements, Phase 3 1,200 Tehama Joe 99W, Glenn County Line to City of Corning 3,0SS Tehama Joe 99W, Gyle to South Main at 1-S Overcross 2,9SO Tehama 99 Grant Street, Route 99-Baily Rd, Los Molinos Enhancements, Phase 3 1,200 Trinity Joe Wildwood Road Reconstruction, Segment 1 * 60 Trinity Joe Lewiston Road No. 202, Postmiles 4.8-5.84, Rehabilitation 400 Trinity 299 Weaverville, Route 299-Coffee Creek, Turnouts * 8SO Trinity Joe Lewiston Road Bike/Pedestrian Lane * 331 Tulare 6S Align Road 204, Route 65-Route 198, 4 Lanes * 1,SS7 Tulare 99 Tulare, 6-lane Freeway, Prosperity Ave Interchange-Ave 200 * 4,000 Tulare 99 Tagus 6-Lane Southbound Widening 49,000 Tulare 99 Tagus 6-Lane Northbound Widening * 10,250 Tuolumne Joe Mono Way Operational Improvements * 1,S36 Tuolumne 108 Peaceful Oaks Road Interchange Ramps 8,311 Various rail Capitalized Maintenance (Capitol Corridor) 3,000 Various rail Capitalized Maintenance (San Joaquin Corridor) 2,000 Various rail Capitalized Maintenance (Surfliner) 2,000 Various-MTC Region 80 Improved Bike/Ped Access to San Francisco Bay Bridge East Span * 1S,OOO Ventura rail Sea cliff Siding Upgrade and Extension 7,870 Ventura 118 Widening, Los Angeles Avenue-Tapa Canyon Road 3,000 Ventura 101 HOV lanes, Moorpark Road to Route 33 14,000 Yolo foe Village Pkwy Extension, Stonegate-Pioneer Bluff bridge 2,500 Yolo Joe Mace Blvd Complete Street, Blue Oak-Cowell Blvd * 1,912 Yolo Joe Third Street Improvements, A Street -B Street * 3,292 Yolo Joe East Main Street Improvements, East St-Pioneer Ave * S80 Yuba Joe Olivehurst Avenue Roundabout at Powerline/Chesnut * 717 Yuba foe Powerline Road Safe Route to School, 9th-15th, Phase 2 . 500 Total 2,004,014 NOTES: 1. This list represents all STIP projects programmed in fiscal years 2016/17 through 2018/19 except Planning, Programming & Monitoring, and AB 3090 Reimbursement projects. 2. Projects in italics were proposed to be deleted from the STIP in the RTIPs and ITIP submitted to the Commission by December 1S, 201S. 3. Route acronyms: number= state highway Joe= local road gsep = rail grade separation rai l = heavy or light rail project bus= bus transit * These projects leverage other funds. Ca lifornia Transportation Commission sots Assembly Senate District(s) District(s) 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 23 14,16 23 16 23 16 23 16 25 14 2S 14 18 9 37 19 38,44 27 37,44 19,27 4J 3,6 4,7 3,6 4,7 3,6 4,7 3,6 3 4 3 4 January 27, 2016 TWIC Packet Page Number 62 of 83 Background Attachment: The California Transportation Commission has a statutory responsibility to advise the Legislature on transportation policy matters. In our 2015 Annual Report, our primary recommenda t ion to the Legislature was to approve additional funding to support the state's transportation program . This communication serves as a supplement to provide a clear and stark reminder of the magn itude of the program's funding shortfall and the urgent need to respond to this critical problem. As stated previous ly, California faces a transportation funding crisis of significant and increasing proportions. We have underinvested in our transportation infrastructure for the past several decades and have failed to fund needed repairs to an aging and failing system that we rely on to move people and goods in this state. Further, we have little capacity to pay for necessary road, trans it and rail improvements to meet the demands of a growing population and an expanding economy. In his inaugural address last year, Governor Brown called attention to this problem and challenged the Legislature to respond. A number of bills were introduced in 2015 but little progress was made in moving this legislation . Over the summer, the Governor convened a special session for t he purpose of resolving the issue, and, in late August, he proposed a plan of his own. The plan, subsequently incorporated into his 2016-17 budget proposal, includes new revenue and several re f orm measures sought by members of the Legislatu r e. Over the fall, Legislative Leadership appointed a conference committee to consider solutions for addressing the funding shortfall. Currently, there are two comprehensive bills pending in the Legislature (SB 1x1 by Senator Beall and AB 1591 by Assembly Member Frazier) along with the Governor's budget proposal. Each of these measures would provide more revenue and i mplement serious program reforms. The Governor and legislative authors are seeking a compromise for their proposals that can be supported by enough members to gain approval of a package that begins to address the state's crumbling transportation infrastructure . While these proposals are appropriately focused on repairing our failing transportation facilities, the programmatic vehicle used to fund other state transportation projects is broken. The Commission previously advised you of the annual gas tax swap adjustment and how it affects the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP, for short). The requirement fo r year ly adjustments created by the swap seriously exacerbates the funding picture by reducing transportation revenue at a time when we need to i ncrease investment in our mobility system . As the Commission considers the upcoming five-year STIP for 2016, the effect of this swap mechanism on a portion of the existing gas tax has been nothing short of catastrophic. As a result of reduced revenue due to the swap, a whopping $876 million in 2015 alone, the 2016 Fund Estimate adopted by the CTC in August included virtually no money for new projects in the updated program. Now, the Department of Finance is estimating a further reduction in the excise tax for the coming year and that has prompted Caltrans to prepare a revised fund estimate reflecting the additional decline in revenue. The Commission adopted these revisions at its January meeting. Page 1 of 2 TWIC Packet Page Number 63 of 83 The revised estimate shows a negative programming capacity of more than $750 million over the five- year STIP period. This means that in addition to no new projects for the upcoming STIP, existing projects already programmed must be deleted. To put this into context, the 2014 STIP included $4.7 billion in programmed projects . The 2016 STIP will likely include only $3.2 billion or less in program m ed projects, and, in addition to deleting planned projects, it w i ll be necessary to move many projects i nto the outer years of the five-year plan. The attached is a list of those projects that may be delayed o r removed from the new STIP . All three of the funding proposals before the Legis lature include provisions to remedy the i mpact of the yearly swap adjustment on transportation funding, and the Commission supports any refo r m and revenue measure that will responsibly address the serious problems identified in this lette r . We also recognize the difficult cha ll enges facing the Legislature in coming to agreement on these issues and appreciate the efforts being expended by all parties to identify possible solutions to this enormous -problem. While we will provide whatever assistance we can to support you in this task, we strongly urge legislators to work together to deve lop a compromise that will result in a significant down payment on our transportation infrastructure needs and p rovide for meaningful reforms to the state's t ransportation program. Failure to act and to act quickly will have serious consequences for the future of California. Thank you for your urgent consideration of th is important matter. Page 2 of2 TWIC Packet Page Number 64 of 83 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Telephone: (925) 674-7878 Fax: (925) 674-7250 TO: California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) Subcommittee on School Zones c/o Chris Engelmann, PE, TE, CTCDC – Executive Secretary COPY: Tyler Munzing, 12th Senate District Kiana Valentine, California State Association of Counties Mark Watts, Consultant to Contra Costa County FROM: John Cunningham, Contra Costa County – Principal Transportation Planner DATE: February 4, 2016 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 632 (Cannella) Prima facie speed limits: schools Background and Response to Comments/Questions from the 1/29/16 CTCDC School Zone Subcommittee Conference Call Summary The memo is a follow up to the January 29th conference call with the School Zone Subcommittee of the CTCDC regarding the subject legislation. During the call, there were questions regarding the need for SB 632 and requests for data or other evidence supporting the bill. This memo responds to these questions and requests. I provide some background on the goals of the bill below, which will answer some of these questions and should assist the Sub-Committee in understanding the context of the bill. Direct responses to specific questions are provided after the goals. The bill has three goals as follows: Goal 1) Safety: The bill is intended to increase safety in school zones where it is probable that automobiles will share the road with other, active modes. The increase in safety associated with lowered vehicle speeds, and the need for this increase in safety, is supported by studies and epidemiological data1. 1Increase in Safety: The connection between vehicle speed and likelihood of injury or death is well established: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2014 Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries: “Results indicated that higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of pedestrian crash occurrence and more serious resulting pedestrian injury. It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100 percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 mph or more respectively.” Ten Strategies for Keeping Children Safe on the Road” 2015 World Health Organization TWIC Packet Page Number 65 of 83 2 Goal 2) Reverse the Decline of Children to Walking/Biking to School2: In addition to safety, the bill is intended to increase the number of K-12 student-age children using active transportation modes for the home/school/home trip. Driver behavior (or speeding) is one of the two most commonly cited issues for children being discouraged from traveling to/from school using active modes3. The other reason is proximity related issues, more simply put: the distance between home and school is too great. The subject legislation addresses driver behavior/speeding issues. The proximity issue is already being actively addressed by other efforts at the state, regional, and local level. These efforts are driven largely by state greenhouse gas related legislation4 and state school siting reform efforts5. Goal 3) Address known issues in the vehicle code and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices relative to “When Children Are Present” (WCP) signage: While no action was taken, the discussion at the CTCDC’s February 19, 2014 meeting suggests the WCP policies are problematic. I won’t quote the minutes back to the Committee, but the following are suggested/known issues with the signage, some of which are consistent with the CTCDCs discussion: “…children have a delay from the moment they make their decision to the moment they begin to act on their decision, which can be dangerous for them during normal riding conditions and emergency situations.” "Bicycle Safety Education for Children from a Developmental and Learning Perspective" “Younger children are limited by their physical, cognitive and social development, making them more vulnerable in road traffic than adults. Because of their small stature, it can be difficult for children to see surrounding traffic and for drivers and others to see them. In addition if they are involved in a road traffic crash, their softer heads make them more susceptible to serious head injury than adults. Younger children may have difficulties interpreting various sights and sounds, which may impact on their judgement regarding the proximity, speed and direction of moving vehicles.” 2 “How Children Get to School: School Travel Patterns From 1969 to 2009” National Center for Safe Routes to School: In 1969, 48 percent of K-8th grade students usually walked or bicycled to school. By 2009, only 13 percent of K-8th grade students usually walked or bicycled to school. 3 The two most common reasons for children not being allowed to use active modes are “proximity” and “traffic safety”: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Barriers to Children Walking to or from School” United States 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report September 30, 2005 Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5438a2.htm - AND - Chaufan, C, Yeh J, Fox, P. The Safe Routes to School Program in California: An Update. American Journal of Public Health http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300703 - AND – CCTA SR2S Master Plan 2011: Existing Conditions: Data Summary: “By far, improving traffic congestion and speeding around schools was the number one improvement that administrators believe would do the most to encourage walking and biking to school. This was also consistent among all four regional planning areas, where it ranked first or second. Being accompanied by a parent was the only other condition that ranked in the top five in all four regions.” 4 The “Priority Development Area” concept came out of AB32/SB375 and includes compact development as a core component. 5 2012 - California’s K-12 Educational Infrastructure Investments: Leveraging the State’s Role for Quality School Facilities in Sustainable Communities, Report to the CA Dept. of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & Schools, and 2011 - Schools of the Future Report, Tom Torlakson/State Superintendent of Public Instruction TWIC Packet Page Number 66 of 83 3  WCP signage unduly grants discretion to motorists as to when to adhere to a posted/reduced speed limit and complicates law enforcements ability to enforce a lower speed limit.  Schools are used for sports, community gatherings and other activities not tied to school hours or year making WCP more difficult to interpret and anticipate.  Safety should not depend on the effectiveness of a motorist in identifying children, who may or may not be visible, and who may not have physiological characteristics enabling them to act in a rational or predictable manner (as evidenced in footnote 1 and 6).  It may be beneficial for the Committee to consider the following question; when, in a residential area or school area, is it safe to assume children are NOT present? To clarify, the original intent of the bill was to replace the WCP signage with appropriate hourly restrictions, not wholesale elimination. Note on Goals: Goal 1 and Goal 2 are related. Decisions by school administrators and parents to discourage children from walking/biking to school are an intuitive reaction to the danger established by the epidemiological data. 1/29/16 Subcommittee Conference Call Follow Up/Responses: Comment: The one quarter mile (1,320’) expansion of the prescriptive size of the zone is “arbitrary”. Some evidence or engineering should be provided to establish a nexus. Response:  I agree that the legislative proposal should be based on evidence and data. This memo provides a sample of data that establish the need. However, the existing figures in the statute (500’/1000’) must also be subjected to the same evidenced-based test. This is consistent with the comment heard during the subcommittee meeting, paraphrased, “…engineering wasn’t used when the original statute and distances were established...”.  As mentioned during the conference call, the “quarter mile” distance is commonly used in planning as the reasonable distance that people will walk to a destination. There is a body of evidence that supports the figure.7 It is reasonable to assume that the distance students would travel by bike is much greater than when walking. Given this, the 1320’ distance in the subject bill could be viewed as a minimum figure.  There was a comment that the quarter mile change in the statute could be too far reaching. I assume the comment is related to the cost or burden of expansive implementation. In writing for the County (as one of the original contributors in the drafting of the legislation), we share this 6 Zeedyk, M. S., Wallace, L, & Spry, L., “Stop, look, listen, and think? What young children really do when crossing the road,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34:43-50 (2002). 7 2010 Beyond the Quarter Mile: Examining Travel Distances by Walking and Cycling, Montréal, Canada McGill University School of Urban Planning ~and~ 2011“The Half‐Mile Circle: Does It Best Represent Transit Station Catchments?” Erick Guerra, Robert Cervero, Daniel Tischler, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley.  TWIC Packet Page Number 67 of 83 4 concern. A phased approach, rather than the potential need for expansive replacement or additional signage, may be more favorably received. Some language that either 1) strikes the quarter-mile change, or 2) provides for a range of distances (as suggested during the conference call), or 3) has the new distance only apply to new school sites may be acceptable to the County so long as the ability to allow local jurisdictions the flexibility8 to expand the zone based on an Engineering and Traffic Survey remain in the bill. Ownership of the language now resides with the sponsoring legislator(s); we are in a position of having to make that request to the sponsors. I realize this direction may be out of scope for the subcommittee, but wanted to suggest the alternate approach. Comment: What is the need for the change represented by the statute, and what is the backup? Response: In addition to the school specific examples found in the text and footnotes above, a more general need to control speeds is established in the documents summarized below: Governor’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA) National Forum on Speeding (2005) - Excerpts:  On suburban and urban roads, only 32-52 percent of traffic obeys the speed limit and the 85th percentile speed exceeds the speed limit by almost 10 mph.  Speeding is common, and on some roads almost universal. About 80 percent of all drivers in NHTSA’s 2002 national survey reported they exceeded the posted speed limit on each type of road -interstate, non-interstate, multi-lane, two-lane, and city streets- within the past month, and about one-third reported this behavior on the day of the interview.  Participants agreed that raising the priority of speeding is perhaps the most important step that can be taken. Survey of the States: Speeding and Aggressive Driving (2012) - Excerpts:  GHSA recognizes the major role speed and aggressive driving play as contributors to traffic death and injury.  The public’s attitude about speeding is enormously conflicted. A recent study has shown a large disconnect between the significant majority of the public who condemn speeding and the majority of drivers who admit to the behavior, making it a serious challenge to create a safety-conscious environment in which speed limits are respected and obeyed. Aggressive driving, which often involves speeding, is a great concern of motorists across the country.  The action agenda included seven steps designed to…Set and achieve speed reduction goals, focusing on the reduction of extreme speeders and/or all travel speeds in high risk areas like school or work zones. 8 There was agreement during the conference call that affording local jurisdictions flexibility was desirable. TWIC Packet Page Number 68 of 83 5 American Automobile Association: Foundation for Traffic Safety: “Improving Traffic Safety Culture in the United States - The Journey Forward” (2007) - Excerpts:  All roads have speed limits, but they are routinely ignored. Most drivers habitually speed.  Speed limits traditionally are set at the 85th percentile travel speed: this means that speeding drivers may help raise speed limits even higher... The speeding culture can be changed by efforts at national, state, and local levels... implement speeding control programs in selected target areas with strong public support, again built on solid data.”  Build programs on sound scientific principles rather than on intuition or political expediency.  Start locally: municipalities and states can lead by implementing strategies to address their specific traffic safety problems. Comment: “kids don’t walk like they used to…it’s not happening anymore…fear of the public…”. Response: The comment summarizes the very purpose of the bill. As detailed further above in this memo, driver behavior/unsafe speeds is the largest unaddressed gap in the effort to get children using active modes for the home/school/home trip. “Fear of the public” or “stranger danger” are cited in surveys examining mode choice by students/parents/school administrators. However, this issue consistently ranks lower than proximity and unsafe speeds. Internal Copies: John Kopchik, Director – Department of Conservation and Development Maureen Toms, Deputy Director – Department of Conservation and Development Steve Kowalewski, Deputy Director – Public Works Department File: Transportation > Legislation > 2016 > slow zone c:\egnyte\shared\transportation\activeedits\ab1659-sb632\memotoctcdcsubcmmteeresb632.docx TWIC Packet Page Number 69 of 83 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:02/11/2016   Subject:RECEIVE update on the Status of the Alameda County and Regional Goods Movement Studies Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 14   Referral Name: Freight transportation issues, including but not limited to potential increases in rail traffic such as that proposed by the Port of Oakland and other possible service increases...  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: This particular issue, Alameda Countywide Goods Movement Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Goods Movement Plan, has not yet been discussed at the Committee. Referral Update: The status of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Goods Movement Plan (The Plan Introduction chapter is attached) is below:  Draft Final Plan Released in December (Comments Due end of Dec) Plan goes to MTC Planning Commission on February 11 Plan goes to MTC Commission at their February Meeting Rich Seithel, Department of Conservation and Development has been monitoring freight and goods movement issues relative to the Northern Waterfront Initiative. Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman from the Health Services Department, represented Contra Costa Health Services on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Regional Goods Movement Plan. He also provided technical support to the Alameda County Health Department and other members of the Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative in the development of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of the Alameda County Goods Movement Plan. In discussing the Regional Goods Movement Plan with Mr. Seithel and Mr. Kent, the impression is that the plan, despite the name, is focused on the Port of Oakland with little attention paid to the outlying ports and infrastructure. TWIC Packet Page Number 70 of 83 In addition, and related to the Alameda County/Oakland focus, the comment was made at the recent Freight/Goods Movement Collaborative Workshop that without addressing land use the regional plan is incomplete. County staff agrees with this comment and understands that this may not be an issue for Alameda County, whose land use in the port area is stable relative to other, "niche" or outlying ports. Land use is a potential issue for Contra Costa County; unless some effort is made to preserve and develop industrial lands around the outlying ports the region will: • lose industrial land (to other, incompatible uses) that make the ports functional, • become overly dependent on the port of Oakland, • this dependency drastically limits expansive opportunities for the region as a whole, • this dependency also results in a much more fragile freight movement infrastructure which again, does not improve goods movement for the region but rather serves to compromise it. • these changes are effectively permanent, and as such warrants attention in the regional plan and action with the appropriate level of urgency. MTC should expand the regional goods movement dialog to more substantially include outlying ports, and related land use issues. More specifically, MTC should accelerate the development and funding of Priority Industrial Areas (PIA) in order to diversify the region’s goods movement infrastructure portfolio. A plan with a more regional focus is also likely to highlight the benefits of goods movement supportive infrastructure in Contra Costa such as state route 239 and Northern Waterfront related projects. These changes would support a truly regional goods movement plan and system. Staff will bring a draft letter to MTC for review by the Committee. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE update on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Goods Movement Plan and take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. Attachments Introduction: MTC Regional Goods Movement Plan TWIC Packet Page Number 71 of 83 prepared for Metropolitan Transportation Commission prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. December 2015 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN Draft Final Report TWIC Packet Page Number 72 of 83 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background and Context Goods movement has always played a critical role in the San Francisco Bay Area. The regional goods movement infrastructure includes the nation’s fifth largest container port (the Port of Oakland) and several specialized seaports, two of the most active air cargo airports in the Western U.S. (San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport), major rail lines and rail terminals, and highways that carry some of the highest volumes of trucks in California. This infrastructure also plays a central role for the Northern California mega-region. But as the Bay Area’s economy and planning priorities have evolved, so too must its approach to considering goods movement’s role in the regional transportation system. Some of the changes the region has experienced that will influence its approach to goods movement include:  Changes in industry mix and downward pressure on middle wage jobs. The economy has shifted away from manufacturing and warehouse and distribution industries that dominated the goods movement picture in the last century and has moved towards technology and knowledge-based industries. This change in the economy has reduced opportunities for workers in middle-wage occupations with low educational barriers to entry.  Changes in land use development patterns and the location of goods distribution facilities. The region was an early leader in promoting Smart Growth and new urban forms. In recent years there has been a growing focus on planning for compact development in Priority Development Areas adjacent to transit. This can create redevelopment pressure in older industrial centers, leading to conflicts between goods movement and passenger transportation modes on congested roadways and rail lines. As land values have risen, much of the region’s distribution network for serving consumer demands has moved to the northern San Joaquin Valley and northern Nevada. This is exacerbating congestion and safety conditions on the region’s interregional highways.  Urgency to address environmental justice issues while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Along with the region’s concern over housing affordability comes an overarching concern about equity in land use and transportation decisions. The region’s major goods movement corridors and facilities tend to be concentrated in close proximity to communities where environmental justice concerns are significant and continued investment in goods movement in these corridors must minimize impacts on these communities. At a broader level, the region continues to pursue strategies to address climate change and environmental sustainability goals as a core component of its transportation plans. This will require new approaches and new technologies for goods movement. By developing creative solutions to address the opportunities and challenges associated with these changes in the region, the San Francisco Bay Area can frame a new vision of the role of TWIC Packet Page Number 73 of 83 goods movement and can stake out a position of national leadership. This vision is for a goods movement program that:  Emphasizes the connection between goods movement and middle-wage job opportunities. Goods movement activities can provide good paying, middle-wage jobs. By taking advantage of the unique opportunity to develop a world class logistics hub around the Port of Oakland and the former Oakland Army Base, the region can help replace some of the middle-income jobs that have been lost during the economic transformation that has occurred over the last 20 years. This strategy has benefits beyond the region, as the Bay Area remains a critical international and domestic trade hub for all of Northern California, Nevada, and Utah. There are also pockets of new industrial activity in the Bay Area – wine production and organic food production in the North Bay, advanced manufacturing and biotechnology in the East Bay, clean energy systems in the South Bay – that will support job diversity and will need access to a wide array of efficient goods movement services.  Relies on smarter operations, technology, and land use strategies to increase the efficiency of the goods movement system. Future goods movement planning will need to emphasize efficiency, demand management, and multimodal approaches, similar to how the region now plans for its passenger system. Technology and “smart” operations will be at the center of future goods movement strategies. Freight intelligent transportation systems (ITS), “connected” vehicles, and zero and near-zero emission vehicles will be important elements of the future goods movement system in the Bay Area. This represents another public-private partnership opportunity to engage the region’s innovation sectors in helping to bring these new technologies to the marketplace. Goods movement hubs and corridors in the region will continue to require attention to the equity implications of growth in goods movement activity. The goods movement plan addresses impacts on communities through strategies such as zero and near-zero emission technology, changes in land use and truck route planning, and improvements in goods movement efficiency.  Makes strategic investments to reduce congestion, improve reliability, and increase safety at international gateways and along primary travel corridors. The region’s seaports and airports continue to play an important role for businesses and consumers throughout Northern California and neighboring states. These facilities are often congested and inefficient. Connections to freight hubs via the region’s major highway and rail corridors are also congested and in need of modernization. When making investments in these systems, the region will have limited resources and must invest strategically with an understanding of how demand patterns will continue to change and where public and private investments can be leveraged in order to achieve the greatest public benefits. Like the private sector has done in making decisions to rationalize private rail and trucking networks, the public sector must invest selectively and strategically. TWIC Packet Page Number 74 of 83 This approach to goods movement planning seeks to bring goods movement strategies into fundamental alignment with the region’s overall transportation, economic, equity, and environmental priorities. Rather than addressing goods movement priorities in isolation, the plan focuses on implementing these priorities within the overall structure of Plan Bay Area. While implementation may require new policies, institutional arrangements, and funding sources, this re-alignment of goods movement priorities represents a path forward that should allow the Bay Area to get the best that its goods movement system has to offer. It is also important to note that unlike many other transportation programs undertaken in the Bay Area, a goods movement plan can only succeed with a high level of public-private, private- private, and public-public collaboration. Much of the goods movement system is owned and operated by the private sector. The public sector has limited control over the actions of these private goods movement stakeholders and can only accomplish public goals by working in partnership. The private goods movement system is owned and operated by an array of organizations including railroads, trucking companies, logistics service providers, shippers, and technology companies. The decision-making of these companies is often fragmented, and this can lead to inefficiencies that could be overcome with greater collaboration. Likewise, jurisdiction over the public elements of the goods movement system, including regulation of this system, involves different local, regional, state, and Federal agencies who must work together to pool resources and implement programs. The final section of this plan considers a number of options for how Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) can work with all of these partners and foster the collaboration that will be necessary to realize the vision embodied in this plan. 1.2 Plan Development Approach and Purpose It has been 10 years since the last goods movement plan for the region was developed. The MTC commissioned this update to the goods movement plan in order to support and underpin the upcoming Plan Bay Area 2040s approach to economic prosperity. Plan Bay Area 2040, scheduled for adoption in 2017, is the update to Plan Bay Area, the regional transportation plan (RTP) and sustainable communities strategy (SCS). This updated MTC Goods Movement Plan outlines a long-range strategy for how to move goods effectively within, to, from and through the Bay Area by roads, rail, air and water. It provides specific strategies – projects, programs, and policies –focused on goods movement that will ultimately inform Plan Bay Area 2040. The Goods Movement Plan:  Establishes a vision for the sustainable movement of freight and other goods to ensure the Bay Area continues to thrive across different industries and play a vital role in the California, national and global economy;  Identifies strategies including infrastructure investments, policy changes and programs to address goods movement issues and realize goods movement system opportunities;  Uses a series of performance measures consistent with the vision and goals to prioritize these strategies; TWIC Packet Page Number 75 of 83  Focuses the strategies on key opportunities for the region that take advantage of its unique characteristics; and  Develops short- and long-term recommendations for how to work with partners throughout the Bay Area to advance the Plan and advocate for the policies and funding needed from state and Federal partners. This update to the regional Goods Movement Plan benefited significantly from a parallel process commissioned by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) for their own Alameda County Goods Movement Plan. Much of the region’s goods movement infrastructure is located in Alameda County and this made collaboration on this joint long-range plan development process crucially important as well as an ideal opportunity. Similarly, the congestion management agencies (CMA) for all of the counties across the Bay Area took advantage of this opportunity to examine their unique goods movement needs. Stakeholder input was obtained through outreach to a variety of groups throughout the plan development process. The formal stakeholder engagement effort included an Executive Team, a regional technical advisory committee, interest groups, and public roundtables. The Executive Team consisted of executive leaders from MTC, Alameda CTC, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, Valley Transportation Authority, the Port of Oakland, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4, the East Bay Economic Development Alliance, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The regional technical advisory committee and interest groups included staff from these same agencies, as well as stakeholders representing public health and environmental organizations, community and social justice groups, labor, and business interests, including shippers, carriers and logistics service providers. The Regional Goods Movement Plan is intended to inform the upcoming Plan Bay Area 2040. Strategies were developed with an acknowledgment of regional transportation priorities and Plan Bay Area 2040’s Goals and Targets, including the emphasis on GHG reduction, health, and equity goals. The Goods Movement Plan concludes with a section describing next steps that identifies existing funding opportunities that can be highlighted in Plan Bay Area, new funding programs that must be targets of advocacy, and new institutional arrangements, including public-private partnerships, that must be pursued in the future. The development of Plan Bay Area 2040 immediately subsequent to the regional Goods Movement Plan creates a fresh opportunity to take these ideas to the next level of planning and programming. TWIC Packet Page Number 76 of 83 2.0 Challenges and a Vision for the Future A critical part of developing the MTC Goods Movement Plan was the development of a vision statement and goals that respond to the challenges that the Bay Area faces as it seeks to realize the benefits that an efficient and sustainable goods movement system can provide. The region faces several tensions inherent in the interplay between our opportunities and challenges. For example, the goods movement system can provide many good middle-wage jobs, but the current housing crisis in the region hampers the ability of middle-income earners to live near these jobs and our educational and vocational training systems need to keep pace providing training programs to equip our re gion’s workers for these jobs. Likewise, freight’s economic benefits must be balanced with environmental concerns. Environmental justice stakeholders and goods movement businesses can develop adversarial relationships or partnerships as the region pursues its goods movement vision amidst the many challenges it faces. This plan sought to gather input from many stakeholders so as to encourage a partnership approach that will identify shared goals and areas of compromise in developing the region’s future goods movement system. Like many other places in the country, transformative changes in the goods movement sector here require public-private collaboration. Public-private collaboration can reap many benefits, but is not easy to do in the best of circumstances. Developing the right institutions to guide and foster this collaboration will be an important next step as the strategies in the Plan are implemented. 2.1 Goods Movement Goals and Challenges 2.1.1 Quality of Life Goal: Reduce environmental and community impacts from goods movement operations to create healthy communities and a clean environment, and improve quality of life for those communities most impacted by goods movement. The Bay Area serves as a national leader in identifying and implementing strategies to improve public health by reducing air pollution and improving water quality, strategies to protect the environment and infrastructure by reducing GHGs, and preparing for sea-level rise and significant weather events. Perhaps the most critical air quality and public health issues surrounding goods movement in Alameda County are related to impacts of goods movement-related emissions on the health TWIC Packet Page Number 77 of 83 and safety of communities directly adjacent to major goods movement facilities and connecting infrastructure. These communities experience some of the highest exposure levels to pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory ailments, heart disease, and other health problems. These pollution sources include light and noise pollution that arose as a result of growing freight activities. While future planning efforts should look to create buffers between goods movement activity and neighborhoods wherever possible, this may be more difficult in some locations and may require new goods movement technologies or other measures such as building design to reduce exposure to public health risks. Although the Bay Area does not yet attain all national and state standards for pollutants that cause health impacts, specifically particulate matter (PM), BAAQMD, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are actively seeking to reduce emissions from key sources.0F0F0F 1 Figure 2.1 shows that the region has seen a four-fold reduction in cancer risk due to air toxics over time: from 1,300 per million in 1990 to 300 per million in 2012. Figure 2.1 Estimated Bay Area Lifetime Cancer Risk from Toxic Air Contaminants Source: Improving Air Quality and Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective and Path Forward (2004 – 2013), BAAQMD, April 2014. 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and- Research/Particulate-Matter.aspx#dpm. TWIC Packet Page Number 78 of 83 Currently, CARB is developing a Sustainable Freight Strategy. The strategy is designed to reduce localized health risk near freight facilities, reach air quality standards, and reduce California's contributions to global climate change. One particularly innovative part of the development process will be technological assessments across transportation modes for ability to implement low-emission strategies.1F1F1F 2 In addition, MTC is conducting an assessment of regional opportunities to apply zero and near-zero emission technologies for goods movement. Information from these efforts have already been included in this plan wherever this information was available. In the future, as these other planning studies are completed, the relevant strategies contained in the Goods Movement Plan can be adapted to incorporate the latest and best information on technology and operating strategies that can help reduce impacts of goods movement on communities and the environment. 2.1.2 Safety and Reliability Goal: Provide safe, reliable, efficient and well-maintained goods movement facilities. The interregional and intraregional highway corridors of the in Alameda County carry the highest volumes of truck traffic. The high volumes of traffic, heterogeneous traffic mix, as well as frequent weaving and merging around interchanges, also create safety issues. There is a network of major arterial truck routes that provide an important function for urban goods delivery, particularly to retailers, commercial businesses, and residences. Inconsistencies such as size and weight restrictions or time-of-day controls; lack of signal coordination, and street design features hinder the movement of goods on the system. Many of the highway and roadway infrastructure are also dated and structurally obsolete, posing additional safety issues. Much of the region’s rail system also is shared by passenger and freight rail traffic and several of the key interregional rail corridors already experience capacity constraints. The region has plans to expand intermodal rail and bulk rail terminals to meet the future demands for goods movement without increasing truck traffic on overburdened highways. Increasing traffic on rail lines will also create safety and community impact challenges that will require improvements to at-grade crossings or new rail quiet zones. Ports and airports are also crucial pieces of the goods movement system in Alameda County and beyond. The Port of Oakland will continue to play a large part of Alameda County ’s goods movement future. Slow turn times at the port pose significant reliability issues. In order to serve these emerging and existing industries, Success at the Port of Oakland will require continued improvement in the frequency and reliability of rail services so that the Port can serve a larger market area and continue to grow as an attractive import port and increase the economic benefits for the Bay Area residents through increased marine terminal capacity and new transload warehouses, such as the Oakland Global Trade and Logistics Center being developed at the former Oakland Army Base. 2 California Air Resources Board (CARB), http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/sfti/sfti.htm. TWIC Packet Page Number 79 of 83 2.1.3 Innovation Goal: Promote innovative technology strategies to improve the efficiency of the goods movement system. The Bay Area is a leading national and international center of technology and innovation. Although significant goods movement, environmental, and economic challenges exist, the culture and innovative abilities of the Bay Area serve as an excellent incubator for businesses and public agencies trying to solve these problems. As funding for expanding transportation infrastructure has become more constrained, there has been increasing interest in technologies, such as ITS and connected/autonomous vehicles for improving the efficiency of freight operations, a number of which are currently being tested or applied around the nation and could be implemented here. Other technologies, such as zero and near-zero emission trucks also hold promise for addressing goods movement environmental challenges. 2.1.4 Interconnected and Multimodal Goal: Preserve and strengthen an integrated and connected, multimodal goods movement system that supports freight mobility and access, and is coordinated with passenger transportation systems and local land use decisions. As the regional economy grows and changes, goods movement-dependent industries will continue to place increasing demands on the region’s goods movement system, but in different ways than in the past. For example, the rise of E-commerce is significantly changing the ways consumers purchase goods. This shift exacerbates “last-mile” delivery issues like inadequate delivery van parking space in concentrated urban centers, but may be met by a synergistic shift to smaller vehicles which have an easier time traveling on city streets and which may be good candidates for zero and near-zero emission technologies. Some jurisdictions of the Bay Area have made major commitments to denser residential and commercial development and the expansion of transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities along the major corridors serving this development. Several of the Priority Development Areas that take on additional housing and employment overlap with industrial areas. This changing land use can lead to conflicts between industrial users and residents, both in those neighborhoods historically located along goods movement corridors and those more recently designated as residential. E-commerce has led to a fundamental shift in the nature of goods movement, exacerbating “last-mile” delivery issues, such as delivery van parking in urban areas. TWIC Packet Page Number 80 of 83 Another emerging area of transportation planning that represents potential opportunities for a connected, integrated goods movement system is Complete Streets. A Complete Streets approach involves, planning, designing, and operating transportation facilities and networks to serve all modes and all users. Complete Streets designs frequently seek to make streets more compact in order to reduce vehicle speeds, improving safety of all users and comfort of active transportation modes. The emphasis on more compact streets that may impede maneuverability of trucks has resulted in concern from some carriers. However, to the extent that a Complete Streets philosophy encourages planners and engineers to resolve modal conflicts at a network level (e.g., prioritizing some streets for trucks and others for biking and walking) as well as to consider how a facility design will serve all users, Complete Streets designs present an opportunity for incorporating goods movement needs into urban street networks and designs. 2.1.5 Economic Prosperity Goal: Increase economic growth and prosperity that supports communities and businesses. In the 1980s and 1990s, a major force behind growth in the region was the development and manufacturing of computer hardware driven by the growing demand for personal computer systems, creating substantial demand for high-cost goods movement services (air cargo and trucking). As these industries grew and changed their product mix, much of the manufacturing activities moved off-shore, while engineering, design, and other technical activities remained and expanded in the Bay Area. Another trend that impacted goods movement industries in the Bay Area was the movement of older, traditional manufacturing activities overseas and warehousing and distribution jobs to the San Joaquin Valley, primarily due to availability of cheaper land, lower labor costs, and better access to the interstate highway system. Employment in the transportation sector overall has remained relatively stable in the last two decades, and declined less than the average among all industries during the 2008 to 2009 recession. This is partially due to tradeoffs made as decreases in some industries and shipping volumes have been replaced by increasing Pacific Rim trade through the Port of Oakland, and supporting rail and trucking activities. The growing international trade and logistics sector has been a source of middle-wage jobs that can partially offset the loss of jobs in traditional manufacturing. With apparent approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement at the Federal level, these tradeoffs can be expected to continue in similar directions, with manufacturing jobs moving off-shore even more amidst a growing logistics sector here handling increased international trade. The Bay Area economy is likely to continue to shift away from traditional manufacturing and towards software development and information services, with increased specialty Complete streets concepts can be applied to industrial districts. Source: Alameda CTC, 2012. TWIC Packet Page Number 81 of 83 manufacturing in the biotech and other high-technology industries that want to take advantage of the region’s highly skilled workforce. These emerging industries will continue to locate in the older industrial corridors but will require new approaches to transportation that will emphasize higher value modes (like air cargo) for high-value products along with an increased emphasis on access to global supply chains through international gateways. One emerging industry in the Bay Area that runs partially counter to these trends is the clean energy and electric vehicle sector. Tesla, a key pioneer of the electric vehicle sector with engineering headquarters in Palo Alto, has taken over factories in Fremont formerly owned and operated by traditional car companies. As the potential for mass market appeal of electric vehicles gains steam, other large tech companies in Silicon Valley are rumored to be developing similar products and buying up land in north San Jose and other nearby locations for engineering and production activities. This industry is producing middle-wage manufacturing jobs in addition to high-wage engineering jobs and will create demands on our goods movement system potentially greater than the former traditional car factories in the region, depending on the success of this sector nationally and globally. Startups such as LS9 in San Francisco are working in partnership with companies such as Proctor and Gamble and Chevron to produce renewable fuels and sustainable chemicals for consumer goods and fuels. These innovators are contributing to a shift in local manufacturing and employment, as well as influencing transportation systems and operations worldwide through development of new technology. 2.2 Goods Movement Opportunities In order to pursue the goods movement vision and address the challenges to meeting the goods movement goals, MTC has developed a plan focused on three main opportunities. Strategies, which will be presented later in this plan, are combined into “opportunity packages” where the strategies are linked to produce even greater benefits than could be achieved by individual projects. Developing packages of strategies focused on opportunities helps the region focus on solutions rather than problems. It is important to note that with proper investments and policies, Bay Area residents and businesses can realize even greater benefits from the goods movement system than they do today. Technologies, operational strategies, and planning practices are available to ensure that these benefits can be realized while still providing residents – even those who live near major goods movement infrastructure – with a high quality of life and economic opportunity. Each of the opportunities described has sustainability components built into them, to ensure that each package will not create negative impacts on communities.  Sustainable Global Competitiveness. This opportunity package builds on the unique combination of assets around the Port of Oakland, Oakland International Airport, and the redevelopment of the Oakland Army Base and recommends investments to improve this complex as a world class logistics hub. The investment approach emphasizes improvements that will support the types of logistics activity most likely to create middle- wage jobs and couples job training and workforce development to ensure that local residents can benefit from this activity. A critical element of the infrastructure investments TWIC Packet Page Number 82 of 83 involves improved rail connections with the potential to remove over a thousand trucks per day from the most congested freight highway corridors. Technology and operational strategies are also included to reduce impacts of goods movement activity on the health, safety, and quality of life in neighboring communities.  Smart Deliveries and Operations. Many aspects of the Bay Area’s surface transportation system are largely built out, with limited opportunities to build new capacity through added lanes or new corridors. Thus, the region has an opportunity to support maximum use of ITS, connected vehicles, and other technology solutions to more efficiently use existing roadway capacity. This opportunity can be broadened to encompass new technologies and operating practices that will lead to a more sustainable freight system, as well as innovative practices that can help manage local traffic and reduce conflicts. Elements of this opportunity package will take advantage of the innovation economy and technology sectors in the Bay Area, making them an integral provider of the systems that will be needed to advance the strategies included in this package.  Modernizing Infrastructure. The continued growth in traffic is putting additional pressure on goods movement infrastructure which supports a mix of traditional, as well as emerging industries. Modernizing the backbone of the freight infrastructure is thus an opportunity that should continue to be at the heart of the goods movement plan. This opportunity should focus on modernizing the road network in industrial corridors, improving safe access to industrial corridors and facilities, reducing land use conflicts along freight corridors, and improving last-mile truck routes and rail connections to existing and emerging industries. TWIC Packet Page Number 83 of 83