HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 04142016 - TWIC Agenda Pkt
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
April 14, 2016
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. Administrative Items. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and
Development)
4. REVIEW record of meeting for March 10, 2016, 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. CONSIDER selected recommendations in a report from the Pipeline Safety Trust
on pipeline safety in Contra Costa County commissioned by the Alamo
Improvement Association, and direct staff as appropriate to determine steps to
implement these recommendations. (Michael Kent, Contra Costa Health Services)
6. ACCEPT report on the impacts to County transportation projects from the
declining State gas tax; DIRECT the Public Works Director to make modifications
to the current draft of the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program
currently being routed for review to reflect the reduced gas tax revenues; and
ACKNOWLEDGE impacts of the State transportation funding situation on
County operations. (Steve Kowalewski, Department of Public Works)
7. CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department
of Conservation and Development)
8.PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT TIME SCHEDULED FOR NEXT TWIC MEETING, AS
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 1 of 107
8.PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT TIME SCHEDULED FOR NEXT TWIC MEETING, AS
FOLLOWS: the next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 2:00 P.M.
9.Adjourn
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff
person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 96 hours prior to that
meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and
Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 2 of 107
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
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 3 of 107
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:04/14/2016
Subject:Administrative Items.
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.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 4 of 107
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:04/14/2016
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for March 10, 2016, Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Committee Meeting.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each
County Body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must
accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting.
Referral Update:
Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this
meeting record.
Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web page:
http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the March 10, 2016 Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
3-10-16 TWIC Sign-In Sheet
3-10-16 DRAFT TWIC Meeting Minutes
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 5 of 107
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 6 of 107
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
March 10, 2016
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: Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair
Absent: Candace Andersen, Chair
Attendees: Lucinda Cartwright, CCC Civil Grand Jury
Harold Mantle, CCC Civil Grand Jury
John Burgh, CCC Water District
Mark Seedall, CCC Water District
John Wiggins, CCC Environmental Health
John Cunningham, CCC Conservation & Development
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 February 11, 2016 Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously approved the February 11, 2016 Meeting Record.
5.RECEIVE report on the formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency to undertake sustainable
groundwater management in the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County, DISCUSS
County membership, and take appropriate action. ( Ryan Hernandez, Water Agency - Department of
Conservation and Development)
The Committee received the report and directed staff to: bring the Tracy Sub Basin recommendation to the
BOS, report back to the Committee on other Subbasins, and consult with the appropriate Supervisorial offices
regarding SGMA implications.
6.REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2016 Calendar. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development)
The Committee received the calendar, and unanimously approved the draft for adoption.
7.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 7 of 107
7.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take
ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report above.
(John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
The Committee unanimously received the report, and directed staff to 1) bring a recommendation of
SUPPORT to the Board of Supervisors on SB632 (Cannella) School Zones - Speed Limits, and 2) bring a
draft letter to the BOS to CCTA regarding the rotation of CCTA Chair.
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 1pm.
9.Adjourn
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the
staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 96 hours prior
to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 8 of 107
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
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 9 of 107
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:04/14/2016
Subject:CONSIDER selected recommendations in the Pipeline Safety Trust report
directed at the County or County Departments, and DIRECT staff as
appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 12, 15
Referral Name: MONITOR and REPORT on the Underground Utilities Program and
MONITOR the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program.
Presenter: Michael Kent, Executive Assistant to
Hazardous Materials Commission
Contact: Michael Kent
(925)313-6587
Referral History:
This report has not been taken up by TWIC in the past, but is related to an earlier presentation at
TWIC by the State Fire Marshal on the Integrity Management Plan for the Kinder Morgan
pipeline running parallel to the Iron Horse Trail and other discussions that have occurred at TWIC
concerning pipeline safety.
Referral Update:
In 2015 the Alamo Improvement Association received a grant from the Federal Department of
Transportation to conduct public engagement around pipeline safety issues. As part of that grant
they contracted with the Pipeline Safety Trust to write a report on pipeline safety in Contra Costa
County. That report, Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa
County, California (see attached), contained nine recommendations to the County concerning
pipeline safety issues.
On January 28, the Hazardous Materials Commission unanimously agreed that the following
recommendations contained in the report merit further consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
The Commission encourages the Board to discuss these recommendations with the appropriate
departmental staff and other stakeholders to determine what measures may be necessary to
implement these recommendations, to identify the appropriate lead staff that would be necessary
to implement these measures, and to identify potential sources of any additional funding which
may be needed to implement these recommendations.
The page number where each recommendation can be found in the Pipeline Safety Trust report is
listed after each recommendation:
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 10 of 107
1. Review all development applications for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress
where currently limited, and where possible, include conditions on approvals to improve
connectivity and avoid exacerbation of access problems. (p.27)
2. Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard
and the Iron Horse Corridor where a single pipeline crossing road is the only access for
numerous homes and facilities with the goal of creating public accessibility across these
“dead-end” neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the pipeline to access any services.
(p.27)
3. Ensure the county has complete and accurate records of corridor and right of way
locations. Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of
encroachments into pipeline Rights of Way. (p. 23)
4. Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens with concerns about multiple utility
issues and right of way questions has technical training on safety concerns, adequate
resources to conduct regular and broad community outreach (especially along the Iron
Horse Trail Corridor), and resources to work in close coordination with other related
departments and advisory groups. (p. 23)
5. Request appropriate staff conduct an analysis of all congregate facilities located in close
proximity to transmission pipelines; Work with other emergency response agencies to
develop a list of resources for emergency and evacuation planning expertise for congregate
facilities near pipelines that can include potential hazards from a pipeline incident, and
mitigation strategies for those hazards based on site-specific considerations.(p. 27)
6. Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing encroachment including the
review of setback variances by municipal advisory councils or committees and department
staff, so that properties and vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines.
(p. 23)
On February 17, 2016 the Planning and Policy committee of the Hazardous Materials
Commission voted to endorse language changes the Department of Conservation and
Development is proposing to make to Section 82 of the County Zoning Code in response to the
following recommendation in the Pipeline Safety Report.
7. Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and
amending Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82.2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid
transmission pipelines would be subject to land use regulations. Consider additional
ordinances (s) pertaining to zoning and land use that are proposed for construction,
replacement, modification, or abandonment.
The following two recommendations from the report did not garner any support from the
Commission:
8. Work in coordination with pipeline operators to develop a technical advisory body that
can review the integrity management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara County System
Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipelines in
order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 11 of 107
awareness.
9. Expand the scope of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman and the Hazardous Materials
Commission regarding pipelines to provide an ongoing review of pipeline operators’
emergency plans and an active role in possible county efforts regarding additional
coordinated technical review of pipeline integrity management planning.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER selected recommendations in the Pipeline Safety Trust report directed at the County
or County Departments, and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
HMC Pipeline Report to TWIC 41416
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 12 of 107
Page 1
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Pipeline Safety in Alamo,
and surrounding areas within
Contra Costa County, California
Pipeline Safety Report to the
Alamo Improvement Association
Produced by the Pipeline Safety Trust
September 2015
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 13 of 107
Page 2
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) sponsored this report through a Community Technical
Assistance Grant they received from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration. Roger Smith, AIA President, was the driving force behind this
project; and Aron DeFarrari, Board Member, offered valuable feedback.
Multiple Contra Costa County staff members were helpful in the writing of this report, and we
appreciate their input and cooperation. Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman, was
invaluable in connecting us with others in the community and providing information. Jennifer
Quallick, Field Representative to Supervisor Anderson, was also very helpful.
Together, the four people mentioned above gave countless hours as part of the AIA Technical
Assistance Grant for pipeline safety, ad-hoc working group, and we thank them all for their dedication.
Numerous county, state, and federal agency employees, and pipeline operator staff members, spent time
giving us information used in this report, and we appreciate their willingness to help.
The Pipeline Safety Trust promotes pipeline safety through education and advocacy, increased access to
information, and partnerships with residents, safety advocates, government, and industry, resulting in
safer communities and a healthier environment.
The work of the Pipeline Safety Trust would not be possible without the guidance and diligent work of
the following people:
Trust Board of Directors
Lois Epstein – President (Anchorage, Alaska)
Sara Gosman – Vice President (Fayetteville, Arkansas)
Bruce Brabec – Treasurer (Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles)
Beth Wallace – Secretary (Brighton, Michigan)
Glenn R Archambault (Phoenix, Oregon)
Paul Blackburn (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Michael Guidon (Seattle, Washington)
Jeffrey Insko (Rochester, Michigan)
Trust Staff
Carl Weimer – Executive Director
Rebecca Craven – Program Director
Samya Lutz – Outreach Coordinator
Chris Coffin – Administrative Assistant/
Webmaster/Graphic Design
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 14 of 107
Page 3
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
LIST OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Purpose and Scope of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
PIPELINE BASICS AND TECHNICAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
What kinds of pipelines are in Contra Costa County? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Where are the pipelines in Contra Costa County? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Who regulates pipeline safety? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
How much risk is there from the pipelines in Contra Costa County?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Pipeline Construction, Operations and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Land Use Planning and Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Damage Prevention and Public Awareness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Emergency Response, Spill Response & Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A. Agency listing and resources for more information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B. Community education meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System. . . . . . . . . . 36
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 15 of 107
Page 4
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIA – Alamo Improvement Association
ASV – Automatic Shutoff Valve
CAER – Community Awareness and Emergency Response
CalEPA – California Environmental Protection Agency
CAO – Corrective Action Order
CATS – Community Assistance and Technical Services, PHMSA Pipeline Safety outreach staff
CCC – Contra Costa County
CDE – California Department of Education
CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission
CUPA – Certified Unified Program Agency, as authorized under CalEPA
DCD – Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development
EFRD – Emergency Flow Restricting Devices, or valves
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
HCA – High Consequence Area
HL – Hazardous Liquid
HSD – Contra Costa County Health Services Department
IHC – Iron Horse Corridor
LS – Line Segment, specifying a number that identifies a specific segment of a pipeline
NTSB – National Transportation Safety Board
OSFM – California Office of the State Fire Marshal
OSPR – California Department of Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response
PHMSA – U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PST – Pipeline Safety Trust, also referred to in this report as “the Trust”
RCV – Remote Control Valve
SFPP – Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline system that is operated by Kinder Morgan
TAG – PHMSA Community Technical Assistance Grant
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 16 of 107
Page 5
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
The Pipeline Safety Trust reviewed Contra Costa County
hazardous liquid pipelines, with a particular focus on the
Alamo area and the Iron Horse Corridor. In this report, we
provide general information on pipeline regulations and
risks, as well as more detailed information on concerns of
particular interest to the Alamo community.
We make a number of recommendations interspersed
throughout the report and summarized here that in
our opinion – if adopted by the various agencies and
stakeholder groups mentioned – would make pipelines in
Contra Costa County even safer.
These recommendations are organized under the agency
or group to which they are directed. We have purposefully
not prioritized our recommendations, as implementation
may be affected by any number of factors including
budgets and workloads of the agencies involved. All our
recommendations are summarized here:
The Federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration Could:
• Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence
Area designation easily available to the public.
• Adopt regulations to implement the NTSB
recommendations regarding needed improvements to
the Integrity Management requirements for both gas
and hazardous liquid pipelines.
• Adopt stronger regulations requiring automated valves
consistent with the NTSB recommendations.
• Adopt stronger regulations that require better leak
detection systems in hazardous liquid pipelines that
could affect high consequence areas, and provide a
clear performance standard for computational pipeline
monitoring systems.
The State of California Could:
• Enforce excavation damage prevention laws. Currently
authority is held with the Attorney General’s office, but
there is not adequate staffing or resources to respond
to notifications of alleged violations or to investigate.
Other agencies respond on a fragmented basis
depending on the damaged utility involved.
• Work with the California Department of Education
(CDE) on ways to implement CDE’s suggestions
for reducing the probability of a pipeline product
release on schools, and reducing the severity and
consequences of pipeline releases on schools.
The California Office of the State Fire Marshal Could:
• Make their maps, incident and inspection information
accessible to the public by posting it online.
• Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence
Area designation easily available to the public.
• Adopt regulations to implement the NTSB
recommendations regarding needed improvements to
the Integrity Management requirements that apply to
intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines.
• Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines
requiring automated valves that apply to hazardous liquid
pipelines along the lines of the NTSB recommendations.
• Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines that
require better leak detection systems in high consequence
areas, and that provide a clear performance standard for
computational pipeline monitoring systems.
The California Department of Education Could:
• Expand School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis and the
Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management
guidance in coordination with emergency response
agencies to offer help for schools that already exist
in close proximity to pipelines. Lead coordination
efforts among the myriad of agencies that offer crisis
planning assistance to schools, and suggest minimum
information that should be included in these plans
regarding pipelines.
The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Could:
• Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens
(especially along the Iron Horse Corridor) with concerns
about multiple utility issues and right of way questions
has technical training on safety concerns, adequate
resources to conduct regular and broad community
outreach, and resources to work in close coordination
with other related departments and advisory groups.
• Request appropriate staff conduct an analysis of all
congregate facilities (i.e. schools, recreation facilities,
hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) located in close
proximity to transmission pipelines; Work with
other emergency response agencies to develop a list
of resources for emergency and evacuation planning
expertise for congregate facilities near pipelines that
can include potential hazards from a pipeline incident,
and mitigation strategies for those hazards based on
site-specific considerations.
• Consider adding goals and policies regarding
pipelines to the General Plan, and amending Contra
Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all gas
and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would
be subject to (and not exempt from) the General
and Land Use District regulations (divisions 82 and
84). Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining
to zoning and land use permitting for hazardous
liquid pipelines and possibly also intrastate gas
transmission pipelines that are proposed for
construction, replacement, modification, or
abandonment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 17 of 107
Page 6
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
• Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing
encroachment including the review of setback variances
by municipal advisory councils or committees and
department staff so that properties and vegetation along
utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines.
• Work in coordination with pipeline operators to develop
a technical advisory body that can review the integrity
management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara County
System Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other
technical assessments of the pipelines in order to cultivate
informed technical expertise in the county and increase
public trust and awareness.
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
and Development Could:
• Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines
to the General Plan, and amending Contra Costa
County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all gas and
hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would be
subject to (and not exempt from) the General and
Land Use District regulations (divisions 82 and 84).
Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining to zoning
and land use permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines
and possibly also intrastate gas transmission pipelines
that are proposed for construction, replacement,
modification, or abandonment.
• Review all development applications for opportunities
to improve existing ingress/egress where currently
limited, and where possible, include conditions
on approvals to improve connectivity and avoid
exacerbation of access problems.
The Contra Costa County Health Services Department
Could:
• Expand the scope of the Hazardous Materials
Ombudsman and the Hazardous Materials
Commission regarding pipelines to provide an
ongoing review of pipeline operators’ emergency plans
and an active role in possible county efforts regarding
additional coordinated technical review of pipeline
integrity management planning.
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department
Could:
• Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas
in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard and the Iron
Horse Corridor where a single east-west pipeline-
crossing road is the only access for numerous homes
and facilities (e.g., Hemme Road, Camille Road) with
the goal of creating public accessibility across these
‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the
pipeline to access any services.
• Ensure the county has complete and accurate records
of corridor and right of way locations and widths.
Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other
utilities on resolution of encroachments into pipeline
rights of way.
The Contra Costa County Office of Public Education &
Local School Districts Could:
• Expand emergency preparedness resources to include
information about pipelines and pipeline-specific
risks. Assist individual schools in developing crisis
plans and emergency preparedness plans that include
pipelines on the emergency maps and assess how
ingress/egress may be affected by a pipeline incident.
The Contra Costa County Community Awareness and
Emergency Response (CAER) Group Could:
• Include specific reference to oil and gas pipelines
in the list of potential hazards listed in the hazard
assessment in the next update to the Model Emergency
Plan for Schools.
Pipeline Operators Could:
• Reach out to the schools along pipeline easements and
offer to provide technical assistance assessing pipeline
risks and evacuation strategies given possible incidents
that could occur in close proximity to the schools.
• Consistently undertake assessments of existing Right
of Way encroachments to determine whether there
are safety implications. Coordinate with Contra Costa
County to resolve encroachments with neighboring
property owners.
• Become members of the Contra Costa County
Community Awareness and Emergency Response
Group, and participate consistently in quarterly
meetings and responses.
• Contract for an independent technical seismic
vulnerability study on HCA pipelines affected by
potentially active faults to feed into the pipeline risk
analysis, and make the study available to the public.
• Work in coordination with the Board of Supervisors
to develop a technical advisory body that can review
the integrity management plan (similar to the Santa
Barbara County System Safety Reliability Review
Committee) and other technical assessments of the
pipelines in order to cultivate informed technical
expertise in the county and increase public trust
and awareness.
Local Fire Districts Could:
• Designate a single point-of-contact to coordinate
with pipeline operators, familiarize themselves with
the operators’ emergency response and spill response
plans, know the facilities where people congregate
(schools, churches, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) in
close proximity to the pipeline, and be involved with
any emergency planning done by those facilities.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 18 of 107
Page 7
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
INTRODUCTION
Background
Contra Costa County has over 1 million people and covers
approximately 805 square miles. The city of Martinez is
the county seat, and one of nineteen incorporated cities
within the county. Oil refineries operate along the western
and northern coastlines: Phillips 66, Chevron, Shell
Oil, and Tesoro, with associated petroleum storage and
transportation infrastructure. Most of the hazardous liquid
pipelines in the county transport product to or from a
storage facility or refinery.
A Board of Supervisors governs the County, with
representatives elected from five districts; the Alamo area
is part of District II, and is unincorporated with about
15,000 residents. The homeowners association – the
Alamo Improvement Association – is quite active, with
an elected board and committees. In addition, the Alamo
Municipal Advisory Council serves a formalized role with
the county as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors
and the County planning agency, providing review and
recommendations for a variety of activities that impact the
Alamo area.
One of the areas of particular interest to the Alamo
community is the Iron Horse Corridor. This is an historic
rail corridor managed as a regional multiuse trail that runs
roughly north-south from Concord in northern Contra
Costa County to beyond the Alameda County line to the
south, cutting Contra Costa County roughly in half and
traversing the county for about 20 miles. Utilities and private
infrastructure also run along the corridor, including a refined
oil pipeline referred to as the San Jose line that is part of the
Kinder Morgan Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline (SFPP) system.
Conversations in the Alamo community precipitated a
renewed interest in this pipeline, and prompted the Alamo
Improvement Association (AIA) to seek technical assistance
and commission this report on pipeline safety.
Purpose and Scope of Report
The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) contracted
with the Pipeline Safety Trust in February 2015 to provide
services intended to educate and inform the community
about hazardous liquid pipelines and pipeline safety. That
included presentations at two community workshops in
June 2015, as well as the production of this report.
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Workshop held on June 3, 2015 in Alamo, CA
The funding for these services came from a Community
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) awarded by the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation. AIA
applied for this grant in the spring of 2014 to include
pipeline safety public outreach and education, as well as
training for local first responders, and outreach regarding
the national 811 Call Before You Dig program. The grant
period ran from October 2014 – September 2015. Roger
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 19 of 107
Page 8
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Smith, President of the Alamo Improvement Association
was the primary point of contact for the TAG award and
contract for services with the Trust.
From January through August 2015, Pipeline Safety Trust
staff participated in periodic conference calls with two
representatives of the Alamo Improvement Association,
a field representative in Contra Costa County District
II Supervisor Anderson’s office, and the Hazardous
Materials Ombudsman within the Contra Costa County
Health Services Department. This ad-hoc group was
highly engaged with planning the two hazardous liquid
pipeline safety workshops that took place in June,1 and
continued to be involved through the report process.
Pipeline Safety Trust staff also engaged in one-on-one
conversations with these same individuals as well as
others from Contra Costa County Departments of Health
Services, Public Works, Conservation and Development;
local emergency services; California State offices of
the Fire Marshal and the Office of Spill Prevention and
Response; Kinder Morgan; and from the federal Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
AIA asked the Trust to report broadly on pipeline issues
affecting the entire county as well as the role of federal
and state agencies, and to focus in on issues specific to
petroleum pipelines and particularly the pipeline concerns
of people in the Alamo area. All the data shown in charts
or graphs in this report is from PHMSA as of August 2015,
unless otherwise noted.
1 The second of these two public forums was captured on video by
CCTV, and is available to watch here: http://contra-costa.granicus.
com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=935921b6-0eea-11e5-b5ce-
00219ba2f017
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 20 of 107
Page 9
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
PIPELINE BASICS AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
What kinds of pipelines are in Contra
Costa County?
There are three main types of pipelines in Contra Costa
County, and it is important to understand what the different
types are since they have different safety considerations and
are regulated by different agencies under different rules.
The three main types are:
Hazardous Liquid Lines: These are the lines that move
crude oil to the local refineries and then move refined
products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc.) from the refineries
to other markets.
Natural Gas Transmission Lines: These are the relatively
larger, higher-pressure pipelines that move gas from
production or storage to where the gas is distributed to
our homes and businesses. They operate at pressures in the
range of 300 to over 1500 pounds per square inch.
Natural Gas Distribution Lines: A distribution line is a
relative small, lower pressure pipeline used to supply natural
gas directly to our homes and businesses. A distribution
line is located in a network of piping located downstream
of a natural gas transmission line. The “city gate” is where a
transmission system feeds into a lower pressure distribution
system. Gas distribution pipelines comprise by far the
most mileage of pipes; they carry odorized gas (with the
characteristic smell of rotten eggs) throughout urban areas.
Two other important distinctions are interstate pipelines
compared to intrastate pipelines. Interstate pipelines are
typically longer transmission pipelines that cross state
lines; intrastate pipelines are transmission pipelines that lie
wholly within a single state.2
2 State lines are not the sole determiner for the inter/intrastate
distinction. For details see 49 CFR 195, Appendix A.
Where are the pipelines in Contra
Costa County?
The US has over 2.6 million miles of pipelines. Most of these
(approximately 92%) carry gas – predominantly natural gas
– and the rest (approximately 8%) carry hazardous liquids.
Hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines are governed
by separate regulations. Whether and how pipelines are
regulated also depends on what product is carried and
where the pipeline is located.
Regulated Pipeline Mileage - U.S. and California
Miles of Pipelines U.S. California
Gas Transmission &
Gathering
319,350 11,861
Gas Distribution 2,167,270 200,262
Hazardous Liquid 198,778 7,139
Total 2,685,398 219,262
Data from PHMSA as of 8/5/2015
There are over 4,000 miles of natural gas pipelines in Contra
Costa County, 260 miles of which are transmission lines,
and the rest are distribution lines and services.3 All the
natural gas distribution pipelines are operated by Pacific
Gas & Electric under the jurisdiction of the California
Public Utility Commission.
Hazardous liquid (HL) transmission pipelines in Contra
Costa County total close to 500 miles.4 Roughly two-thirds
of the HL pipelines carry refined products, and about one-
third carry crude oil.
3 Data on gas pipeline mileage is from the California Public Utilities
Commission (July 2015).
4 Data on HL pipeline mileage in Contra Costa County from OSFM
staff, and does not include empty or abandoned lines.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 21 of 107
Page 10
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
The map below from the National Pipeline Mapping System5 shows the general location of the hazardous liquid (red) and
the gas transmission (blue) pipelines in Contra Costa County.
Anyone can access these maps to see where hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines run through their community.
The map below shows the two main pipelines running through the Alamo area – the Kinder Morgan San Jose Line in red
and the PG&E natural gas line in blue. The “public viewer” for the maps is available online at: https://www.npms.phmsa.
dot.gov/PublicViewer/.
5 https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 22 of 107
Page 11
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
The system takes practice to navigate, but once a person
figures it out it is possible to zoom in to get an idea of where
these types of pipelines are generally located and some basic
information about the pipelines themselves. While these
types of maps can provide a general idea of where pipelines
are located they should never be used as an indication of
where it might be safe to dig. The One Call system is the
only way to identify the exact location of a pipeline, and is
discussed in more detail later in this report.
Details about the San Jose Pipeline
AIA is particularly interested in the Kinder Morgan SFPP
pipeline, especially the portion of that pipeline that runs
for nearly 20 miles along the Iron Horse Corridor in
central Contra Costa County; this segment of the SFPP
system is also called the “San Jose line” or LS-16 (line
segment 16). This line carries refined oil products and is
the focus of this report because of its location along the
Iron Horse Corridor from Concord south through Alamo
to the Contra Costa – Alameda county line and beyond
to San Jose. LS-16 is ten inches in diameter and classified
as an intrastate pipeline, meaning it is regulated by the
Office of the State Fire Marshal under a certification from
PHMSA, and it operates under a rate structure approved
by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The San Jose line is subject to federal regulations with
regard to integrity management (discussed elsewhere in
this report) as a release from the line could affect a high
consequence area.
The San Jose line delivers petroleum products from a pump
station in Concord to the Kinder Morgan San Jose terminal
– a total of 51.4 miles – and was installed in the mid-1960s,
with portions of the pipe replaced through the decades as
a result of maintenance activities. The maximum allowable
operating pressure on the San Jose line is 1310 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig), and the typical operating
pressure at the originating Concord station is 1165 psig
(operating pressure varies by elevation and distance from
pump stations). The line throughput is generally about 4483
barrels per hour.6
There are five valves along the length of this line segment
that serve to further isolate sections of the pipeline in the
event of a release, located on average every 10 miles.7 These
valves include three manual gate valves and two motor
operated remote control valves. There are no automatic
shut-off valves on this line.
The original easement for this pipeline was between
SFPP and the South Pacific Railroad, and existed at the
time the county acquired the right-of-way from the
Railroad in the 1980s.
6 Information about the San Jose line (LS-16) was gleaned from
the following sources: PHMSA accident report database; OSFM
pipeline failure investigation report; OSFM review of KM Integrity
Management Program; PHMSA 5-2005-5025H case files; and
presentation by KM Operations Manager June 2015.
7 The distance is greater than 10 miles in some places, with original
placement impacted by topography and elevation.
Who regulates pipeline safety?
Federal Oversight
Ultimately the U.S. Congress has responsibility for setting the
framework under which pipeline safety regulations operate in
the country. The U.S. Department of Transportation through
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is primarily responsible for issuing and enforcing
the minimum pipeline safety regulations. Most of these
regulations are performance-based. For example, pipeline
operators are required by the federal regulations to operate
and repair pipelines in a safe manner so as to prevent damage
to persons or property, but the way in which they do so is
generally not spelled out prescriptively. This allows pipeline
operators to prioritize pipeline inspections and repairs in areas
with higher populations or higher risk factors, but it also makes
the regulations ambiguous and challenging to enforce.
State Oversight
The federal pipeline safety laws allow for states to accept the
responsibility to regulate, inspect, and enforce safety rules
over intrastate pipelines within their borders under an annual
certification from PHMSA. If a state receives such intrastate
authority they can set regulations that are more stringent than
those PHMSA sets as long as the state rules do not conflict with
the federal regulations. PHMSA also can enter into an agreement
with the state pipeline regulator to carry out inspections on
interstate pipelines. Local governments are not allowed to create
rules to regulate the operational safety of pipelines, though they
may have involvement in spill response, routing and siting issues,
and franchise or easement agreements.
California has authority for intrastate pipelines, which is carried
out through the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) for
hazardous liquid pipelines, and through the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) for natural gas pipelines. The
OSFM also had authority to act as an interstate agent for
PHMSA on hazard liquid interstate pipelines through 2012, but
ended that agreement to focus better on the intrastate pipelines
due to an inability to retain enough qualified inspectors on staff.
The California State Legislature is currently working to address
this pay scale problem.8
California has adopted both
hazardous liquid and natural
gas pipeline regulations that
are more stringent than the
federal minimum regulations
for the intrastate pipelines.
Some of those stronger
hazardous liquid rules
include better information
sharing, incident reporting,
and planning outreach to fire
departments; more frequent
pipeline inspections or testing,
additional pressure testing
requirements in certain
situations including for
8 See SB-295 Pipeline safety: inspections (2015-2016).
NAPSR Compendium of State Pipeline Safety Requirements & Initiatives (2013). See http://www.napsr.org/compendium.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 23 of 107
Page 12
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
pipelines that have experienced certain kinds of leaks; better
protection of pipeline easements from encroachment; and an
internal comprehensive database and mapping system.9
City and County Governmental Powers
For the most part the federal pipeline safety law precludes
local government from adopting any regulation that requires a
pipeline operator to take any action regarding the safe operation
of a pipeline. There is nothing in state or federal law that restricts
a local government’s ability to ask for increased safety measures
as part of their negotiations regarding the use of public rights-of-
way or other public property. While local government may not
be able to require or enforce such measures, cities nationwide
have been able to obtain increased safety measures through such
voluntary requests, especially when such safety measures are well
thought out, supported by the public, and do not conflict with
federal or state regulations. One area in which local government
has considerable ability to increase pipeline safety is through
their land use and zoning authority. Details of this option are
discussed in the Land Use Planning section later in this report.
How much risk is there from the pipelines
in Contra Costa County?
Risk is one of those things that one person cannot really define
for another, since each person thinks about risks in their own
personal way. While some feel that skydiving is a risk worth
taking, others won’t even go up in the airplane. In other words
it is not possible for us to say whether the pipelines in Contra
Costa County are safe enough. All we can do is to try to provide
enough information so individuals can make that decision on
their own, and then work with others in their community to set
policies based on the beliefs of as many people as possible.
Risk is made up of two different factors both of which need
to be carefully considered when deciding how risky an
activity is. Those factors are the probability that an event
will occur (chance a pipeline will rupture or leak), and the
possible consequences if it does.
Probability
First let’s take a look at some of the publicly available data to try
to get a sense of the probability of a hazardous liquid pipeline
incident occurring in Contra Costa County or along the Iron
Horse Corridor.
PHMSA maintains a publicly accessible database of reported
pipeline incidents.10 Hazardous liquid pipeline operators are
required to file an incident report when there is a release that
results in any of the following:
1. death or injury requiring hospitalization;
2. estimated property damage exceeding $50,000;
3. an unintentional explosion or fire; or
4. a release of 5 gallons or more off of company property
9 California GOV Code § 51010 et. seq.
10 See http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats for both
online pipeline incident data and downloadable files.
or the pipeline right-of-way or causing water pollution,
or a release of 5 barrels (210 gallons) or more confined
to company property or pipeline right-of-way and not
causing water pollution.11
A subset of all these reported incidents are considered
‘significant’ if they result in items 1, 2, or 3 above or result in
the release of 50 barrels (2,100 gallons) or more of hazardous
liquids. A further subset of ‘serious’ incidents are those that
result in a death or injury requiring hospitalization.12
Here are two graphs that show the numbers of significant
incidents each year both throughout the U.S. and in
California. As you can see in both cases the number of
incidents is relatively small, and the overall trend is a
decreasing number of incidents. The troubling part of these
graphs is that in both cases over the past 6-8 years this trend
seems to be turning around and the numbers of significant
incidents are increasing.
But raw numbers of incidents is a pretty rough way of looking
at probability because the number of miles of pipelines
changes, and the different types of products the pipelines carry
have different failure rates. If we take the mileage of pipelines
into consideration, and break the type of products these
hazardous liquid pipelines carry down into the two main types
– crude oil and other products – we start to get a more refined
look at probabilities. The following graph shows that crude oil
pipelines have a higher incident rate than product pipelines,
and that both types of pipelines have a higher incident rate in
California than in the rest of the country.
11 See 49 CFR § 195.50 and 195.52 for hazardous liquid accident
reporting requirements.
12 For a complete description of these categories for all pipelines,
see http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/datastatistics/
pipelineincidenttrends
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 24 of 107
Page 13
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Incident rate alone does not really portray the consequence of an incident very well, so we also compare the amount spilled per
incident per mile of pipe (see bar graph on upper right), which makes California’s higher rate of incidents look quite different. As
you can see what this shows us is that while California may have more incidents per mile of pipeline than the national average, the
amount spilled is considerably less than the national average.
It is also possible to use these same rates to look at how individual pipeline companies compare to national averages. For
instance, in the following graphs we compare the incident rate per mile of similar pipeline and gallons spilled nationally and in
California with the rate of failures and gallons spilled that have occurred on the entire Kinder Morgan SFPP system, a portion
of which runs along the Iron Horse Corridor.
As can be seen from these graphs over the past five years the Kinder Morgan SFPP pipeline system has had fewer incidents
and spilled far fewer gallons of product than other comparable pipelines throughout the U.S. and in California. SFPP is
one of a number of pipeline systems in Contra Costa County, so trying to determine the probability of an incident within
the county requires looking beyond the SFPP numbers. If we take the SFPP 5-year average incident rate as one bound
(0.00028), and the California 5-year average incident rate as another bound (0.00070), we can use those together with the
roughly 350 miles of non-crude hazardous pipelines in the county to estimate the likely frequency of incidents on these
pipelines. Currently it could be expected that a significant incident would occur somewhere between once every 4 years
(CA average) to once every 10 years (SFPP average).
In Appendix D we have provided a list of all reported incidents in Contra Costa County, and from a look at that list it
is clear that the frequency of significant incidents occurring in the county is higher than should be expected from these
statistics. In the past five years alone there have been five significant incidents on these types of non-crude liquid pipelines
in the County. One possible explanation for this higher rate is the high number of facilities processing fuel in the county.
Such facilities are associated with pipelines, and therefore incidents related to the facilities also are incorporated with the
pipeline incident statistics. These facilities have very high numbers of fittings, valves, and other appurtenances that tend
to have higher failure rates, and often these failures are more contained on company owned property and do not affect the
public and private rights-of-way through which longer pipelines travel.13
One other data set that provides some information about probability of failures is the cause of such failures. Following is a chart that
shows the causes of significant incidents both nationally and in California. California hazardous liquid pipeline incidents appear
13 OSFM also maintains PHMSA incident data that they further separate for certain public presentations. For example, they may present only
incidents occurring on the pipeline right-of-way and leave out those that occur within associated facilities; or they may remove data that includes
idled or abandoned pipelines. OSFM does not provide these internal statistics to the public.
25
20
15
10
5
0 United States California
Gallons Spilled / Year / Mile of Pipeline 2010 - 2014
Non-Crude Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Crude Oil Pipelines
15.15
23.27
3.81
7.93
20
15
10
5
0
Gallons spilled per year per mile of
non-crude oil pipeline 2010 - 2014
U.S.
15.52
California
3.81
SFPP
0.2573
0.00080
0.00070
0.00060
0.00040
0.00050
0.00030
0.00020
0.00010
0.00000
Significant incidents per year per mile of
non-crude oil pipelines 2010 - 2014
U.S.
0.00061
California
0.00070
SFPP
0.00028
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0Non-Crude Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Crude Oil Pipelines
Significant Incidents / Year / Mile of Pipeline 2010 - 2014
United States California
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 25 of 107
Page 14
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
to be more frequently caused by corrosion when compared to
those across the US as a whole. Corrosion is the dominant cause
of pipeline incidents in California, followed by Material/Weld/
Equipment failure. Both of these causes together lead to nearly
two-thirds of all hazardous liquid pipeline incidents in both
California (67%) and the U.S. as a whole (63%).
These charts and graphs should provide some measure of
the probability of a pipeline incident happening and some of
the consequences
if it does. It is fairly
clear from the data
that the chance of
a pipeline failing in
any particular spot
is very, very small,
but of course if you
ask the families of
any of the 360 people
who were killed by
pipeline incidents
over the past twenty
years in United
States they would
tell you that the consequences are huge. So what are the
possible consequences of pipeline failures, and how can they
be quantified?
Consequences
For natural gas pipelines it is fairly easy to predict the impact
zone around a pipeline failure that explodes. There is a
formula used in the federal regulations, based on the size and
pressure of the pipeline that predicts the “potential impact
radius,” and that radius is then used to define some elements
of the regulations. The picture in the previous column shows
how that radius might appear on a particular pipeline.
For hazardous liquid pipelines predicting the consequence
area is much more difficult because of the different products
involved and because the products may flow long distances
based on the terrain
and whether they
reach water. While
each pipeline
operator is required
to do an analysis
of whether a leak
along any section
of the pipeline
could affect a high
consequence area,
that information
is not shared
with the public.
The best that the
public can do is to
look at their own
area and compare
that with the
consequences of
past liquid failures.
The National
Transportation
Safety Board
investigates
many of the
most significant
incidents and the
reports of their
investigations
can be found
at: http://
www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/pipeline.aspx.
We can also look at pictures like the ones above to see what
can happen in the unlikely event that a hazardous liquid
pipeline fails in a particular area.
Past Incidents on the San Jose Line
An incident occurred on the SFPP, San Jose line (LS-16)
in Walnut Creek on November 9, 2004, in which five
workers were killed and four others significantly injured
from a pipeline rupture and explosion. Property damage
was sustained nearby including a two-story structure
that burned. The pipeline ruptured when it was struck by
excavation equipment operating as part of a water supply
Example of a Potential Impact Radius of a pipeline incident shown on an aerial map (assumes the pipeline rupture occurs at the center of the circle)
PHMSA Data – 8-15-15
California
Onshore Pipelines
4.6%
41.4%
11.5%
10.3%
25.3%
2.3%4.6%
U.S. Onshore Pipelines
6.2%3.2%5.3%
24.9%
10.7%
11.2%
38.3%
All Other Causes
Corrosion
Excavation Damage
Incorrect Operation
Material/weld/equipFailure
Natural Force Damage
Other Outside Force Damage
Causes of Significant Incidents on
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines –
2005 - 2014
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 26 of 107
Page 15
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
expansion project. The gasoline released from the pipeline
was soon after ignited by welders also working on the new
water supply pipeline. According to the OSFM Pipeline
Failure Investigation Report, several contributing factors led
up to the excavator bucket striking the pipeline, including
“inadequate line locating, inadequate project safety
oversight and communication, and failure to follow the
one-call law” (page 14).14 OSFM made recommendations
to Kinder Morgan that included improvements to the
way in which employees observe and respond to one-
call excavation notifications, and modifications to the
company’s Operator Qualification Program related to line
locating and excavation notifications.
PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order (CAO) for
Kinder Morgan in 2005 with respect to its entire Pacific
Operations unit of hazardous liquid pipeline systems,
covering 3,900 miles across six states, and including
the SFPP pipeline system and the San Jose line. The
CAO was in response to eight accidents within the
previous 16 months that released petroleum products
into or near high consequence areas. Seven of the eight
occurred in California, and two within Contra Costa
County: the November 9, 2004 incident mentioned
above on LS-16, and a November 7, 2004 incident in
Martinez that occurred on LS-47. PHMSA called out
“a widespread failure of Kinder Morgan to adequately
detect and address the effects of outside force damage
and corrosion” (page 2), and ordered the operator to take
immediate corrective actions with respect to all Pacific
Operations unit hazardous liquid pipeline systems.15
PHMSA subsequently replaced the CAO with a 14-page
Consent Agreement entered into on April 4, 2006 by
both parties. The Consent Agreement also delineated
specific actions to be taken by Kinder Morgan to improve
its pipeline operations and integrity management and
to be completed within ten years. On May 11, 2015,
PHMSA issued a closure letter to Kinder Morgan,
stating that all the required action had been completed
and the terms of the Agreement were satisfied, thereby
closing the case.16 In the next column is a graph that
shows all reportable incidents on the Kinder Morgan
SFPP system including the San Jose Pipeline that runs
through Contra Costa County during the period that this
corrective action order covered. This graph appears to
support that the actions that Kinder Morgan took as part
14 California Office of the State Fire Marshal. Pipeline Failure
Investigation Report, Form-11. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LS-
16 rupture in Walnut Creek, 9 November 2004.
15 U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA Office of Pipeline
Safety. Corrective Action Order re: case No. 5-2005-5025H, August
24, 2005.
16 Multiple technical documents were required to be submitted to
PHMSA in accordance with the Consent Agreement, however these
are not publicly available. Requests for information through Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/
about/foia) take many months for PHMSA to respond, and even
when documents are received they often contain many redactions.
Therefore the public is left with having little to go on to verify how
PHMSA has followed through and been given adequate assurances
that each item in the Consent Agreement has been completed.
of the consent decree have helped reduce the number of
incidents on this line.
Pipeline Construction, Operations and
Maintenance
Many of the pipelines in place today were constructed
before regulations existed for pipelines. Some of the
current regulations have to do with ongoing operations
and maintenance, and apply to both existing and new lines.
Existing ‘grandfathered’ pipelines built prior to 1979 for
hazardous liquid lines, or prior to 1968 for gas pipelines,
may not have been constructed according to the current
regulations. What are pipeline operators required to do to
maintain safe pipelines? In this section, we go through basic
information, and dive more deeply into some technical
issues about which the Alamo community expressed
particular concern.
Construction
The construction phase of pipeline installation is a critically
important time to ensure the long-term integrity of the
pipeline. Transmission pipelines are most commonly made
of steel, and the pipes are fabricated and inspected to meet
industry and government safety standards. Differing soil
conditions and geographic or population characteristics
of the pipeline route will dictate different requirements for
pipe size, strength, wall thickness and coating material.
Hazardous liquid pipelines must be buried between 18 and
48 inches below the surface, depending on location and
soil properties. The prescribed depth must be adhered to
at the time of burial, but regulations do not require it to be
maintained over time. Operators must use qualified welders,
and most welds on the pipe are evaluated and inspected in
the field; a proper weld is stronger than the pipe itself.
Corrosion Protection
Corrosion is a serious issue for all steel pipelines. Without
corrosion protection every steel pipe will eventually
deteriorate, weaken, and become unsafe. With proper
corrosion protection, steel pipelines can remain safely
operating for many decades. Pipeline operators use three
common methods to control corrosion:
2020
18
16
14
12
8
10
6
4
2
0
2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
All Reportable Incidents on Kinder Margan’s SFPP System
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 27 of 107
Page 16
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
• Pipeline coatings
and linings defend
against corrosion by
protecting the bare
steel from coming
in direct contact
with corrosive
conditions.
• Corrosion inhibitors
are substances that
may be added to the
commodity running
through the pipe to
decrease the rate of
attack of internal
corrosion.
• Cathodic protection
(CP) systems use
direct electrical
current to counteract the normal external corrosion
that occurs due to soil and moisture conditions. On
new pipelines, CP can help prevent corrosion from
starting; on existing pipelines, CP can stop existing
corrosion from getting worse.
These corrosion control methods may all be used at the
same time; pipeline engineers must carefully consider the
specific operating conditions, and pipeline and commodity
characteristics to maintain the necessary corrosion
protection for each particular pipeline segment.
High Consequence Areas and Integrity Management
Hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect High
Consequence Areas (HCAs), which include high
population areas, certain drinking water sources, or
some ecologically sensitive areas, must prepare integrity
management plans and adhere to stricter rules than
pipelines outside of such HCAs.17 For example, pipelines
that could affect an HCA have to be physically inspected
by the pipeline company on a regular basis, whereas
pipelines that could not affect an HCA never are required
to be inspected. Currently about 43% of all hazardous
liquid pipelines in the U.S. and 68% in California could
affect HCAs and fall under these requirements.
Operators subject to integrity management must do a
risk analysis of the segments of the pipeline that could
affect HCAs, and then implement a plan to inspect
and maintain that pipeline segment using methods
appropriate to the specific risk factors impacting the
pipeline. The minimum re-inspection interval for
hazardous liquid pipelines is every five years; the
integrity management plan and risk analysis may
indicate certain pipelines or pipeline segments need to
be re-inspected more frequently. The most commonly
performed inspections are done with internal in-line
17 See 49 CFR § 195.450 and references therein for the definition of a
high consequence area, and 49 CFR § 195.452 for the regulations
concerning pipeline integrity management in high consequence
areas.
inspection devices referred to as ‘smart pigs’ that record
problems such as corrosion, dents, and gouges as they
move through the pipeline. The inspections are typically
performed by a third party contractor that also interprets
the inspection results, and submits both the results and
their interpretation to the pipeline operator in the form
of a report. Federal and OSFM regulators may review
these internal inspection reports during their own
regulatory inspections of a pipeline operator.
Information about which pipeline segments are and are
not within HCAs is not easily publicly available. However,
it does appear that the vast majority of hazardous liquid
pipelines in Contra Costa County are covered under
the stricter integrity management rules that apply to the
hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect an HCA. The
portion of the San Jose line within the county is operating
under these rules.
The development and implementation of the Integrity
Management Program in the last decade represented a
major improvement in risk analysis and ongoing testing and
maintenance of pipelines that fall under those requirements.
However, with nearly a decade of performance data under
the new rules numerous shortcomings in the current
Integrity Management Program have been identified by a
variety of groups including both PHMSA and the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB recently
released a report18 that made numerous recommendations
for improving Gas Transmission Integrity Management to
make it clearer exactly what pipeline operators are required
to do. PHMSA appears to be working on some of these
improvements for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines
through various inquiries and rule makings, but as of this
report no new or proposed rules have been released for
public review.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt
regulations to implement NTSB recommendations
regarding needed improvements to the Integrity
Management requirements.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Make
information about a pipeline’s HCA designation easily
available to the public.
Valves
Valves must be installed along the pipeline to control
the flow “at locations along the pipeline system that will
minimize damage or pollution from accidental discharge,
as appropriate for the terrain in open country, for offshore
18 Safety Study: Integrity Management of Gas Transmission Pipelines
in High Consequence Areas, NTSB, 1/27/2015 http://www.ntsb.gov/
safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1501.pdf
Cathodic protection test point along the Iron Horse Corridor
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 28 of 107
Page 17
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
areas, or for populated areas” (49 CFR § 195.260(c)).19
Valves must also be “installed in a location that is accessible
to authorized employees and that is protected from damage
or tampering” (49 CFR § 195.258(a)). Valves must be
maintained in good working order at all times, and fully
inspected and tested at least twice each year to ensure they
are functioning properly.20
Some valves have to be operated manually by pipeline
personnel, some valves can be operated remotely from a
control room, and some valves are designed to operate
automatically if certain conditions occur on the pipeline.
If a pipeline should fail, how quickly the valves can be
closed and the distance between the valves are two of the
main determinants for how much fuel is released. PHMSA
has concluded that whether an operator should install
automatic shutoff valves or remote control valves (operated
from a far-away control room) in newly constructed or
fully replaced pipelines needs to be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.21 Existing pipeline operators subject to integrity
management rules must evaluate the type and location of
valves as part of their risk assessment.22
Pipelines that operate according to integrity management
(due to their location affecting an HCA) have an
additional requirement to take measures to prevent and
mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure. Actions
to enhance public safety or environmental protection
may be warranted based on a risk analysis of the pipeline
segment, and could include installing Emergency Flow
Restricting Devices (EFRDs) – additional valves – on the
pipeline. In determining whether an EFRD is needed, “…
an operator must, at least, consider the following factors
– the swiftness of leak detection and pipeline shutdown
capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate
of potential leakage, the volume that can be released,
topography or pipeline profile, the potential for ignition,
proximity to power sources, location of nearest response
personnel, specific terrain between the pipeline segment
and the high consequence area, and benefits expected
by reducing the spill size” (49 CFR § 195.452(i)(4)).
Beyond the specific requirements for valves at certain
water crossings and pump stations, etc., noted above, the
regulations give the operator wide latitude in determining
the necessity and location of additional valves.
Nineteen years ago an Edison, New Jersey accident occurred
and it took two and a half hours to shut off the flow of gas
19 Valves must also be installed in proximity to pipeline facilities and
appurtenances, and on both sides of certain water crossings and
drinking water reservoirs. See 49 CFR § 195.260 for details.
20 See 49 CFR § 195.420. This section also contains language about the
need for operators to protect valves from unauthorized operation and
vandalism, which PHMSA views as doing more than simply chaining
and locking the valves.
21 U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (2012). Studies for the Requirements of Automatic
and Remotely Controlled Shutoff Valves on Hazardous Liquids and
Natural Gas Pipelines with Respect to Public and Environmental
Safety (ORNL/TM-2012/411). Prepared by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Dept of Energy.
22 See 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) and (4).
that fed the fireball due to the lack of a remotely controlled
shut off valve. After the 2010 San Bruno tragedy where it
took the pipeline operator over an hour and a half to drive
to and close a manual valve the NTSB recommended that
PHMSA “Amend Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
192.935(c) to directly require that automatic shutoff valves
or remote control valves in high consequence areas and in
class 3 and 4 locations be installed and spaced at intervals
that consider the factors listed in that regulation.” Most
recently the spill of at least 20,000 gallons of crude oil into
the ocean near Santa Barbara has again reiterated the need
for new rules regarding these types of valves to help limit
the damage from pipeline failures. PHMSA conducted
a study23 that in 2012 found “installing ASVs and RCVs
in pipelines can be an effective strategy for mitigating
potential consequences of unintended releases because
decreasing the total volume of the release reduces overall
impacts on the public and to the environment.” PHMSA is
working on rule makings that may address this issue, but as
of this report no new or proposed rules have been released
for public review.
San Jose Pipeline Valves
Alamo community members have expressed concerns about
the type, spacing, vulnerability and maintenance of the San Jose
pipeline valves (or EFRDs) along the Iron Horse Corridor. Until
recently, a manual valve was exposed above ground with no
protection except a chain; that valve was enclosed within a fence
following a vandalism incident in June 2015, but the example
serves to justify the community concerns about vulnerability and
safety. The community
also has concerns about
the potential volume
released if a hazardous
liquid spill were to occur,
and the degree to which
the valves will minimize
the spill volume.
The OSFM inspection
report discussed earlier
describes the Kinder
Morgan integrity
management and risk
assessment process, some of which focuses on this type of
detailed analysis. A key piece of the risk assessment that
analyzes EFRDs is the operator’s Preventive and Mitigative
Measures analysis performed in order to determine what
threats exist on a pipeline, and if additional measures
should be implemented to manage those threats. The
Preventive and Mitigative Measures analysis may or may
not determine the need for an additional Engineering
Analysis focused on valves, depending on many factors
affecting the pipeline: pipeline segment characteristics,
proximity to an HCA, time to detect and isolate a leak,
location of nearest response personnel, risk assessment
results, and desired capabilities and improvements. An
23 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 31, 2012, http://www.
phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_2C1A725B08C5F72F30568
9E943053A96232AB200/filename/Final% 20Valve_Study.pdf
Manual valve inside protective cage in Alamo along Iron Horse Corridor
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 29 of 107
Page 18
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
initial Leak Detection System Analysis is completed on
each pipeline, determining the maximum potential release
volume.24
Kinder Morgan evaluated the need for modification to
existing valves on the San Jose line in 2010, and considered
the following factors: swiftness of leak detection and pipeline
shutdown capabilities; type of commodity carried; rate of
potential leakage; volume that can be released; topography
or pipeline profile; potential for ignition; proximity to
power sources; location of nearest response personnel;
specific terrain between the pipeline segment and the high
consequence area; and benefits expected by reducing the
spill size. The San Jose line has an existing computerized
leak detection system that uses line balance, flow deviation,
volume balance, thermal monitoring, and volume in and
out to alert control room staff to potential leaks. After
consideration of these factors, Kinder Morgan determined
the existing valves and leak detection system exceeded their
requirement that a 15-minute response time and isolation of
a leak could be assured on the San Jose line.25
Kinder Morgan’s evaluation necessarily included many
assumptions. These are not spelled out in the analysis, but
would include such things as how quickly an employee could
physically arrive at and close a manual valve, how quickly an
operator could install temporary plugs or other means to stop
the flow out of the pipe, and how quickly any remote personnel
could make a correct decision based on computerized
information to shut the pipeline down in the event of a rupture;
as well as factors that determine in their eyes what the risks are
and what level of risk is acceptable. These assumptions are not
transparent to the public, but depending on what is assumed,
the outcome of the analysis could vary widely. The assumptions
are also necessary to carry out the regulation-required risk
analysis and come to conclusions; regulations that require
this type of behind-the-scenes decision-making process and
lack prescriptive requirements are called performance-based
regulations, and they often leave gray areas for the public
because we often cannot know what went into the assumptions
and decision-making.
Unfortunately, like the implementation of most risk- or
performance-based regulations, this Kinder Morgan
valve and leak detection analysis does little to eliminate
the gray area on this issue. The regulations leave the
consideration and determination to each operator in the
context of an integrity management plan the public will
never see. While the public may not be allowed to see the
information used to make risk calculations, the public can
make rough calculations of the impacts from a spill based
on available information.
24 This detailed technical analysis on leak detection that informs the
pipeline operator’s risk assessment is not available to the public.
25 See page 12 of the OSFM inspection report dated June 2014 for
detailed discussion of the San Jose line/LS-16. The report does not
clarify how long of a segment of the pipeline would be isolated in this
time - that is, it is not clear whether the operator could close the two
closest valves on either side of a failure in that time frame, or just two
valves at some unspecified distance. Given the time required to get
staff to a manual valve and get it closed, a 15 minute time to isolation
appears to be very optimistic.
For example, the size of the pipeline means that it holds
a little more than 21,000 gallons of product per mile of
pipe. If the pipeline should rupture, most all of the product
between the rupture site and the next valve that is at a higher
elevation than the rupture would drain out between the
valves regardless of how quickly the pipeline was shut down
or valves were closed, unless the operator is able to install
emergency plugs or hot taps very quickly. If the valves are 10
miles apart that could mean that more than 200,000 gallons
could be released if the rupture is at the lowest point in that
stretch. This figure does not include any additional product
continuing to be pushed through the line if valve closing or
shut-off is delayed. So Kinder Morgan as part of their risk
analysis must have concluded that with the small chance
that the pipeline will actually rupture, and their response
capabilities, this is an acceptable risk. If they had not come
to that conclusion they would have been required to install
more valves to decrease the distance and potential spill
volume. If informed people in the community were given the
same information would they come to the same acceptable
risk conclusion? Currently there is no opportunity for the
public to review these risk analyses, or to comment on the
level of risk to which they are being exposed.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Work in
coordination with pipeline operators to develop a
technical advisory body that can review the integrity
management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara
County System Safety Reliability Review Committee)
and other technical assessments of the pipelines in
order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the
county and increase public trust and awareness.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt
stronger regulations requiring automated valves along
the lines of the NTSB recommendations.
Pipeline Monitoring and Leak Detection
A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system
is a pipeline computer system designed to gather information
such as flow rate through the pipeline, operational status,
pressure, and temperature readings. This information allows
operators to know what is happening along the pipeline
during normal operations, and allows for quicker reactions
to equipment malfunctions, failures and releases. Some
SCADA systems also incorporate the ability to remotely
operate certain equipment, including compressors, pump
stations, and valves; allowing operators in a control center to
adjust flow rates in the pipeline as well as to isolate certain
sections of a pipeline. Many SCADA systems also include
leak detection systems – called computational pipeline
monitoring (CPM) programs – based on the pressure
and mass balance in the pipelines. Unfortunately, remote
computerized systems are not yet capable of identifying most
leaks; PHMSA data from 2010-present show that only about
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 30 of 107
Page 19
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
11% of U.S. hazardous liquid pipeline significant incidents
were initially detected by SCADA or CPM; and that number
drops to 2% when looking only at California hazardous liquid
pipeline significant incidents in the same timeframe. On-
the-ground personnel working for the pipeline operator (as
employees or contractors) are the ones most likely to initially
identify an incident, but the public and first responders from
the local communities are also likely to be the first to identify
a significant incident (18% of the time in the U.S.; 25% of the
time in California).26
In the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011, Congress asked the Secretary of
Transportation to provide a report within one year on the
technical limitations of current leak detection systems, the
practicability of developing standards for the capabilities of
leak detection systems, and the costs and benefits of requiring
pipeline operators to use such systems. PHMSA completed
an in-depth study27 of leak detection systems in December of
2013. That study found that for hazardous liquid pipelines:
• Emergency responders or a member of the public
were currently the most likely means of discovering a
pipeline release.
• “There is no technical reason why several different leak
detection methods cannot be implemented at the same
time. In fact, a basic engineering robustness principle
calls for at least two methods that rely on entirely
separate physical principles.”?
• “External sensors have the potential to deliver
sensitivity and time to detection far ahead of any
internal system.”
PHMSA has been working on a rule making that may
address this leak detection issue for nearly five years now,
but as of this report no new or proposed rules have been
released for public review.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt
stronger regulations that require better leak detection
systems in high consequence areas, and that provide a
clear performance standard for computational pipeline
monitoring systems.
Alamo Technical Pipeline Safety Concerns
Community members raised concerns about a number
of specific issues related to pipeline safety on the San Jose
pipeline. Pipeline Safety Trust staff also noticed some issues
during their visit. This section details technical issues that
warrant particular attention.
26 See PHMSA Incident Reports. Percentages based on PST analysis of
PHMSA HL 2002-2009 and 2010-present incident data files (as of
Aug 3. 2015).
27 Kiefner & Associates, Inc., Leak Detection Study, December 10,
2012, http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_4A77C
7A89CAA18E285898295888E3DB9C5924400/filename/Leak%20
Detection%20Study.pdf
Earthquakes – In 2007, the United States Geological
Survey collaborated with William Lettis & Associates on a
technical report analyzing Northern Calaveras Fault data.28
This fault bisects Contra Costa County, and is not the only
fault impacting ground movement in the area. Residents
are concerned that hazardous liquid pipelines are properly
protected in the event of an earthquake.
Hazardous Liquid pipeline operators subject to integrity
management are required to consider many threats in the
risk assessment that is part of their integrity management
plan. A number of these pertain to earthquakes and
ground movement, though earthquake risk is not
mentioned in the regulations as something that requires its
own analysis and mitigation. Earthquakes are listed as one
factor for an operator to consider in determining whether
a pipeline is likely to affect a high consequence area (and
therefor be subject to integrity management at all);29 but
for pipelines already clearly affecting a high consequence
area (as is the pipeline through Alamo), earthquakes
are only included in the context of the broader risk
assessment required. For example, in determining the
schedule to use in regularly assessing a pipeline segment,
geotechnical hazards must be considered;30 and PHMSA
offers further guidance on risk factors that should be
considered in the frequency of assessment, including
“location related to potential ground movement…”31 but
the regulations do not specify how they are considered,
any technical specifications to use when considering their
risk, or specific ways to mitigate that risk. When PHMSA
inspectors review a California operator’s risk assessment,
28 Kelson, Keith I. and Sundermann, Sean T. Digital compilation of
Northen Calaveras Fault Data for the Northern California Map
Database: Collaborative Research with William Lettis & Associates,
Inc., and the U.S. Geological Survey. October 2007.
29 See 49 CFR § 195 Appendix C I.B.(12)
30 See 49 CFR § 195.452(e).
31 See 49 CFR § 195, Appendix C. II.A.(11)
The San Jose line inside protective sleeve traveling above ground across a seasonal stream along the Iron Horse Corridor.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 31 of 107
Page 20
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
they would expect to see seismic-related activity (ground
movement, unstable soils, landslides, etc.) listed as a
threat, and if not, they would dig deeper.32 In the 2011
updates to the federal pipeline safety laws, Congress
specifically included “seismicity of the area” as one threat
that a pipeline operator must consider when evaluating
threats to a pipeline segment under Parts 192 and 195 of Title 49.33
We saw no evidence in our review of the OSFM report
on Kinder Morgan’s integrity management program that
earthquakes factored in to their risk assessment. They did
list one action item for most of the intrastate pipelines in the
county including the San Jose line that relates to earthquake
activity (“monitor wash outs and unstable slopes”), and
there may be more listed in the integrity management plan
of the operator that is not available for the public to view.
Pipelines worldwide have generally performed relatively well
in past earthquakes,34 and ‘natural force damage’ (the cause
category under which earthquake-related pipeline failures
would fall) is the cause of relatively few pipeline failures
nationwide (7%) and in California (2%).35 However both
old and new pipelines can sustain damage from earthquakes
that is “typically concentrated in areas of unstable soils with
permanent ground deformation (PGD) and/or liquefaction,
including at river crossings and landslides,” according
to an Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy
Infrastructure Hub submitted in 2012.36 A technical handbook
on seismic risk analysis stresses the importance of estimating
the extent of permanent ground deformation in assessment
of pipeline system vulnerability: “In particular, adequate
knowledge of site-specific soil and groundwater conditions
is critical to the success of the design and installation of
pipelines, as well as in predicting its anticipated performance
under field conditions” (page 692).37
Both the technical handbook and the Oregon report list
options for mitigation measures to improve the performance
of a pipeline. The categories of mitigation measures as
summarized by the handbook are: “(a) avoid the hazard
by relocation; (b) isolate the pipeline from the hazard; (c)
accommodate the hazard by strengthening the pipeline or
increasing the flexibility; and (d) mitigate the hazard using
ground improvement” (page 702). The Oregon study states
mitigation options as: “soil improvement, increasing the load
32 Correspondence with PHMSA Pipeline Safety Western Region Office
CATS staff, August 2015.
33 Section 29, Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation
Act of 2011.
34 Wang, Yumei, Bartlett, Steven F., and Miles, Scott B. Earthquake
Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub (Final
Report to Oregon Department of Energy & Oregon Public Utility
Commission). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries, August 2012.
35 See PHMSA data shown in graphs earlier in report entitled “Causes
of HL Significant Incidents.”
36 Wang, et. al. IBID (Page 82).
37 Honegger, D.G. and Wijewickreme, D. (2013). Seismic risk
assessment for oil and gas pipelines. In Tesfamariam, S., Goda, K.
(Eds.), Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil
Infrastructure Systems (pages 682-715). Cambridge: Woodhead
Publishing Limited, 2013.
carrying capacity of the pipe system, reducing the friction
between the pipe and soil, relocating the pipe, anchors to
prevent uplift from buoyant forces, or special pipe joints
or fittings that allow greater joint deflection, extension, or
compression” (Page 84).
Seismic vulnerability studies can be conducted on pipelines
or pipeline segments to assess pipeline performance and
suggest mitigation measures appropriate to the specific
situation. We found no evidence that Kinder Morgan or any
other operator has conducted such a study related to the
pipelines in Contra Costa County.
RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS:
Contract for an independent technical seismic
vulnerability study on HCA pipelines affected by
potentially active faults to feed into the pipeline risk
analysis, and make the study available to the public.
Iron Horse Corridor Above-Ground Stream Crossings – In
two places along the Iron Horse Corridor in Alamo, the San
Jose line spans seasonal streams above-ground. (see photo on
page 19) Community members have raised concerns about
the adequacy of the span supports, potential vulnerability of
these spans and the overall safety of these crossings.
Both the above-ground pipeline spans contain a metal sleeve
over the pipeline itself, and it is this sleeve that is secured to
the supporting infrastructure. These types of above-ground
pipeline spans are fairly common, though there are many
different types of supportive infrastructure that can secure
the pipeline in these situations. One additional concern with
supported above-ground spans is the erosion that can occur on
either side, potentially increasing the length of the unsupported
portion of the span. Some different types of above-ground
supports are depicted in the accompanying photos.
Examples of other pipelines crossing steam areas in California and Washington States.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 32 of 107
Page 21
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Land Use Planning and Pipelines
For the siting of nearly all new pipelines, the pipeline
company decides on a general route they prefer for their
pipeline, and possibly some alternative routes. Once they
feel fairly confident with the feasibility of their chosen route,
the more formal process with various government agencies
begins. That process is not consistent for various types of
pipelines, but varies greatly based on the type of pipeline
and where it is to run.
Interstate natural gas pipeline companies must apply to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for
construction and route approval.
There is no comprehensive federal permitting process for the
routing of hazardous liquid pipelines or of intrastate natural
gas pipelines. Assuming the pipeline is wholly within the U.S.,
the responsibility for approval of the pipeline route falls on the
individual states. Since California does not have a statute at the
time of this writing that addresses pipeline routing and siting,
the responsibility falls to the regular land use authority of local
governments along the pipeline route, some of which exercise
this authority, and others do not.
Local governments can also coordinate and regulate new
development near existing pipelines with their land use
authority. Many pipelines existed prior to development, and
housing density has increased in many areas near pipelines
that once were predominantly undeveloped rural areas.
Local governments can enact regulations governing the type
of buildings and construction that can occur near existing
pipelines, requiring consultation with the pipeline operator,
establishing setbacks or enacting a variety of other land use
permit requirements.
In 2010, PHMSA published the final report of the Pipelines
and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA), a three-year effort
to provide information
and recommendations
on the types of tools
local governments can
use to regulate new
development near existing
pipelines. Forty-three
recommended practices
are contained in the
report, and twenty-nine
of them speak specifically
to local governments
about things they can
do to encourage safety
near transmission
pipelines. Recommendations stress: the need to have a
relationship with local pipeline operators that includes open
communication, incorporating the existence of pipelines
into planning processes and infrastructure projects, and
the importance of safe excavation practices. One example
of a specific recommendation is the use of consultation
areas or zones that require early consultation among
stakeholders when any development is proposed within
a specified distance from a transmission pipeline. All
recommendations and associated documents can be found
through the PIPA link at: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/
comm/pipa/LandUsePlanning.htm.
Contra Costa County
local government agencies
also have a role to play
in pipeline safety and
oversight. Federal and
state regulations generally
preclude local governments
from adopting any
regulations that require a
pipeline operator to take
any actions regarding
the safe operation of a
pipeline. That said, pipeline
operators might willingly
enter into development
agreements or mitigation agreements that include
additional safety aspects in certain situations, in response
to local conditions. There are things that local governments
do that are not precluded, such as negotiated rights-of-way
agreements, spill and emergency preparations and response,
or land use and zoning provisions. Contra Costa County
agencies are actively involved in some of these areas, and
minimally involved in others.
Example of California local authority for new and
replaced pipelines: Santa Barbara County
Santa Barbara County requires pipeline operators
to submit a Development Plan permit for new and
replaced pipelines, often in conjunction with a
Conditional Use Permit (if located in the Coastal
Zone and impacting environmentally sensitive
areas).1 The permit review process includes analysis of
submitted information (maps, mitigation measures,
emergency response plan, etc.) against standards, and
requires specific findings as well as an Environmental
Impact Review in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).2 Pipeline operators
with existing lines may need to obtain a grading permit
prior to digs that expose pipe,3 and operators with
a development permit on file submit results of any
anomaly digs to the county. Santa Barbara County is
unique in their use of a System Safety Reliability Review
Committee4 made up primarily of technical staff who
work in collaboration with pipeline operators (and
other oil and gas facility operators) to review project
information and operations.
1 See Santa Barbara County Land Use & Development Code,
Article 35.5.
2 See CA Public Resource Code § 21000 et. seq.
3 See Santa Barbara Grading Code (Chapter 14).
4 For more information on the System Safety Reliability
Review Committee, including committee makeup, minutes,
and agendas, see http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/energy/
permits/ssrrc.asp.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 33 of 107
Page 22
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Right-of-way Franchise and Easement Agreements
Easements and franchise agreements specify information
about the access the pipeline operator has to land that is
owned by private parties or government entities. They are
typically negotiated agreements in exchange for payment,
and lay out allowed and disallowed activities for the pipeline
operator and the landowner within the area covered by
the agreement. The area covered may be narrow or wide,
depending on the pipeline and the context at the time the
agreement was signed.
When a pipeline goes through county-owned public
property or public rights-of-way, Contra Costa
County Public Works Department has authority over
the granting of franchise or easement agreements.
Agreements between the county and pipeline operator
must proceed in accordance with the Pipeline Franchise
Ordinance.38 Ordinances that establish regulations
for granting these franchise agreements have been in
place since 1964, with amendments in 1992 and 2013.
As of this writing, the public works department staff is
working to get all existing franchise agreements updated
to be consistent with the most recent ordinance. The
pipeline franchise ordinance covers the unincorporated
portions of the county, and individual cities negotiate
easements and franchise agreements according to their
own ordinances or policies.
There are examples from around the country where local
governments through these franchise agreements have been
able to obtain safety improvements and greater liability
insurance and indemnification than is required by state or
federal rules.39
The Iron Horse Corridor – Multiple Uses
Some pipelines were in place prior to the first county
franchise ordinance and operate according to easements
that were already in place. This is the situation with most
of the Kinder Morgan SFPP- San Jose line along the Iron
Horse Corridor, which was constructed in the mid-1960s
during the time that the Southern Pacific Railroad owned
and operated rail lines.
The entire Iron Horse
Corridor right-of-way varies
from about 30 to 100 feet
in width along the route,
and contains numerous
utilities and facilities
through easements, license
agreements, and leases,
including the easement
for the SFPP - San Jose
pipeline, which only covers
a portion of the corridor
right of way. Because of the history of the San Jose line
and the Iron Horse Corridor, much of the land through
38 Governed by Contra Costa County Code, Title 10, Chapter 1004-2.
39 See examples of these franchise agreements at: http://pstrust.org/
about-pipelines1/local-governments/franchise-agreements/
which the pipeline travels is public and not private land,
so the predominance of the easement area is covered by
a single agreement between the pipeline operator and the
county, rather than many individual easements between
the pipeline operator and private property owners. That
easement agreement specifies the property involved
(generally a strip of land 10 feet wide, specifically described
in the easement documents), and the right of the operator
to construct, reconstruct, renew, maintain and operate the
pipeline and appurtenances on the easement.40
Landowners have in the past encroached onto the Iron
Horse Corridor with fence lines, landscaping, and other
property improvements. This type of activity presents a
potential safety threat to the pipeline and is against the law.
The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 specifies in
§ 51014.6:
“(a) Effective January 1, 1987, no person, other than
the pipeline operator, shall do any of the following with
respect to any pipeline easement:
(1) Build, erect, or create a structure or improvement
within the pipeline easement or permit the building,
erection, or creation thereof.
(2) Build, erect, or create a structure, fence, wall, or
obstruction adjacent to any pipeline easement which
would prevent complete and unimpaired surface
access to the easement, or permit the building,
erection, or creation thereof.
(b) No shrubbery or shielding shall be installed on the
pipeline easement. This subdivision does not prevent the
revegetation of any landscape disturbed within a pipeline
easement as a result of constructing the pipeline and
does not prevent the holder of the underlying fee interest
or the holder’s tenant from planning and harvesting
seasonal agricultural crops on a pipeline easement.
(c) This section does not prohibit a pipeline operator
from performing any necessary activities within a
pipeline easement, including, but not limited to,
the construction, replacement, relocation, repair, or
operation of the pipeline.”
Numerous other utilities share the right-of-way with the
hazardous liquid pipeline. Operators install utility lines
according to specific standards that specify vertical and
horizontal separation distances that vary depending on the
type of utility.41 Colocation of energy transmission systems
within designated energy ROWs is common, but may result
in some interference between the systems or other hazards
that would not exist except for the physical proximity of the
two transmission systems.
40 There are gaps in the easement and memoranda documentation the
Trust was able to acquire from the county and Kinder Morgan. We
don’t know if this reflects missing documentation or uncertainty
about the pipeline right-of-way, but recommend there be a complete
set of documentation describing the right-of-way and property
affected that is available to the public.
41 See 49 CFR § 195.250; also see operator guidelines for additional
specifics on horizontal and vertical separation distances.
Multiple utilities exist in the Iron Horse Corridor
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 34 of 107
Page 23
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Encroachments into the Iron Horse Corridor may or
may not encroach into the portion of the corridor over
which Kinder Morgan or other utilities hold an easement.
Assessing and remedying these encroachments will require
coordination among all parties with ownership interests in
the corridor.
The community is involved in the management of
the corridor, and has numerous public participation
opportunities with regard to planning its use.42 Keeping the
pipeline and pipeline safety in mind during these public
discussions can serve to remind nearby residents that the
Iron Horse Corridor needs to be respected as a protective
buffer for the utilities within it, as well as enjoyed for its
recreational offerings.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Adopt
clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing
encroachment including the review of setback
variances by municipal advisory councils or
committees and department staff, so that properties
and vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach
on pipelines. Ensure the single staff point-of-contact
for citizens with concerns about multiple utility issues
and right of way questions has technical training
on safety concerns, adequate resources to conduct
regular and broad community outreach (especially
along the Iron Horse Corridor), and resources to work
in close coordination with other related departments
and advisory groups.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS: Ensure county has
complete and accurate records of corridor and
right of way locations. Continue to coordinate with
Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of
encroachments into pipeline Rights of Way.
RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS:
Consistently undertake assessments of existing Right
of Way encroachments to determine whether there
are safety implications. Coordinate with Contra Costa
County Public Works to resolve encroachments with
neighboring property owners.
Land Use and Zoning Provisions
Land use and zoning authority in the unincorporated
portions of the county lies within Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development (DCD)
42 The East Bay Regional Park District covering Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties manages the Iron Horse Trail (with an elected
board of directors and an appointed advisory committee), and
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors appoints an IHC
Advisory Committee with representation from communities along
the corridor. The IHC Advisory Committee has embarked on various
projects that have involved additional public input opportunities,
including the creation of the Management Program and its
Landscape Element in 2000.
jurisdiction. The county does not address pipelines in
the General Plan goals or policies. Apart from limited
involvement with certain high-hazard proposals (as rated
by Hazardous Materials Program staff), the county does not
review pipelines under their land use authority. They have a
specific exemption for pipelines and other utilities stating:
The use of land for rights-of-way for the construction,
maintenance and repair of public utilities and publicly
owned utilities and for privately owned pipelines
for the transportation of oil, gas, water, and other
substances transportable by pipelines, is not regulated
or restricted by Divisions 82 and 84. Accessory and
appurtenant structures forming a part of public
utilities, publicly owned utilities and pipelines are not
regulated or restricted by Divisions 82 and 84, except
for setback regulations. (Contra Costa County Zoning
Code § 82-2.010)
Divisions 82 and 84 referred to in the above citation
are, respectively, the General Regulations and Land Use
Districts divisions of the County Zoning Code.43
There are examples in California of other counties
that do not exempt privately owned transmission
pipelines from land use regulations (see sidebar
on Santa Barbara County on page 21). Using land
use and zoning authority to require permits for HL
pipeline construction, replacement, modification, or
abandonment may allow a local government to conduct
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
if warranted, and negotiate conditions and mitigation
requirements with certain permits.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT: Consider
adding goals and policies to the General Plan,44 and
amending Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010
so that all privately owned pipelines and appurtenant
structures are not exempt, but rather only privately
owned gas distribution pipelines under 12” in diameter
are exempt from the General and Land Use District
regulations (divisions 82 and 84).45 Consider additional
ordinance(s) pertaining to zoning and land use
permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines and possibly
also intrastate gas transmission pipelines that are
proposed for construction, replacement, modification,
or abandonment.
43 See https://www.municode.com/library/ca/contra_costa_county/
codes/ordinance_code?nodeId=TIT8ZO
44 See the Trust’s Local Government Guide to Pipelines for specific
suggestions about what kind of General Plan (also called
Comprehensive Plan) language may be used relating to pipelines and
pipeline safety.
45 Language can be written specifically to exempt most distribution
pipelines. For example, “only gas distribution pipelines under 12” in
diameter or under an operating pressure of 80 psig are exempt from
the zoning code provisions.”
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 35 of 107
Page 24
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Damage Prevention and Public
Awareness Programs
A nationwide utility locator system is available for free
in every state, to anyone planning hand or machine
excavation, in order to prevent damage to pipelines and
other utilities. By calling 811 at least two working days
before digging, a utility locator will come identify and
mark buried utilities, including cables and pipelines
for fuel, water and sewer. This is a requirement by law
in California (see GOV Code § 4216 et. seq.) with civil
penalties associated with noncompliance, yet California
lacks enforcement for this law.46 Pipeline operators must
participate in this program. In communities that do
not have other types of consultation zones or setback
regulations, the “One-Call ticket” (as operators refer
to the resulting notification from someone calling 811)
is likely to be the first notice the pipeline operator has
that someone is intending to dig close to their pipeline.
Kinder Morgan has a robust damage prevention program,
with membership in the Common Ground Alliance, staff
training, and staff encouraged to actively follow up on any
observed violations.
Pipeline operators also are required by federal law to have
a Public Awareness Program.47 This program must describe
what the operator does to inform the public of the presence
of the pipeline and potential hazards, and how they do it.
For instance, the operator must identify and communicate
with local emergency personnel, government officials,
school districts, businesses, and the public, and tell them
specific things such as how to recognize pipeline location
markers, what kind of precautions they should take, what
kind of properties the commodity being transported in
the pipeline has, and how to recognize and respond to a
pipeline emergency.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA: Enforce excavation damage prevention
laws. Currently authority is held with the Attorney
General’s office, but there is not adequate staffing
or resources to respond to notifications of alleged
violations or to investigate. Other agencies respond
on a fragmented basis depending on the damaged
utility involved.
Local Opportunities for Public Involvment, Education
and Awareness
The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials
Ombudsman is a useful single point of contact for
information regarding hazardous materials including
pipelines; part of the ombudsman’s role is to help people in
the county be good advocates for themselves by providing
information. The public can also attend Hazardous
46 California is one of a few states without enforcement for excavation
damage prevention – see PHMSA 2014 state damage prevention
program characterization.
47 For hazardous liquid pipelines, see 49 CFR § 195.440; for gas
pipelines, see 49 CFR § 192.616.
Materials Commission meetings or apply to be one of the 13
members (some of these are public seats).
All of the agencies discussed in this report also provide
additional information on their websites (those addresses
are listed in Appendix A).
The county also has a Community Awareness and
Emergency Response (CAER) group, which is a non-profit
public benefit corporation of public emergency response
agencies, local government officials and facilities and
businesses that use, store, handle, produce or transport
hazardous materials. All of these entities can be members
of CAER; membership is voluntary, and while most of the
waterfront industrial facility operators are members, Kinder
Morgan is not. CAER works to actively enhance public
health and safety, and includes public representatives on its
board of directors. CAER efforts focus on the waterfront
areas from Richmond to Antioch where industrial facilities
are concentrated but their expertise and public outreach
model also support inland areas of county affected by
hazardous materials transport through pipelines.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors raised
questions and concerns about Kinder Morgan intrastate
pipelines in a letter to OSFM dated March 11, 2014. In
response to this letter, OSFM staff inspected the Kinder
Morgan Integrity Management Program related to their
intrastate pipelines in Contra Costa County (including the
San Jose line / LS-16) in June 2014. This inspection included
a review of integrity management procedures, inspections,
and associated repairs for the eleven Kinder Morgan
intrastate pipelines operating in Contra Costa County, and
resulted in a report submitted to the county in the spring
of 2015 that details the process Kinder Morgan undergoes
to ensure the integrity of these lines. The county has this
information, but having this information is not the same
as having a clear process and expertise in place to analyze
it and make recommendations in coordination with the
operators and OSFM.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL: Make information – maps, incident
and inspection information – accessible to the public
by posting it online.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PIPELINE
OPERATORS: Participate as members in CAER
with consistent attendance at quarterly meetings by
appropriate management staff. Work in coordination
with the Board of Supervisors and appropriate
county departments to develop a technical advisory
body that can review the integrity management plan
(similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety
Reliability Review Committee) and other technical
assessments of the pipeline in order to cultivate
informed technical expertise in the county and
increase public trust and awareness.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 36 of 107
Page 25
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Emergency Response, Spill Response &
Prevention
Oil spill prevention and emergency response authority differs
depending on what area the spill is likely to affect (coastal or
inland), whether it is part of a larger facility (e.g., a refinery),
and what part of the process is the focus (prevention,
preparedness, environmental spill response, or emergency
assistance to communities). When a spill occurs, many state,
federal and local agencies work together under a ‘unified
command’ structure on clean-up and response.
Hazardous liquid pipeline spill response agencies in
California
The U.S. EPA has authority to direct cleanup and
rehabilitation of areas affected by spills of hazardous liquid
releases. The U.S. EPA can also bring actions for civil
penalties under the Oil Pollution Act against operators for
each barrel of oil where releases have entered navigable
waters, as defined under the Clean Water Act. Additional
recovery is available to the state and federal governments
for damages done to natural resources by a spill.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office
of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) also exercises
jurisdiction over oil spills. This authority was expanded
greatly in 2014 to cover all state surface waters at risk
of oil spills from any source, including pipelines and
production facilities.48 The development of the regulations
for this expanded statutory authority is underway as of
this writing, with OSPR coordinating with local, state
and federal government along with industry and non-
governmental organizations to do so. OSPR requires
operators to submit spill response plans for approval,
and conducts spill drills (they are authorized to conduct
both announced and unannounced drills). Operator
spill response plans for pipelines that could effect marine
waters are currently posted on the OSPR website, and
presumably similar plans will be made available to the
public in the future for those operators with pipelines
that could effect any waters of the state once the new
regulations are completed and implemented.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
regulates hazardous waste and materials through a
Unified Program that incorporates a number of local and
regional Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs)
for implementation, of which the Contra Costa County
Health Services Department is one. In general, CUPAs are
most interested in facilities handling hazardous waste and
materials, and not focused at all on the transportation of
those materials. However if an incident occurs and hazardous
materials spill, a local CUPA will be involved in the response
to that spill, whether it comes from a facility or a pipeline.
More information about the CUPA role is included in the
following section focused on Contra Costa County.
48 Senate Bill 861 authorized the expansion and provided the additional
statutory and regulatory authority, for the prevention, preparedness
and response activities in the new inland areas of responsibility. See
also Cal. GOV Code § 8670.
All pipeline operators are required to have an emergency
response plan, and to share that plan with local first
responders. The plan should contain detailed information
about what the pipelines hold, and how pipeline company
personnel and emergency response agencies such as fire and
sheriff or police departments will implement pre-planned
responses in case of an emergency. PHMSA assesses the
written procedures contained in these plans during their
inspections of interstate operators, and OSFM reviews
portions of the plans during their standard inspections (once
every five years) for intrastate pipelines, but operators are not
required to submit these plans to either PHMSA or OSFM.
Operators that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal Oil
Pollution Act, whose pipelines may significantly harm water
bodies if there were to be a release of oil or a refined product,
must also prepare a facility response plan, sometimes called a
spill response plan, to outline how a release from the facility
will be responded to and where response resources will be
stored near the pipeline and where staff and contractors will be
responding from. These plans must meet the requirements of
federal law and regulations and be approved by PHMSA.49
Pipeline accident investigations occur separately from the
spill clean-up and response. The National Transportation
Safety Board conducts accident investigations of some
of the most significant pipeline incidents. PHMSA may
conduct a pipeline failure investigation on a pipeline within
its jurisdiction, depending on the cause or failure mode,
the severity of the consequences, and the history of the
pipeline system. OSFM conducts its own investigations,
in accordance with Section 13107.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code. Other agencies may also conduct
investigations, including the California Department of
Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and
Health, or a local Certified Unified Program Agency.
Following the May 2015 spill onto Refugio Beach near Santa
Barbara, additional changes were proposed to California
laws to increase the usage of automatic shut-off systems
and improve leak detection technology on hazardous liquid
lines, as well as to improve the response times to begin clean
up efforts by allowing local fishing boats to be trained as
spill responders. At the time of this publication, it was not
yet certain whether either of these bills would pass.
Contra Costa County Spill and Emergency Preparations
and Response
Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) is
designated as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA),
and their Hazardous Materials Program has been involved in
protecting the community from hazardous materials releases
for well over two decades. The state and county rules governing
hazardous materials apply very little to pipelines, as the state
hazardous materials law specifically exempts the transportation
of hazardous materials.50 However once hazardous materials
are released from a pipeline, they are no longer considered
49 See 49 C.F.R. Part 194.
50 Specific authority given to the HSD as a CUPA is described in CA HS
Code, § 25404 and § 25531 et. seq.; the Contra Costa County Industrial
Safety Ordinance is found in CCC Code, Title 4, Chapter 450.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 37 of 107
Page 26
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
to be part of the transportation system. In concert with these
rules, the Hazardous Materials Program concerns itself with
all storage and processing of hazardous materials (including at
water treatment facilities, refineries, and the like), but pipelines
mainly draw their attention once the hazardous materials are
no longer part of the transportation system, i.e., there is an
incident where oil is spilled. All releases of hazardous materials
(including pipeline releases) are reported on by the Hazardous
Materials Program, and available on the department’s website.51
The Health Services Department has a designated staff
Hazardous Materials Ombudsman whose job is to respond
to questions and concerns from the public, as well as
independently and impartially conduct investigations,
solve problems, and make recommendations regarding the
program. The Department also supports the Hazardous
Materials Commission, a group consisting of 13 appointed
members representing a diversity of stakeholders.
The Commission is tasked with advising the Board of
Supervisors on hazardous materials planning, management,
and implementation, while obtaining broad public input
and working to build consensus.52 The Health Services
Department incorporate concerns with pipelines along
with facilities as part of a broad focus on protecting the
community from dangers of hazardous materials.
Contra Costa County is highly populated, and many people
live and work in close proximity to the pipelines in the
region. A dozen schools are located in very close proximity
to the Kinder Morgan pipeline along the section of the
Iron Horse Corridor from Concord to San Ramon. While
individual schools have emergency or crisis plans in place,
we did not see mention of the unique hazard presented
by proximity to the pipeline if a pipeline incident were to
occur. The California Department of Education (CDE) offers
useful guidance to Local Educational Agencies (i.e. school
districts and other related entities) in siting new facilities;
one piece of this guidance is their “Guidance Protocol for
School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis” which is a tool to aid
Local Educational Agencies and the CDE in evaluating
the suitability of new school sites located near pipelines as
defined in the regulations.53 CDE also offers guidance under
their “Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management”
heading, including suggestions for reducing the probability
of a pipeline product release and for reducing the severity of
consequences of pipeline releases on schools.54
These resources could be expanded to offer mitigation
and modernization recommendations for existing schools
in proximity to pipelines, looking at evacuation routes,
coordination with local first responders and pipeline operators,
and education of individual school staff using resources such as
the School Pipeline Safety Partnership offered by the Danielle
51 As of this writing, website access to the reports had been suspended
pending HSD website’s realignment with the CA Environmental
Reporting System, but will soon be available again through links here:
http://cchealth.org/hazmat/incident-response.php.
52 See http://cchealth.org/hazmat/hmc/
53 See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/protocol07.asp
54 See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/mitigation.asp
Dawn Smalley Foundation.55 In addition, the Contra Costa
County Office of Public Education maintains online resources
on emergency preparedness,56 and the Contra Costa County
CAER has a Model Emergency Plan for Schools,57 both of
which can be used as additional resources when developing a
comprehensive emergency or crisis plan. These resources do
not specifically mention the potential hazards of oil and gas
pipelines as something to learn about and pay attention to, or
as a potential risk for which to plan and develop mitigation
measures, though they do provide helpful guidance for the
important process of emergency planning.
At a minimum, those agencies who help schools develop
safety plans should coordinate with one another (E.G. school
districts, the CA Department of Education, county Office of
Public Education, and CAER) and suggest each crisis plan
include the following information about pipelines:
• Where is the pipeline? (include it in any maps, and
specify distance from school facilities)
• What pipeline markers look like.
• Name of pipeline operator, product transported,
and both emergency and non-emergency contact
information for a pipeline operator representative.
• How and where to evacuate in a pipeline emergency,
including routes that avoid pipelines and pipeline
rights-of-way.
• Overview of the indications of a pipeline emergency.
At least one of the schools adjacent to the Iron Horse Corridor
and Kinder Morgan pipeline has no access to emergency services
or evacuation except via a single road that crosses the pipeline.
Rancho Romero Elementary School is located in Alamo, and
can only be reached via Hemme Road off of Danville Boulevard
by crossing over the pipeline. In the unlikely event that a pipeline
incident occurs adjacent to the school in such a way as to block
the Hemme Road access, numerous problems could arise, as
all road access to and from the school would be blocked. All
emergency services are on the other side of the pipeline; the
current relocation site listed in the school’s crisis plan is the
Creekside Community Church, also on the other side of the
pipeline. The pipeline is not depicted on the emergency map
for the school, and is not mentioned in the safety plan where
ingress/egress is discussed, or anywhere else in the crisis plan.
There may be a timely opportunity to work with developers
to address the issue of school and neighborhood connectivity
in conjunction with current plans for development in this
area. Every effort should be made to create publicly accessible
access across these ‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate
crossing the pipeline to access any services.58
55 See http://smalleyfnd.org/services/pipeline-education/schools
56 See http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/about/resources_emergency.html
57 See http://www.cococaer.org/prepare_plans_school.html
58 The Trust has seen the “Ball Estate” development plan that is
currently under review and includes possible gated emergency
vehicle access in this area via a private Ironwood Place connector.
Contra Costa County should ensure that any emergency vehicle
access is sufficient in width and access to have unimpeded passing
emergency vehicles and whatever other needs may be requested by
the Fire Department.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 38 of 107
Page 27
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
As mentioned earlier, resources exist for school emergency
planning. In addition, assistance or funding may be
available from those same agencies or the pipeline operator
to receive specialized technical assistance to assess the
pipeline risks and offer suggested mitigation and evacuation
strategies pertinent to the specific school situation.
Two fire districts cover the central region of the county
that includes the Iron Horse Corridor: the Contra Costa
County Fire Protection District, and the San Ramon Valley
Fire Protection District. As mentioned previously, pipeline
operators are required to have both an emergency response
plan, and a public awareness plan, and to have a designated
liaison and make information available to local first
responders such as fire departments and sheriff or police
departments. Because of the workload and turnover in most
fire districts, it is difficult to have a single point-of-contact
who is familiar with the pipeline, the operator and the
emergency response plan. While pipeline operators invite
district personnel to annual training events, it is up to the
district to prioritize planning for a pipeline emergency.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Expand the
scope of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman and the
Hazardous Materials Commission to provide an ongoing
review of pipeline operators’ emergency plans and
possible county efforts regarding additional coordinated
technical review of pipeline integrity planning.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
Work with the California Department of Education (CDE)
on ways to implement CDE’s suggestions for reducing the
probability of a pipeline product release on schools, and
reducing the consequences of pipeline releases on schools.59
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Request appropriate staff
conduct an analysis of all congregate facilities (i.e. schools,
recreation facilities, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) located
in close proximity to transmission pipelines; Work with other
emergency response agencies to develop a list of resources for
emergency and evacuation planning expertise for congregate
facilities near pipelines that can include potential hazards
from a pipeline incident, and mitigation strategies for those
hazards based on site-specific considerations.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS: Plan emergency evacuation ingress/
egress for areas in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard
and the Iron Horse Corridor where a single east-west
pipeline-crossing road is the only access for numerous
homes and facilities (e.g. Hemme Road, Camille Road)
with the goal of creating public accessibility across these
‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the
pipeline to access any services.
59 See CDE’s Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management website
at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/mitigation.asp
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY Department of Conservation and
Development: Review all development applications
for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress
where currently limited, and where possible, include
conditions on approvals to improve connectivity and
avoid exacerbation of access problems.
RECOMMENDATION TO DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION: Expand School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis
and the Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management
guidance in coordination with emergency response
agencies to offer help for schools that already exist in close
proximity to pipelines. Lead coordination efforts among
the myriad of agencies that offer crisis planning assistance
to schools, and suggest minimum information that should
be included in these plans regarding pipelines.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY OFFICE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Expand emergency
preparedness resources to include information about
pipelines and pipeline-specific risks. Assist individual
schools in developing crisis plans and emergency
preparedness plans that include pipelines on the
emergency maps and assess how ingress/egress may be
affected by a pipeline incident.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY CAER: Include specific reference to oil and
gas pipelines in the list of potential hazards listed in
the hazard assessment in the next update to the Model
Emergency Plan for Schools.
RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS:
Reach out to the schools along the pipeline easement and
offer to provide technical assistance assessing pipeline
risks and evacuation strategies given possible incidents
that could occur in close proximity to the schools.
RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE DISTRICTS: Designate
a single point-of-contact to coordinate with pipeline
operators, familiarize themselves with the operators’
emergency response and spill response plans, know the
facilities where people congregate (schools, churches,
hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) in close proximity to
the pipeline, be involved with any emergency planning
done by those facilities, and advise County DCD and
PW on sufficiency of proposed ingress/egress for new
developments in areas where there is currently single
access that crosses the San Jose line.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 39 of 107
Page 28
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Agency listing and Resources for more information
Appendix B. Community education meetings
Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report
Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County
Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 40 of 107
Page 29
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix A. Agency listing and resources for more information
Alamo Improvement Association: www.alamoca.org
CA Dept of Education, Guidance Protocol - School Site Pipeline Risk: www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/protocol07.asp
CA Office of the State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Division: osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline.php
CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife, Office of Spill Response and Prevention: www.wildlife.ca.gov/OSPR
CA Environmental Protection Agency, Unified Program: www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: www.cccounty.us/193/Board-of-Supervisors
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development: www.cccounty.us/dcd
Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Programs: cchealth.org/hazmat/
Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division
Iron Horse Corridor Management: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/413/Iron-Horse-Corridor
Franchise Administration: www.contracosta.ca.gov/475/Franchise-Administration
Contra Costa County Office of Education, Crisis Planning & Emergency Preparedness:
www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/about/resources_emergency.html
Contra Costa County Community Awareness & Emergency Response (CAER): www.cococaer.org
Danielle Dawn Smalley Foundation, Pipeline Safety and Awareness Training for Schools:
smalleyfnd.org/services/pipeline-education/schools
Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations: www.ecfr.gov/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49CIsubchapD.tpl
National Transportation Safety Board: www.ntsb.gov
Pipeline Safety Trust website: pstrust.org
Landowner’s Guide to Pipelines: pstrust.org/log
Local Government Guide to Pipelines: pstrust.org/lgg
Online “SafePipelines” discussion group: groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/safepipelines
U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Incident and Annual Pipeline Data: phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats
National Pipeline Mapping System: www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer
Office of Pipeline Safety: phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline
Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance: primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/pipa/landuseplanning.htm
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 41 of 107
Page 30
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix B. Community education meetings
The Alamo Improvement Association and the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission jointly sponsored
two hazardous liquid pipeline safety workshops in June of 2015, with funding from the PHMSA Community Technical
Assistance Grant received by the Alamo Improvement Association. Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman,
moderated the meetings, and the following four individuals presented information and slides to the group:
• Carl Weimer, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Trust
• Bob Gorham, Division Chief of Pipeline Safety, Office of the State Fire Marshal
• Pete Murphy, Operations Manager at Kinder Morgan
• Carry Ricci, Customer Services Coordinator at Contra Costa County Public Works Department
The Pipeline Safety Trust hosts a webpage with all the presentations available for download: http://pstrust.org/trust-
initiatives-programs/work-in-other-communities/alamo/. In addition, the second workshop was captured on video by
CCTV, and is available to watch here: http://contra-costa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=935921b6-0eea-11e5-
b5ce-00219ba2f017.
The workshops were held in Alamo and Martinez, with advertising and press coverage in the preceding month. About
70 people attended the June 3rd workshop in Alamo, and about 45 attended the June 6th workshop in Martinez. Three
Pipeline Safety Trust staff worked along side the members of the Alamo Improvement Association Technical Assistance
Grant, ad-hoc working group to prepare for and carry out these workshops. Audience members submitted written
questions throughout the meeting, which were then asked by the moderator to the panelists during a question and answer
period at the end of the meeting. This report focuses on questions of concern to local citizens, including those submitted at
the workshops or by email to members of the ad-hoc working group.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 42 of 107
Page 31
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY WORKSHOP AGENDA
June 3, 2015, 6:30 – 8:30 PM in Alamo
Creekside Community Church (1350 Danville Blvd)
June 6, 2015, 10 AM – 12 PM in Martinez
County Administration Building, Board of Suervisors Chambers (651 Pine St)
Facilitated by Pipeline Safety Trust staff, and Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Ombudsman Michael Kent
Introductions (10 Minutes)
Agency, Kinder Morgan, and Pipeline Safety Trust staff
Why care about pipeline safety? Pipelines 101 (20 minutes)
Pipeline Safety Trust staff
Kinder Morgan Presentation (20 Minutes)
Pete Murphy, Operations Manager, Kinder Morgan
Fire Marshal Presentation (20 Minutes)
Bob Gorham, Division Chief, Pipeline Safety, CA Office of the State Fire Marshal
Increasing Safety - Pipeline Safety Trust Staff, Michael Kent, & Carrie Ricci (15 Minutes)
Communications
County involvement – Public Works & Hazardous Materials Advisory Board
Faciliated Question & Answer Panel – Michael Kent, facilitator (30 Minutes)
Closing (5 Minutes ) AIA - Roger Smith
MEETING SPONSORS:
Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS:
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 43 of 107
Page 32
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report
City of Richmond, Pipeline Franchise Ordinance 27-10 (2010). Online: www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/
Item/3143.
Contra Costa County Code (including Industrial Safety Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance). Online: www.municode.com/
library/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code.
Contra Costa County, Flood Control & Water Conservation District – PG&E 1994 Easement for 24 inch gas pipeline.
Contra Costa County General Plan (2014). Online: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/4732/General-Plan.
Contra Costa County Health Services, Hazardous Materials Program – Incident report ConocoPhillips pipeline
(vandalism) in Byron 2011 Aug 27 – includes Environmental Site Assessment Report.
Contra Costa County Health Services, Hazardous Materials Program – Incident report ConocoPhillips pipeline (corrosion)
at MOTC (Marine Ocean Terminal Concord, formerly Naval Weapons Station) 2011 Nov 7.
Contra Costa County Health Services memo (Randy Sawyer) to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors re: Nov 7, 2014
ConocoPhillips pipeline leak in Concord (crude).
Contra Costa County Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Landscape Element (2000). Online: www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/2579/Landscape-Element.
Contra Costa County Pipeline Franchise Ordinance 2013-19 & Fee Resolution (2013). Online: http://pstrust.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/Pipeline-Franchise-FINALweb-09172013.pdf.
Contra Costa County Public Works memo to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recommending requesting the
Office of the State Fire Marshal report of Kinder Morgan Integrity Management program review. Approved by Board of
Supervisors (2015 Jan 6).
Honegger, D.G. and Wijewickreme, D. (2013). Seismic risk assessment for oil and gas pipelines. In Tesfamariam, S., Goda,
K. (Eds.), Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems (pages 682-715).
Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2013.
Kelson, Keith I. and Sundermann, Sean T (2007). Digital compilation of Northern Calaveras Fault Data for the Northern
California Map Database: Collaborative Research with William Lettis & Associates, Inc., and the U.S. Geological
Survey. Online: earthquake.usgs.gov/research/external/reports/05HQGR0023.pdf
National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (2013). Compendium of State Pipeline Safety Requirements and
Initiatives Providing Increased Public Safety Levels compared to Code of Federal Regulations – second edition. Online:
www.napsr.org/Pages/Comp2013.aspx.
Office of the State Fire Marshal Pipeline Failure Investigation Report, 2004 Nov 9 Walnut Creek Kinder Morgan incident.
Office of the State Fire Marshal report on review of Kinder Morgan Integrity Management Program for pipelines in Contra
Costa County (2014 June 2).
Office of the State Fire Marshal PowerPoint presentation re: Kinder Morgan Integrity Management Program (2014 Dec 4).
Online: 64.166.146.155/docs/2015/BOS/20150106_514/20327_ContraCostaCounty2014.pdf.
Office of the State Fire Marshal letter (Bob Gorham) to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors re: Kinder Morgan
inspection/audit (2014 May 8).
PHMSA corrective action order 2005 Aug 24 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CAO 5-2005-5025H).
PHMSA consent agreement 2006 March 29 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CPF 5-2005-5025H). Online: primis.
phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520055025H/CPF_NO_5_2005-5025H.pdf.
PHMSA closure of consent agreement 2015 May 11 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CPF 5-2005-5025H). Online:
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520055025H/520055025H_closure%20letter_05112015.pdf.
Pipeline and Informed Planning Alliance (2010). Partnering to Further Enhance Pipeline Safety in Communities through
Risk-Informed Land Use Planning Final Report of Recommended Practices. Online: primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/
publications/pipa/pipa-report-final-20101117.pdf
Southern Pacific Transportation Company – Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. 1979 Easement (for Concord-San Jose
pipeline).
Southern Pacific Railroad – Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines 1994 Amended Easement (for Concord-San Jose pipeline, references
original easement from June 5, 1970 that was not found).
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 44 of 107
Page 33
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (2012). Studies for the Requirements
of Automatic and Remotely Controlled Shutoff Valves on Hazardous Liquids and Natural Gas Pipelines with Respect
to Public and Environmental Safety (ORNL/TM-2012/411). Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by
UT-Battelle for the U.S. Dept of Energy. Online: www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_2C1A725B08C5F72F30
5689E943053A96232AB200/filename/Final%20Valve_Study.pdf
Wang, Yumei, Bartlett, Steven F., and Miles, Scott B (2012). Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy
Infrastructure Hub (Final Report to Oregon Department of Energy & Oregon Public Utility Commission). Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Online: www.oregongeology.org/sub/earthquakes/cei-hub-report.pdf
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 45 of 107
Page 34
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County
All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County - 2002 to present (as of 4/1/15)
Significant Incidents are highlighted in yellow
Significant Date Name City
Commodity
spilled
Gallons
spilled Fatalities Injuries
Property
damage Cause
Yes 1/8/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 168 0 0 $183,180 Other
Yes 3/31/2002 Sfpp, lp Richmond Diesel fuel 3,360 0 0 $230,290
Material and/or
weld failures
No 4/21/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord Diesel fuel 546 0 0 $9,639
Incorrect
operation
Yes 6/21/2002 Pacific gas &
electric co Concord Natural gas N/a 0 0 $151,000
Damage by
outside forces
No 7/4/2002
Equilon pipeline
co Concord Crude oil 10 0 0 $7,508
Material and/or
weld failures
No 8/14/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord
Gasoline/diesel
fuel 126 0 0 $9,119 Equipment
Yes 9/7/2002 Sfpp, lp Richmond Gasoline 1,260 0 0 $262,750
Material and/or
weld failures
No 10/15/02 Venoco, inc Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $24,000
Excavation
damage
No 3/29/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Turbine fuel 20 0 0 $10,859 Equipment
Yes 4/1/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 22,260 0 0 $162,287
Material and/or
weld failures
Yes 4/14/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Transmix 30,450 0 0 $1,390,073 Corrosion
No 5/30/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 60 0 0 $230
Incorrect
operation
No 9/8/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Turbine fuel 20 0 0 $667
Incorrect
operation
Yes 11/11/2003 Pacific gas &
electric co Walnut creek Natural gas N/a 0 0 $750,000 Other
No 9/28/2004 Sfpp, lp Concord
Gasoline/
distillate mixture 126 0 0 $54,202
Material and/or
weld failures
Yes 11/7/2004 Sfpp l.P. Martinez Jet fuel 12,558 0 0 $139,130
Excavation
damage
Yes 11/9/2004 Sfpp l.P. Walnut creek Gasoline 23,688 5 3 $734,449
Excavation
damage
Yes 4/30/2006 Sfpp l.P. Concord Gasoline 3,234 0 0 $499,493
Material and/or
weld failures
No 6/5/06 Venoco inc. Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $70,000 Corrosion
No 6/19/06
Pacific gas &
electric co Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $65,200
Excavation
damage
Yes 9/8/2007 Pacific atlantic
terminals llc Martinez Gasoline/
reformate 7,056 0 0 $547,084
Incorrect
operation
No 3/5/2008
Pacific atlantic
terminals llc Martinez Gasoline 10 0 0 $3,908 Other
Yes 5/23/2008 Sfpp, lp Richmond Gasoline 168 0 0 $114,815 Corrosion
No 6/24/2008
Pacific atlantic
terminals llc Martinez
Hydrotest
water/oil
mixture
21 0 0 $64,712
Material and/or
weld failures
No 11/5/2009
Plains
marketing, l.P.Martinez Diesel fuel 168 0 0 $34,800 Corrosion
Yes 8/23/2011 Sfpp, lp Brentwood Refined product 1,596 0 0 $410,000
Equipment
failure
Yes 8/27/2011 Conocophillips Byron Crude oil 2,352 0 0 $1,275,040
Excavation
damage
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 46 of 107
Page 35
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Yes 11/7/2011 Conocophillips Concord Crude oil 1,890 0 0 $1,839,410
Corrosion
failure
Yes 7/3/2012 Shell pipeline
co., L.P.Martinez Refined product 546 0 0 $176,000
Equipment
failure
No 10/17/2012
Chevron pipe
line co Byron Refined product 10 0 0 $26,200
Equipment
failure
Yes 8/8/2013 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 57 0 0 $427,913
Material failure
of pipe or weld
No 6/20/14
Pacific gas &
electric co Antioch Natural gas N/a 0 0 $70,021
Excavation
damage
No 6/21/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 302 0 0 $34,453
Incorrect
operation
No 6/21/2014
Nustar
terminals Crockett Refined product 1,554 0 0 $52,000
Incorrect
operation
No 9/14/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 536 0 0 $80,967
Incorrect
operation
Yes 9/15/14 Pacific gas &
electric co Lafayette Natural gas N/a 0 0 $115,315
Excavation
damage
No 9/17/2014
Phillips 66
pipeline llc Richmond Refined product 89 0 0 $5,000
Equipment
failure
Yes 12/9/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 0.42 0 0 $150,501
Equipment
failure
Yes 1/12/2015 Sfpp, lp Richmond Refined product 2,474 0 0 $550,497
Equipment
failure
Totals 116,716 5 3 $10,732,712
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 47 of 107
Page 36
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System
All incidents, 2006 - present. Significant Incidents are highlighted in yellow.
Date City State County Cause Fatalities Injuries
Property
Damage
Gallons
Spilled
5/23/2015 Rocklin Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $5,578 0
2/23/2015 Long beach Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $178,131 0
1/12/2015 Richmond Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $550,497 2,436
12/9/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $150,501 0
10/6/2014 Brisbane Ca San mateo Incorrect operation 0 0 $16,169 0
9/14/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa Incorrect operation 0 0 $80,967 504
6/21/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa Incorrect operation 0 0 $34,453 294
8/8/2013 Concord Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $427,913 42
1/8/2013 West sacramento Ca Yolo
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $2,429 0
10/16/2012 Long beach Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $16,012 252
8/23/2011 Brentwood Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $410,000 1,596
8/10/2011 Colfax Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $2,046 0
4/25/2011 Live oak Ca Sutter
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $27,301 336
11/4/2010 Pomona Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $64,964 84
7/19/2010 Rocklin Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $49,500 0
3/16/2010 Sacramento Ca Sacramento Corrosion 0 0 $480,000 2,016
5/18/2009 Bloomington Ca San bernardino Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $72,147 462
5/1/2009 Phoenix Az Maricopa All other causes 0 0 $33,684 714
9/18/2008 Deming Nm Luna
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $2,431 0
6/4/2008 Indio Ca Riverside Excavation damage 0 0 $222,245 31,542
5/23/2008 Richmond Ca Contra costa Corrosion 0 0 $114,815 168
3/29/2008 Phoenix Az Maricopa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $5,212 42
2/15/2008 Phoenix Az Maricopa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $7,172 84
10/2/2007 Reno Nv Washoe
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $4,055,353 35,742
4/8/2007 Long beach Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $8,209 84
2/26/2007 El paso Tx El paso
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $47,066 0
2/26/2007 Long beach Ca Los angeles All other causes 0 0 $144,063 126
1/12/2007 Rocklin Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $249 0
11/28/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles Incorrect operation 0 0 $5,030 0
10/23/2006 El paso Tx El paso Incorrect operation 0 0 $0 0
9/27/2006 Rocklin Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $6,421 126
9/27/2006 El paso Tx El paso Corrosion 0 0 $177,110 84
9/11/2006 Carson Ca Los angeles All other causes 0 0 $11,158 0
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 48 of 107
Page 37
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Date City State County Cause Fatalities Injuries
Property
Damage
Gallons
Spilled
8/24/2006 Soda springs Ca Nevada Corrosion 0 0 $1,608,202 4,074
8/23/2006 West sacramento Ca Yolo
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $52,488 0
7/24/2006 Stockton Ca San joaquin
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $223,391 504
6/22/2006 Dublin Ca Alameda
Other outside force
damage 0 0 $1,845,651 672
6/10/2006 El paso Tx El paso
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $557 84
6/9/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $520 0
5/26/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles Incorrect operation 0 0 $32,937 1,134
5/21/2006 Rocklin Ca Placer All other causes 0 0 $50,512 168
5/16/2006 Deming Nm Luna
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $5,142 84
4/30/2006 Concord Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $499,493 3,234
3/17/2006 El paso Tx El paso
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $25,093 42
3/13/2006 Tucson Az Pima Incorrect operation 0 0 $173 0
1/27/2006 Portland Or Multnomah Corrosion 0 0 $30,145 84
Totals 0 0 $11,783,130 86,814
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 49 of 107
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:04/14/2016
Subject:REVIEW reduction in State Gas Tax and the Impact to County of Contra
Costa Streets and Roads.
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water and infrastructure.
Presenter: Steve Kowalewski, Department of
Public Works
Contact: Steve Kowalewski
(925)313-2225
Referral History:
State legislative and financial issues related to transportation are a standing item on the TWIC
agenda. The Committee regularly considers and provides recommendations to the BOS on these
matters.
Referral Update:
State gas tax is the primary funding source used by Contra Costa County to fund the operations,
maintenance, and improvement of the unincorporated transportation network.
What does it pay for?
• Operations and Maintenance – Gas tax revenues are used to operate and maintain pavements,
road drainage (underground and above ground facilities), culvert inspection and replacement,
signs, striping, vegetation control, bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, trails, traffic signals, safety
lighting, shoulder grading, slope maintenance, storm response (clean-up, downed trees, clogged
drains, etc), hydrauger maintenance, curbs, bike lane sweeping, storm drain debris removal,
pothole repair, surface treatment program (slurry seal, chip seal, cape seal, micro-surface,
overlays), road reconstruction, bridge maintenance, local bridge inspections, illegal dumping
clean-up, clean water treatment facilities, and guardrails.
• Capital Projects – Used to construct capital transportation projects such as bike lanes, pedestrian
facilities, curb ramps (ADA compliance), safety improvements, shoulder improvements, complete
streets, green streets (green infrastructure), traffic calming, and bridge replacement. Local gas tax
is also used to leverage local, state and federal grant funds. Last year for every $1 dollar we spent
on staff time to prepare grant applications, we were able to get $17 dollars in return. This resulted
in successfully securing $5,080,000 at a cost of $300,900.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 50 of 107
Without having gas tax as required local match money to go after grants, the County would miss
an opportunity to obtain additional outside funding to help construct much needed safety,
maintenance, and multi-modal transportation improvements.
• Traffic Operations – Gas tax fully funds the Traffic Operations Section. This section is
responsible for traffic safety investigations, traffic operational improvements, traffic signal
timing, traffic signal maintenance and upgrades, traffic data collection, Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program, traffic collision evaluations, encroachment investigations, speed surveys,
traffic resolutions, parking restrictions, traffic impact evaluations from new development, CHP
coordination, truck restrictions, permit load requests, State coordination, and public assistance.
• Road Administrative Functions – The gas tax funds several administrative functions that
support the County’s road program. These include the Development Impact fee program,
self-insurance (Risk Management), Road Finance Functions, Transportation Planning
(Department of Conservation and Development), Utility Undergrounding Program (Rule 20A
Funds), transportation planning studies, interagency coordination, state coordination, public
meetings, project development, alignment studies, Road Records, County Counsel, claim
investigations, and Public Assistance.
What’s currently going on with the gas tax?
Two parts to the gas tax exist: Gas Excise Tax (volume based) and Price-Based Excise Tax (price
based):
• Gas Excise Tax (volume based) – has not been raised since 1993. The Construction Cost Index
has increased 71% from 1993. The purchasing power of the 18 cent gas tax in 1993 has been
reduced to 9 cents in 2016 due to inflation. The gas excise tax is based on the amount (gallon) of
gas purchased and is not based on the price of gas. Although there are more vehicles on the road,
the gas tax generated has remained relatively flat due to the improvement in fuel economy in
vehicles and more electric vehicles on the road. Electric vehicles are essentially using the road
network for free. Although great for the environment, this trend has had a major impact on
agencies responsible for properly maintaining and improving the transportation network.
• Price-Based Excise Tax – This part of the gas tax is dependent on the price of gas. If the prices
are high, the sales tax generated increases. When gas prices drop, so does the sales tax portion of
gas tax. So if gas prices have only dropped 50%, why is the County’s gas tax show a decline of
81%? This inequality comes from the gas tax swap agreed to several years ago. From the sales tax
based gas tax, the State takes $1 billion off the top to pay for General Obligation Transportation
Bonds. During the tough economic times, the State was looking for General Fund relief and
switched the obligation for paying these General Obligation Transportation Bonds from the
General Fund to Gas Tax. When gas prices are high, the impact of removing $1 billion off the top
is minimal, but when gas prices are low, the pot of money is small and is even made smaller by
continuing to take the $1 billion off the top. The $1 billion is a fixed amount for bond debt
service.
The Governor called for a special session of the California Legislature to address transportation
funding; however, there has been limited progress in finding a solution. There are currently three
proposals to address transportation funding: SBX1 1 (Beall), AB 1591 (Frazier), Governor’s Plan
as of September 6, 2015. These proposals would generate $24 million (SBX1 1), $27 million
(AB1591), and $12.6 million (Governor’s Plan). These amounts are in addition to the revenues
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 51 of 107
currently being received. A detailed description of the three proposals is attached.
What are the impacts to unincorporated County roads?
• The County has seen a significant reduction in State gas tax used to operate and maintain our
local unincorporated road network. Although we have seen a slight increase in the volume based
gas tax, this increase is far short of the drastic reduction we have seen in the sales tax portion of
gas tax.
• To address the gas tax revenue reduction, the Public Works Department is proposing a project
delay strategy that delays the construction of several projects for one to two years in anticipation
that the State Legislature will agree on a transportation funding fix. However, if the State
Legislature fails to act within the two year window, the County will likely need to indefinitely
delay several projects and lose the already secured grant funds associated with those projects.
• The following are the main projects and road program activities impacted by the proposed
project delay strategy:
- Delay construction of Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes one year with work
beginning in 2019; Reduce gas tax allocations for local match starting this fiscal year and
next. If State Transportation Improvement Funds (also gas tax) are permanently cut by the
California Transportation Commission for this project, the County will not have the capacity
to make up the difference and the project will be delayed indefinitely.
- Delay the Byron Main Street Sidewalk Improvement Project, Pomona Street
Pedestrian Safety Enhancements, and Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project one
year. Continue funding the completion of the design of the project, but delay construction
funding.
- Eliminate seed money for Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project Phase II.
- Delay the Bay Point Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal project. The bids were recently opened
for the project. However, with the new gas tax revenue projections, we did not have the $1.7
million funding to move this project forward. We will move forward with the ADA Curb
Ramp Upgrades Project in the same Bay Point neighborhood in preparation for when the
delayed Rubber Cape Seal project will be put out to bid in the next couple of years if the
State Legislature finds a transportation funding fix.
- Reduce the gas tax allocation for Orwood Bridge Construction Engineering overage
reserve. Caltrans has been disputing project expenditures for both the Construction
Engineering and Environmental expenditures. At this moment, it appears only $600,000 in
Environmental expenditures are in dispute. If the Environmental expenditures dispute is
resolved, that would free up the $600,000 reserve.
- Reduced insurance reserve to $500,000. This amount is difficult to predict and in the recent
past has come in at $1.6 million and $1.8 million.
- Holding off on back-filling vacated positions supported by the State gas tax.
- Will be shifting some County Road Crews from gas tax supported road work to Flood
Control District facilities to reduce gas tax expenditures. Gas tax allocation to Road
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 52 of 107
Control District facilities to reduce gas tax expenditures. Gas tax allocation to Road
Maintenance has been reduced by $2.5 million from historic levels.
- Reduce grant match funding and forego applying for some upcoming grants.
• The actions summarized above are the main highlights. With these actions along with other
minor budget adjustments, we have balanced the current fiscal year road budget. We are currently
short approximately $700,000 for the fiscal year 2016/17 road budget. We will continue to seek
additional budget adjustments and funding to make up the difference.
• We realize that these actions will have an impact to motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, transit
operations, and goods movement and we will continue to look for efficiencies and strategic
allocations of the limited gas tax to keep the unincorporated County road network operating
safely, efficiently, and reliably.
[Note from TWIC Staff: Information regarding transportation funding proposals at the state are
also addressed under Item 7: Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues]
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report on the impacts to County transportation projects from the declining State gas tax;
DIRECT the Public Works Director to make modifications to the current draft of the Capital Road
Improvement and Preservation Program currently being routed for review to reflect the reduced
gas tax revenues; and ACKNOWLEDGE that unless the State approves a transportation funding
fix, the projects currently recommended to be delayed, will be deferred indefinitely, road deferred
maintenance will continue to increase and our aging transportation infrastructure will cost more to
fix in the future.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
If the projects move forward, there will be insufficient funds to pay contractors for work
performed.
Attachments
Summary 2016
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 53 of 107
Preliminary Comparison of Three Transportation Funding and Reform Proposals as of March 1, 2016
SBX11 (Beall) as of AB 1591 (Frazier) as of Governor's Proposal from
Sept. 1, 2015 Jan. 6, 2016 Sept. 6, 2015
Funding
Gas Excise Tax Increase 12 cents ($2b) 22.5 cents ($3.5b) None
Price-Based Excise Tax Adjustment Reset 17.3 cents ($900m) 17.3 cents ($900m) 18 cents ($900m)1
-CPI adjustment applied to entire excise tax Every 3 years Every 3 years Every year
Diesel Excise Tax Increase 22 cents ($600m) 30 cents ($800m) 11 cents ($300m)
-CPI adjustment applied to entire excise tax Every 3 years Every 3 years Every year
Vehicle Registration Fee Increase $35 ($lb) $38 ($lb) None
Road Access Fee/Highway User Fee $35 ($l b) None $65 ($2b)
ZEV-specific Fee $100 ($25m) $165 ($35m) None
-Total Vehicle Fee Increase $70 ($170 for ZEVs) $38 ($203 for ZEVs) $65
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Cap & Trade) None TIRCP2 from 10% to 20% ($200m) TIRCP -$400m
TCiF -20% ($400m) Complete Streets -$100m
Weight Fees None Returned immediatell None
General Fund Loan Repayments Over 3 yrs, to RMRA4 Over 2 yrs, directly to locals s By 6/30/19, to various accts 6
Caltrans Efficiencies Up to 30% ($500m) None $100m
Estimated Total Annual Funding Increase7 -$6 billion -$7 billion -$3.7 billion
Estimated Annua l Funding for Lo~l Stl"eets and Roads B ~$1.9 billion ~$2.2 billion ~$1.0 billion
1 The Gov ernor's proposal doe sn't re se t the price-b as ed exci se ta x until the 2017-18 fi scal year .
2 Tr ansit and Intercity Rail Capit al Progr am, a competitive gr ant program administer ed by the Transportation Agency.
3 The weight fees would not be transferred from the State Highway Account and in stead be available for traditional uses including SHOPP, STIP, and local roads through existing
formulas. Therefor e th ey are not included in the Estimated Total Annual Funding Increase, but would result in roughly $1 billion more funding .
4 Th e Road Maintenance and Rehabilit ation Account , created in SB 1x1.
5 Through Street s and Highways Code Section 2103 formula. Fund s allocated with as sumption that local agencies have proj ect "shelf" that can accommodate new funding.
6 $132 million highway maintenanc e, $265 million for TIRCP , $334 million for trade corridors , $148 million for Traffic Congestion Relief Program .
7 Roughly estimated, annuali zed over ten years . Figure s may not add up due to rounding .
8 Excludes on e-time cap and trade rev enue s for complete streets projects.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 54 of 107
SBXll (Beall) as of AB 1591 (Frazier) as of Governor's Proposal from
Sept. 1, 2015 Jan. 6, 2016 Sept. 6,2015
Expenditures
Gas Excise Tax Increase RMRA RMRA -
Diesel Excise Tax Increase 10 cents to RMRA All to TCIF RMRA
12 cents to TCiF
CPI Adjustment Revenues To the respective programs To the respective programs RMRA
Vehicle Fee In creases RMRA RMRA RMRA
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Cap & Trade) -$200m to rail and transit $400m to rail and transit
$400m to TCIF $100m to complete streets
General Fund Loan Repayments RMRA Cities and Counties Various accounts
Total Annual Expenditures on:
Road Rehab and Maintenance $5.5 billion $5.8 billion $2.9 billion
Freight Mobility $500 million $1.2 billion $200 million
Rail and Transit or Complete Streets -$200 million $500 million
Expenditure Split Between State/Local Needs 52 % state/48% percent local 55% state/45% percent local 50% state/50% percent local 9
Accountability and Reforms
Reporting Both Ca ltrans and local -Both Caltrans and the locals
governments would report to report to the Commission on
the CA Transportation the efficacy of expenditures
Commission Commission on from the RMRA I
the efficacy of expenditures
from the RMRA
Local Maintenance of Effort Requirements Included Included Included
Commission Allocation of SHOPP Support Costs Requires by Feb 2017 Requires by Feb 2017 -
COS State Staff vs. Contract Staff --80%/20% by Jul 2020
CM/GC Project Delivery . -Expands authority for Caltran s
from 6 to 12 projects
Public Private Partnerships Project Delivery --Extends sunset from
2017 to 2027
CEQA Exemption --Exempts projects in existing
rights of way in certain
circumstances
NEPA Delegation --Eliminates the sunset
Regional Advance Mitigation Program --Included
----------
9 Tr ansit cou nted toward local agency sha re .
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 55 of 107
County
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
EI Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Maripo sa
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco *
SF (City Portion)
San Jo a quin
Estimates of New Annual County Road Maintenance Funding
Plans with Legislative Language as of March 2016
SBX11 (Beall) AB 1591 (Frazier) Governor's Plan
As of Sept. 1,2015 As of Jan. 6, 2016 As of Sept. 6 2015
$ 31,144,700 $ 35,255,085 $ 16,409,049
$ 606,976 $ 687 ,083 $ 319,794
$ 2,766,893 $ 3 ,132,060 $ 1 ,4 57,779
$ 9 ,930 ,390 $ 11 ,2 40,974 $ 5,231,974
$ 4,223,471 $ 4,780,872 $ 2,225,198
$ 3,322,160 $ 3,760,609 $ 1 ,750,33 0
$ 23,987,628 $ 27 ,153 ,445 $ 12,638,239
$ 1,727,533 $ 1,955 ,528 $ 910,177
$ 8,891,490 $ 10,064 ,963 $ 4,684,614
$ 30,136,370 $ 34,113,679 $ 15,877,795
$ 4,038,469 $ 4,571,454 $ 2,127,728
$ 7,879,119 $ 8,918,982 $ 4,151,231
$ 13,599,326 $ 15,394,124 $ 7 ,165,007
$ 4,867,889 $ 5,510,338 $ 2,564,720
$ 28,572,161 $ 32,343,030 $ 15 ,053 ,668
$ 5,973,933 $ 6,762 ,3 55 $ 3,147,456
$ 4,224,536 $ 4,782,078 $ 2,225,760
$ 4,122,335 $ 4,666,389 $ 2,171,914
$ 181,627,994 $ 205,598,720 $ 95,693,413
$ 8,659,856 $ 9,802,759 $ 4,562,574
$ 6,898,695 $ 7 ,809,164 $ 3,634,680
$ 2,725,452 $ 3,085,149 $ 1,435,945
$ 6,321,066 $ 7,155,302 $ 3 ,330,348
$ 11,386,363 $ 12,889,102 $ 5 ,999 ,075
$ 3,993,241 $ 4 ,520,2 57 $ 2,103,898
$ 2,948,306 $ 3,337,415 $ 1,553 ,3 59
$ 12,851,174 $ 14 ,547,234 $ 6,770,832
$ 4,839,326 $ 5,478,006 $ 2,549,671
$ 4,945,097 $ 5,597,7 36 $ 2,605,398
$ 62,005 ,13 9 $ 70,188,394 $ 32,668,331
$ 12,8 09 ,538 $ 14,500,103 $ 6,748,8 96
$ 3,272,284 $ 3,704,151 $ 1,724,052
$ 49,301,308 $ 55 ,807,949 $ 25,975,128
$ 36,976,427 $ 41,856,466 $ 19,481,581
$ 2,777,567 $ 3,144,142 $ 1,463,402
$ 47,975 ,460 $ 54,3 07 ,11 9 $ 25,276,586
$ 69,451,699 $ 78,617 ,729 $ 36,591,662
$ 14,3 17 ,343 $ 16,206,903 $ 7,543,305
$ 25 ,045 ,605 $ 28,351,050 $ 13,195,650
$ 19,870,296 $ 22,492,719 $ 10,468,961
CSAC Estimates -March 2, 2016
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 56 of 107
County
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Sta nislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
TOTAL
*county shore only
Estimates of New Annual County Road Maintenance Funding
Plans with Legislative Language as of March 2016
I
SBX11 (Beall) AB 1591 (Frazier) Governor's Plan
As of Sept . 1, 2015 As of Jan. 6, 2016 As of Sept. 6 2015
$ 16 ,971 ,84 6 $ 19,211,740 $ 8,941,870
$ 11,836,384 $ 13,398,516 $ 6,236,175
$ 37,884,710 $ 42,884,622 $ 19 ,960,124
$ 7 ,81 5 ,516 $ 8,846,984 $ 4,117,721
$ 9,175,861 $ 10,38 6,8 65 $ 4 ,834,4 39
$ 1,591,289 $ 1,8 01,302 $ 838,394
$ 6,551,475 $ 7,416 ,120 $ 3,451,742
$ 10,868,825 $ 12,303,261 $ 5 ,726,402
$ 16,452,146 $ 18,623,452 $ 8,668,058
$ 16,044,384 $ 18,161,8 74 $ 8,453,223
$ 4,975,297 $ 5,631,923 $ 2,621,310
$ 5 ,715,085 $ 6,469,345 $ 3,011,078
$ 3,053,220 $ 3,456,175 $ 1 ,608,634
$ 19,600,710 $ 22,187,554 $ 10,32 6,926
$ 3,974,375 $ 4,498 ,901 $ 2,093 ,959
$ 19 ,079 ,197 $ 21,597,213 $ 10,052 ,1 59
$ 6,967,994 $ 7,887,609 $ 3 ,671,191
$ 3,972,675 $ 4,496,977 $ 2,093,063
$ 983,545,605 $ 1,113,351,050 $ 518,195,650
CSAC Estimates -March 2, 2016
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 57 of 107
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:04/14/2016
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. Specific recommendations, if provided, 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) is in the process of
developing 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. This is a standing
TWIC item for the foreseeable future.
TEP Update
There is no written report on the TEP this month. Staff is preparing a comprehensive report for
the April 26, Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting.
At the time of the April14th TWIC agenda posting, CCTA had just completed their April 6,
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 58 of 107
At the time of the April14th TWIC agenda posting, CCTA had just completed their April 6,
Special TEP meeting. A substantial amount of materials were distributed just prior to the CCTA
meeting and at the meeting including presentations from environmental and business advocates.
Those documents are attached for the Committees information and will be addressed at the April
26 BOS meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any local issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate.
2) STATE
Legislative Report
The legislative report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, is attached (April TWIC State Leg
Report and Funding Bills overview April 2016).
Mr. Watts will be present at the April meeting to discuss the state budget, Special Session/Conference
Committee, the status of state transportation revenues and other items of interest to the Committee.
Also attached is the County's recent letter and resolution to the state regarding transportation funding
(BOS to LegDelegation re Transportation Funding)
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any state issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate.
3) FEDERAL
No written report in April.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any federal issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and
take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of any specific recommendations in
the report above.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
4-6-15 CCTA Special TEP - Handout_from_Presenter - MTC Project Performance
4-6-15 CCTA Special TEP - Handouts
4-6-15 CCTA Special TEP - Presentation on Oversight Cmmttee
4-6-15 CCTA Special TEP - Presentation_by_Commissioner_Arnerich
BOS to LegDelegation re Transportation Funding
Funding Bills overview April 2016
April TWIC State Leg Report
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 59 of 107
ROW ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION (COUNTY) PROJECT TYPE ANNUAL BENEFIT ANNUAL COST B/C RATIO TARGETS SCORE
1 1503 Highway Pavement Maintenance
(Ideal Conditions vs. Preserve Conditions)Multi-County Highway Maintenance $638 ($1)
2 1502 Highway Pavement Maintenance
(Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding)Multi-County Highway Maintenance $2,433 $144
3 1301 Columbus Day Initiative Multi-County ITS $421 $38
4 209 SR-84 Widening + I-680/SR-84 Interchange Improvements
(Livermore to I-680)Alameda Intraregional Road
Expansion $116 $13
5 501 BART to Silicon Valley – Phase 2
(Berryessa to Santa Clara)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $472 $62
6 306 Downtown San Francisco Congestion Pricing
(Toll + Transit Improvements)Multi-County Congestion Pricing $84 $11
7 302 Treasure Island Congestion Pricing
(Toll + Transit Improvements)San Francisco Congestion Pricing $56 $8
8 1651 Public Transit Maintenance - Rail Operators
(Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding)Multi-County Rail Maintenance $1,351 $198
9 506 El Camino Real BRT
(Palo Alto to San Jose)Santa Clara BRT $85 $13
10 207 San Pablo BRT
(San Pablo to Oakland)Multi-County BRT $106 $16
11 301 Geary BRT San Francisco BRT $124 $20
12 505 Capitol Expressway LRT – Phase 2
(Alum Rock to Eastridge)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $77 $12
13 518 ACE Alviso Double-Tracking Santa Clara Rail Efficiency $36 $6
14 1650 Public Transit Maintenance - Bus Operators
(Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding)Multi-County Bus Maintenance $623 $103
15 1203 Vallejo-San Francisco + Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Frequency
Improvements Multi-County Ferry $29 $5
16 1001 BART Metro Program (Service Frequency Increase + Bay Fair Operational
Improvements + SFO Airport Express Train)Multi-County Rail Efficiency $430 $80
17 203 Irvington BART Infill Station Alameda Rail Efficiency $30 $6
18 903 Sonoma County Service Frequency Improvements Sonoma Bus Frequency
Improvements $75 $15
19 523 VTA Service Frequency Improvements
(15-Minute Frequencies)Santa Clara Bus Frequency
Improvements $103 $23
20 211 SR-262 Widening (I-680 to I-880)Alameda Intraregional Road
Expansion $22 $5
21 1403 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance
(Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding)Multi-County Local Streets Maintenance $1,875 $428
22 210 I-580 ITS Improvements Alameda ITS $44 $11
23 504 Stevens Creek LRT Santa Clara Rail Expansion $144 $38
24 1101 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1
(Electrification + Service Frequency Increase)Multi-County Rail Efficiency $195 $56
25 605 Jepson Parkway
(Fairfield to Vacaville)Solano Intraregional Road
Expansion $17 $5
26 1202 Oakland-Alameda-San Francisco Ferry Frequency Improvements Multi-County Ferry $16 $5
27 1102 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Phase 2
(Electrification+ServiceFrequencyIncrease+CapacityExpansion)
Multi-County Rail Efficiency $236 $77
>50 2.5
17 2.5
11 3.5
9 -0.5
8 8.5
7 7.5
7 4.5
7 9.5
7 6.0
6 5.5
6 6.0
6 5.5
6 -0.5
6 8.0
6 5.0
5 9.0
5 3.5
5 5.0
4 5.0
4 -0.5
4 3.5
4 1.0
4 5.5
3 8.0
3 1.0
3 2.5
Plan Bay Area 2040
PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
DRAFT RESULTS
all benefits and costs are in millions of 2017 dollars
March 16, 2016
DRAFTATTACHMENT B
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 63 of 107
ROW ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION (COUNTY) PROJECT TYPE ANNUAL BENEFIT ANNUAL COST B/C RATIO TARGETS SCORE261202Oakland-Alameda-San Francisco Ferry Frequency Improvements Multi-County Ferry $16 $5
27 1102 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Phase 2
(Electrification + Service Frequency Increase + Capacity Expansion)Multi-County Rail Efficiency $236 $77
28 411 SR-4 Auxiliary Lanes - Phases 1 + 2
(Concord to Pittsburg)Contra Costa Intraregional Road
Expansion $44 $15
29 507 Vasona LRT – Phase 2
(Winchester to Vasona Junction)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $30 $11
30 515 Tasman West LRT Realignment
(Fair Oaks to Mountain View)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $48 $18
31 517 Stevens Creek BRT Santa Clara BRT $29 $11
32 503 SR-152 Tollway
(Gilroy to Los Banos)Santa Clara Interregional Road
Expansion $95 $37
33 307 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 (Electrification + Service Frequency
Increase) + Caltrain to Transbay Transit Center Multi-County Rail Expansion $290 $113
34 1206 Alameda Point-San Francisco Ferry Multi-County Ferry $12 $5
35 1204 Berkeley-San Francisco Ferry Multi-County Ferry $10 $4
36 206 AC Transit Service Frequency Improvements Multi-County Bus Frequency
Improvements $248 $120
37 513 North Bayshore LRT
(NASA/Bayshore to Google)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $42 $22
38 604 Solano County Express Bus Network Multi-County Express Bus Network $21 $12
39 522 VTA Service Frequency Improvements
(10-Minute Frequencies)Santa Clara Bus Frequency
Improvements $177 $99
40 407 SR-4 Auxiliary Lanes - Phase 1
(Concord to Pittsburg)Contra Costa Intraregional Road
Expansion $13 $8
41 402 eBART – Phase 2
(Antioch to Brentwood)Contra Costa Rail Expansion $21 $12
42 311 Muni Forward Program San Francisco Bus Frequency
Improvements $60 $36
43 331 Better Market Street San Francisco BRT $32 $19
44 901 US-101 Marin-Sonoma Narrows HOV Lanes – Phase 2 Multi-County Intraregional Road
Expansion $31 $19
45 409 I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements + HOV Direct Connector Contra Costa Intraregional Road
Expansion $42 $27
46 103 El Camino Real Rapid Bus
(Daly City to Palo Alto)San Mateo Bus Frequency
Improvements $54 $36
47 401 TriLink Tollway + Expressways
(Brentwood to Tracy/Altamont Pass)Multi-County Interregional Road
Expansion $75 $51
48 801 Golden Gate Transit Frequency Improvements Multi-County Express Bus Network $11 $8
49 313 Muni Service Frequency Improvements San Francisco Bus Frequency
Improvements $89 $79
50 312 19th Avenue Subway
(West Portal to Parkmerced)San Francisco Rail Efficiency $30 $27
51 1413 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance
(Preserve Conditions vs. Local Funding)Multi-County Local Streets Maintenance $194 $198
52 516 VTA Express Bus Frequency Improvements Santa Clara Express Bus Network $18 $19
53 202 East-West Connector
(FremonttoUnionCity)
Alameda Intraregional Road
Expansion
$10 $12
3 8.0
3 1.0
3 4.0
3 5.0
3 5.0
3 -1.0
3 8.0
2 0.0
2 3.0
2 7.0
2 4.0
2 2.5
2 7.5
2 2.0
2 4.0
2 6.5
2 6.0
2 1.0
2 2.5
2 1.0
1 -1.5
1 4.5
1 6.0
1 6.0
1 3.5
0.9 4.5
Plan Bay Area 2040
PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
DRAFT RESULTS
all benefits and costs are in millions of 2017 dollars
March 16, 2016
DRAFT
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 64 of 107
ROW ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION (COUNTY) PROJECT TYPE ANNUAL BENEFIT ANNUAL COST B/C RATIO TARGETS SCORE52516VTA Express Bus Frequency Improvements Santa Clara Express Bus Network $18 $19
53 202 East-West Connector
(Fremont to Union City)Alameda Intraregional Road
Expansion $10 $12
54 406 I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements Contra Costa Intraregional Road
Expansion $18 $22
55 304 Southeast Waterfront Transportation Improvements (Hunters Point Transit
Center + New Express Bus Services)San Francisco Express Bus Network $16 $27
56 410 Antioch-Martinez-Hercules-San Francisco Ferry Multi-County Ferry $9 $16
57 403 I-680 Express Bus Frequency Improvements Multi-County Express Bus Network $12 $21
58 404 SR-4 Widening
(Antioch to Discovery Bay)Contra Costa Interregional Road
Expansion $9 $17
59 510 Downtown San Jose Subway
(Japantown to Convention Center)Santa Clara Rail Efficiency $10 $18
60 308 San Francisco Express Bus Network Multi-County Express Bus Network $5 $14
61 104 Geneva-Harney BRT + Corridor Improvements Multi-County BRT $15 $46
62 508 SR-17 Tollway + Santa Cruz LRT
(Los Gatos to Santa Cruz)Santa Clara Interregional Road
Expansion $57 $200
63 519 Lawrence Freeway Santa Clara Intraregional Road
Expansion $7 $34
64 204 Broadway Streetcar Alameda Rail Expansion $2 $14
65 601 I-80/I-680/SR-12 Interchange Improvements Solano Intraregional Road
Expansion $5 $32
66 1304 Bay Bridge West Span Bike Path San Francisco Bike/Ped $4 $30
67 905 SMART – Phase 3
(Santa Rosa Airport to Cloverdale)Sonoma Rail Expansion $0 $12
68 1201 San Francisco-Redwood City + Oakland-Redwood City Ferry Multi-County Ferry $0 $8
69 205_15 Express Bus Bay Bridge Contraflow Lane Multi-County Express Bus Network $0 $10
70 1407 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance
(Ideal Conditions vs. Preserve Conditions)Multi-County Local Streets Maintenance TBD TBD
71 102 US-101 HOV Lanes
(San Francisco + San Mateo Counties)Multi-County Express Lanes TBD TBD
72 201 ACTC Express Lane Network Alameda Express Lanes TBD TBD
73 101 US-101 Express Lanes
(San Francisco + San Mateo Counties)Multi-County Express Lanes TBD TBD
74 502 VTA Express Lane Network Santa Clara Express Lanes TBD TBD
75 1302 MTC Express Lane Network Multi-County Express Lanes TBD TBD
76 1305 Managed Lanes Implementation Plan Multi-County Express Lanes TBD TBD
0.9 0.0
0.8 1.0
0.6 6.0
0.6 1.5
0.6 3.0
0.5 -1.0
0.5 5.5
0.3 4.0
0.3 5.0
0.3 0.5
0.2 2.0
0.2 2.5
0.2 1.0
0.1 2.0
0 4.0
0 2.0
0 5.0
TBD 3.5
TBD 0.5
TBD 1.5
TBD 0.0
TBD 3.0
TBD 2.5
TBD 6.0
Plan Bay Area 2040
PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
DRAFT RESULTS
all benefits and costs are in millions of 2017 dollars
March 16, 2016
DRAFT
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 65 of 107
Attachment C: Identifying Projects Subject to Evaluation
Projects Subject to Evaluation
Committed projects and programs, as defined by MTC Resolution No. 4182 in April 2015, are not subject
to project performance assessment. Of the uncommitted projects submitted in the Call for Projects by the
September 2015 deadline, MTC staff evaluated projects that met the following criteria:
1.The project impacts can be evaluated with the regional travel demand model.
2.The total project costs are at least $100 million (as measured in 2017 dollars).
Examples of projects that were evaluated:
•New/enhanced transit service, including travel time savings of rapid bus or bus rapid transit (BRT)
infrastructure
•Freeway-to-freeway interchanges
•Freeway widenings, including HOV lanes & auxiliary lanes
•Capacity-increasing improvements to state highways and major arterials
•State of good repair investments for state highways and local streets & roads
•State of good repair investments for public transit systems
Examples of projects that were not evaluated even if met the cost threshold:
•Intersection improvements or other non-capacity-increasing improvements
•Freeway-to-freeway interchanges that do not include mainline widening
•Local interchanges
•Transit center improvements and parking expansion
•Transit projects that increase capacity within trains and on platforms but that do not result in
increased frequency or travel time improvements
•Grade separations
Unlike Plan Bay Area 2013, staff did not evaluate uncommitted regional programs for Plan Bay Area 2040.
These programs will be considered during the investment strategy separately from the performance
assessment. Staff also did not evaluate any project with total costs less than $100 million. These projects
will be prioritized by Congestion Management Agencies, subject to fiscal constraint.
Per this evaluation criteria, all committed projects and projects that are currently under construction are
exempt from the project performance evaluation for Plan Bay Area 2040. A list of major capacity increasing
projects that we are not evaluating is included in Table C-1 on the following page. A full accounting of
which projects were assessed in Plan Bay Area and that are no longer subject to the evaluation will be
provided as an online resource (see Attachment D).
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 66 of 107
Table C-1: Committed Capacity-Increasing Projects (exempt from performance assessment)
Committed
Category Project Name Notes
Analyzed in PBA
and committed in
PBA40
SR-4 Bypass
(Antioch to Brentwood)
Now has full funding - reclassified as
committed.
East Bay BRT
(Oakland to San Leandro)
Now has EIR/EIS + full funding - reclassified
as committed.
Van Ness BRT Now has EIR/EIS + full funding - reclassified
as committed.
Dumbarton Express Bus Frequency Improvements Now has full funding - reclassified as
committed.
Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Now has full funding - reclassified as
committed.
SMART – Phase 2
(San Rafael to Larkspur)
Now has full funding - reclassified as
committed.
Committed in
PBA & PBA40
SR-4 Widening
(Pittsburg to Antioch)
Central Subway
(Caltrain to Chinatown)
BART to Silicon Valley – Phase 1
(South Fremont/Warm Springs to Berryessa)
eBART – Phase 1
(Pittsburg/Bay Point to Antioch)
Project renaming reflects existence of Phase 2
proposal.
Transbay Transit Center Project will be complete in 2017.
SR-4/SR-160 Direct Connector Project will be complete in 2017.
King Road Rapid Bus
(Berryessa to Downtown San Jose)
Project was merged into BART to Silicon
Valley (Phase 1).
Completed or
construction
underway
Presidio Parkway Project will be complete in 2016.
Oakland Airport Connector Project was completed in 2014.
BART to Warm Springs Project will be complete in 2016.
Caldecott Tunnel Project was completed in 2013.
SMART Initial Operating Segment Project will be complete in 2016.
Marin-Sonoma Narrows
(Phase 1: Interchanges in Novato & Petaluma) Project was completed in 2015.
Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Project will be complete in 2016.
SR-12 Widening
(Jameson Canyon) Project was completed in 2014.
SR-238 Hayward Operational Improvements Project was completed in 2013.
US-101 HOV Lanes
(Santa Rosa Avenue to Pepper Road) Project was completed in 2013.
US-101 Auxiliary Lanes
(SR-85 to Embarcadero Road) Project was completed in 2014.
I-880 HOV Lanes
(SR-237 to US-101)Project was completed in 2013.
I-80 ITS Improvements Project will be complete in 2016.
Tasman Double-Tracking
(Mountain View to Alum Rock Direct LRT Service) Project will be complete in 2016.
I-580 Altamont Pass Truck Climbing Lane Project will be complete in 2016.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 67 of 107
Attachment D: Detailed Project and State of Good Repair Performance Documentation Online
For more information on all aspects of the project performance assessment and the state of good repair
performance assessment, please take advantage of our online resources on the following website:
http://metropolitantransportationcommission.github.io/performance/
Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance Dashboard
Data available includes:
•Complete list of project and state of good repair performance results (sortable by project location)
•Interactive bubble chart
•Breakdown of quantified project benefits
•Breakdown of targets score
•Confidence results by project
•Equity results by project
Plan Bay Area 2040 Project-Level Equity Map
This interactive tool allows sponsors, stakeholders, and members of the public to explore all of the major
uncommitted transportation investments analyzed – and see which projects provide access to the draft Plan
Bay Area 2040 Communities of Concern.
Reference Documentation
1.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Approach to Benefits and Costs – describes methodology for
estimating benefits using the travel model, provides valuations for benefits, and describes the
calculations for project costs
2.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Targets Score Methodology – provides a table of the targets
criteria and explains the methodology
3.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Confidence Assessment Methodology – highlights the overall
framework of the benefit-cost confidence assessment discloses potential limitations in the
benefit-cost assessment related to travel model accuracy, project purpose considerations, and
project implementation timeline
4.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Highway and Local Streets State of Good Repair
Methodology – draft methodology document for road state of good repair discussed with the Local
Streets and Roads Working Group in February 2016
5.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Public Transit State of Good Repair Methodology – draft
methodology document for road state of good repair discussed with the Transit Asset
Management Steering Committee in February 2016
6.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Sensitivity Testing – explores sensitivity of benefit-cost
results (not currently available; will be released by the end of April)
7.Comparison of Plan Bay Area and Plan Bay Area 2040 Project Performance Lists
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 68 of 107
April 6, 2016
Authority Special TEP
Meeting
Handouts
(Various Agenda Items - See
Reverse Side for Details)
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 69 of 107
Handout Items
Agenda Item 1.1.1: Consideration to Adopt a Policy to Include an Advance Mitigation Program
in the Draft TEP.
Copy of presentation by staff
Agenda Item 1.1.3: Review and Discussion of Other Miscellaneous Changes Incorporated in
the Initial Draft TEP Version 2.2
Handout with correction to Proposed Revisions to Category 12 - Bus Transit and Non-
Rail Transit Enhancements
Agenda Item 1.2: Review of the Updated Initial Draft TEP – Version 2.2, and Authorization to
Release the Draft TEP to Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs), the
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC), the Public Managers' Association (PMA) and
Other Interested Stakeholders for Review and Comment.
Copy of presentation by staff to highlight changes in the Initial Draft TEP Version 2.2
Agenda Item 1.3 (Added by Addendum): Review and Discuss Proposed Changes to the Initial
Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Contained in a Joint Letter From Expenditure
Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) Members Kristin Connelly, President and CEO, East Bay
Leadership Council; Michael Cunningham, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Bay Area
Council; and Lisa Vorderbrueggen, BIA|Bay Area East Bay Governmental Affairs Executive
Director.
Joint Letter From Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) Members Joel
Devalcourt, Ron Brown and Dave Campbell dated April 6, 2016
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 70 of 107
Contra CostaTransportation Authority
April 6, 2016
1
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 71 of 107
Bay Area Regional Advance
Mitigation Program (RAMP)
Proposed for Plan Bay Area 2040
Opportunity toalign conservation and infrastructure
planning goals
Highervalue, more strategicconservation
Streamline project delivery process
RAMP does not increase ordecrease CEQAor
California Endangered Species Act responsibilities
RAMP supportsexisting Habitat Conservation
Programs (East Contra Costa HCP)
2
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 72 of 107
Other Transportation Measures
SANDAG TRANSNET Measure 2004
Orange CountyTransportation Authority 2006
Santa Clara Possible Measure 2016
Potentially Part of Bay Area RAMP Pilot
3
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 73 of 107
Statewide Perspective
AB 1833 (Linder) and SB 901 (Bates)
Directs Caltrans toestablish an advance mitigation
program and authorizes funding
AB 2087 (Levine)
California Departmentof Fish and Wildlife toestablish
Regional Conservation Framework
Gov Brown Transportation Funding Proposal
Includes funding foradvance mitigation
4
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 74 of 107
Bay Area Ramp Pilot Timeline
5
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 75 of 107
Bay Area
Conservation
Mitigation
Assessment
– Mitigation
Supply
6
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 76 of 107
Potential RAMP Pilot Process
7
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 77 of 107
Proposed Organizational Framework
8
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 78 of 107
Additional Actions to Establish Pilot
Consider Adopting Policy forTEP
Identify Implementing Agency / Sponsor & Project
Coordinator
CompleteAssessments
Conservation
Project Impacts
Develop MOUs and Agreements
Fund Mitigation
9
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 79 of 107
Organizational Framework - Issues
10
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 80 of 107
Factors To Consider
Opportunity to build on Conservation as Priority in
Contra Costa County
Support East Contra Costa HCP, and provides
conservation funding in otherareas of County
Changing Focuson Measure Investments
Manage existing infrastructureover new construction,
fewer impacts
Legal and Policy framework incomplete
11
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 81 of 107
Recommendations
Adopt Policy to SupportAdvance Mitigation
Contingent on Legal and Policy Framework
Funding to be based on future Program / Project Impact
Assessment (no line item)
Establish Stakeholder Group
DetermineViabilityof East Bay Pilot
Fund Advance Mitigation through Pilotor Bay Area
Regional Advance Mitigation Program
12
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 82 of 107
12. Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements ---- 10.3% ($240m)
This category of funding is intended to provide funding to existing bus transit operators and
for future non-rail transit service alternatives that can be shown to reduce total vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Funding will be provided for bus
transit operations to increase ridership, including incentivizing transit use by offsetting fares;
and improve the frequency and capacity of high demand routes connecting housing with job,
commercial, transit,and for medical centers. In addition, funding can be used to support
other non-rail transit services/projects that can demonstrate innovative approaches to
maximizing the movement of people along existing transit corridors efficiently and within
the existing transportation infrastructure. Projects in a manner that increase ridership using
existing capacity by incentives including offsetting fares or other methodologies may also be
considered. Funding may be used to deliver transit capital projects or implement service to
transit stations, congested corridors, last mile service to transit hubs reduces VMT and
established transit integrated communities.GHG.
Funding will be allocated by the Authority to Contra Costa transit operators throughout the
County based on input from each Regional Transportation Planning Committee and on
performance criteria established by the Authority in consultation with local and regional bus
transit operators,providers of alternate non-rail transportation,and key stakeholders. Funding
allocations will be reviewed on a regular basis. Said performance criteria shall require a
finding that any proposed new or enhanced services demonstrate the ability to improve
regional and/or local mobility for Contra Costa residents. Funds may be used to deliver for
transit capital projects or to operate service improvements identified in the adopted plans of
an operator or of the Authority.
Guidelines will be established so that revenues will fund service enhancements in Contra
Costa. The guidelines may require provisions, such as; operational efficiencies including
requiring greater coordination; promoting and developing a seamless service; increasing
service frequencies on appropriate routes; and specified performance criteria and reporting
requirements. Services funded in this program will be reviewed every two years to ensure the
goals of the program are being met.in accordance with implementing guidelines described in
this expenditure plan.
Recipients of funding under this category are required to participate in the development of
the Accessible Transportation Services Strategic Plan included in Category 13.
Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 83 of 107
Proposed Category Description (clean version):
12. Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements ---- 10.3% ($240m)
This category is intended to provide funding to existing bus transit operators and for future
non-rail transit service alternatives. Funding will be provided for bus transit operations to
increase ridership, including incentivizing transit use by offsetting fares; and improve the
frequency and capacity of high demand routes connecting housing with job, commercial,
transit, and medical centers. In addition, funding can be used to support other non-rail transit
services/projects that can demonstrate innovative approaches to maximizing the movement of
people efficiently and in a manner that reduces VMT and GHG.
Funding will be allocated by the Authority throughout the County based on input from each
Regional Transportation Planning Committee and on performance criteria established by the
Authority in consultation with local and regional bus transit operators, providers of alternate
non-rail transportation, and key stakeholders. Funding allocations will be reviewed on a
regular basis. Said performance criteria shall require a finding that any proposed new or
enhanced services demonstrate the ability to improve regional and/or local mobility for
Contra Costa residents. Funds may be used for transit capital projects or to operate service
improvements identified in the adopted plans of an operator or of the Authority.
Guidelines will be established so that revenues will fund service enhancements in Contra
Costa. The guidelines may require provisions, such as: operational efficiencies requiring
greater coordination, promoting and developing a seamless service; increasing service
frequencies on appropriate routes; and specified performance criteria and reporting
requirements. Services funded in this program will be reviewed in accordance with
implementing guidelines described in this expenditure plan.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 84 of 107
Handout – Agenda Item 1.2
Changes to Initial Draft TEP - V2.2
Contra Costa Transportation
Authority
April 6, 2016
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 85 of 107
Changes in Draft TEP - V2.2
Table of Expenditures
–Reflect RTPC input with one exception - WCCTAC request
–Cleaned up the notes associated with the Table of Expenditure
BART Capacity, Access and Parking Improvements
–Revise language re comments from SWAT and BART
–BART must fund at least $100 million in improvements as acondition of using funds for cars or advanced train control
–Equal funding from SF and Alameda
Minor Changes to Category 7 (680 and 24 Corridor) andCategory 10 (East County Corridor
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 86 of 107
Changes in Draft TEP - V2.2 (cont.)
Category 12, Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements
–Updated description in response to WCCTAC comments
–Add RTPCs as providing input on how the funds should be allocated
–The requirement for development of the Accessible Services StrategicPlan has been moved from Category 12 to Category 13
Growth Management Program
–No changes since last week
–Draft TEP includes a number of comments
–Proposed changes to the ULL language discussed last week
Complete Streets
–Complete Streets have been update to reflect comments fromConcord
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 87 of 107
Changes in Draft TEP - V2.2 (cont.)
Regional Advance Mitigation Program - discussed earlier
Governing Structure / Oversight Committee - discussedearlier
Implementing Guidelines
•Several sections have been revised
•Performance Audits - revise to better clarify the scope andintent
•Revised MOE language
•Move Safe Transportation for Children into fundingcategory
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 88 of 107
April 6, 2016
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Attn: TEP Chairman Don Tatzin
RE: Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
Dear Chairman Tatzin,
We are concerned about lack of vision, goals or clarity in the development of a new ½ cent transportation sales tax in
Contra Costa. This lack of focus and direction have made it difficult, if not impossible, for the Authority Board, the cities,
the stakeholders, or the EPAC to achieve consensus on the creation of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP).
We have been representing a diverse coalition that is a cross-section of the community that is supported by tens of
thousands of residents of Contra Costa County. We have been participating faithfully in CCTA’s process to develop the
Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and a new TEP, taking advantage of every opportunity for public participation, and
spending hundreds of collective hours to provide thoughtful responses and input to CCTA, RTPCs, and the public. We
very much are in favor of creating a measure that can and will be approved by the county’s voters this November.
However, we believe that this measure must go well beyond “business as usual.” A new TEP must make a significant
contribution to reduce VMT and GHGs, creating vibrant, livable communities, and help to protect our community’s farms,
rangelands, watersheds and open spaces. The State of California’s transportation and land use policy framework, as well
as the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy provide clear direction on how to
achieve these goals. The current CCTA TEP v2.2 is going down the wrong path for Contra Costa County, the Bay Area
region, and the State of California.
We provide the following TEP allocations and rationale for our policy and funding recommendations. This is reflective of
funding the priorities in our Community Vision and Transformative Policy document.
FUNDING ALLOCATION
We are recommending a series of changes to the funding allocations presented in the draft TEP.
SUB-EPAC PROPOSED FUNDING ALLOCATION
Funding category $ millions %
Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements (5% dedicated to infill incentives) $ 538.00 23.0%
Major Streets and Complete Streets Project Grants $ 200.00 8.6%
BART Capacity and Access Improvements $ 400.00 17.1%
East County High Performance Corridor (Express Bus from Antioch E-
BART/Brentwood to Tri-Valley Transit stations; Goods movement by rail; safety
improvements)
$ 100.00 4.3%
West County High Performance Corridor (Transit improvements along I-80;
interchange improvements)
$ 110.00 4.7%
South County High Performance Corridor (680 Express Bus from West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Martinez)
$ 150.00 6.4%
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 89 of 107
Central County High Performance Corridor (including 680 Express Bus from
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Martinez (approx. $75 million); I-680/SR 4
interchange improvements)
$ 150.00 6.4%
Advance Mitigation Program (6% of entire measure) To be calculated
Bus and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements $ 300.00 12.8%
Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities $ 117.00 5.0%
Safe Transportation for Children $ 46.00 2.0%
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities $ 117.00 5.0%
Community Development Investment Grant Program $ 69.00 2.9%
Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Grant Program $ 14.03 0.6%
Transportation Planning, Facilities & Services $ 29.70 1.3%
Administration $ 23.40 1.0%
Add Infill Incentives to Local Streets and Roads
If Contra Costa County hopes to achieve the widely publicized benefits of building new homes near existing
transportation infrastructure – including convenient commutes, cost-effective transit, and environmental
benefits – it must take seriously its commitment to infill development.
To demonstrate this commitment, the TEP will allocate 5 percent of the measure to address transportation
impacts in communities that are undertaking new infill development. CCTA will allocate these funds on a rolling
three-year average of the number of housing units permitted within each jurisdiction. Each unit of infill housing
will be rewarded with corresponding increments of local streets and road maintenance funds. In addition, units
that fall into the following categories will be given additional weight:
· Affordable units to very-low to low income families (2x base allocation)
· Located within ½-mile of quality transit (2x base allocation)
· Multi-family units with parking ratios of 1:1 or less (1.5x base allocation)
Allocations will be made annually and qualified jurisdictions may spend the proceeds on any eligible
transportation project or program.
Revise Community Development Incentive Grant Program
Some jurisdictions may find it difficult to develop infill housing based on certain market conditions, while other
jurisdictions may need exemplary projects — such as enhanced transportation infrastructure to reduce traffic
concerns — to achieve community support for new infill development. Likewise, some jurisdictions may want to
attract quality jobs that help to address a jobs-housing imbalance and reduce congestion throughout the
county. Therefore, we recommend that the CDI Grant Program fund infrastructure that supports specific infill
development projects near existing transit and transportation networks. Priority shall be given to projects that
provide affordable homes for low- and/or very low-income people, leverage California Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities Program resources, and/or improve the jobs-housing balance within sub-regions by
increasing quality job density that can be accessible by transit.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 90 of 107
Projects will compete countywide. CCTA will develop the grant criteria and scoring system with input from the
sub-regions and public advisory committee.
High Performance Corridor Improvements
There is broad support for a measure that facilitates enhanced transit connectivity along important corridors in
Contra Costa County. CCTA must now operate within the new era of transportation funding as shaped by
CalTrans’ new framework, including the California Transportation Plan 2040. This new state approach has
correctly identified that highway expansions are counterproductive to solving our complex transportation
issues, especially with severely constrained financial resources.
Contra Costa now has a great opportunity to shape our entire transportation system to meet this challenge
head on. By adding transit ridership to our existing highway system, we can make it function better, reduce
congestion, and broadly serve commuters/residents/workers in the county.
Much of the current corridor studies have pointed to the express bus model as best serving residents in each
part of the county. This will help to alleviate traffic and feed the BART transit system so that ridership can
increase on a variety of modes other than single-occupant vehicles. As an example, our TEP recommendation
for the 680 corridor is to have express bus service from Martinez Amtrak to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station. This provides for enhanced bus service throughout the entire Central/South County Corridor, closes
gaps in service, and makes BART stations more accessible to transit riders throughout the county.
This is a more complete package that gives commuters and transit-dependent riders competitive options. This
high performance corridor approach creates transit options that are more viable and dependable.
Make the Performance Criteria Count
Voters want assurances that limited transportation funds will be spent on projects that address their highest
priorities. For some communities, that may be enhanced transit or safer bike and pedestrian lanes. In other
cities, the most critical need may be access to jobs or safer streets and roads. The local needs must also
account for mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and state directives to invest within the existing
transportation system. Voters deserve to have both.
The draft TEP already incorporates 10 broad performance criteria that will be used to evaluate the expenditure
plan’s investments: (1) reduce per capita CO2 by 15 percent; (2) house 100 percent of the region’s population;
(3) reduce exposure to particulate emissions; (4) reduce injuries and fatalities from collisions; (5) increase
walking and biking; (6) maintain the Urban Limit Line; (7) reduce percentage of housing and transportation
costs for low income households; (8) increase gross regional product; (9) reduce vehicle miles traveled; and
(10) maintain the system in a state of good repair.
However, the TEP also describes the performance review (page 29 of 30, Item No. 14) as informational and
states that the findings cannot be used to restrict the ability of a jurisdiction to allocate funding to a project.
We propose the following compromise: CCTA, with input from sub-regions and the public advisory committee,
will develop a scoring system based on the 10 performance criteria. All RAMP-eligible projects and those
within the Major Streets and Complete Streets category will be subject to a competitive performance review
process.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 91 of 107
Sub-regions would still be free to allocate funds as they see fit but CCTA will adjust the eligible dollar amounts
based on the project’s performance score. High-scoring projects will receive full allocations. Low scoring
projects will be required to provide 50 percent to 100 percent local funding, depending on the score.
Applicants with low-scoring projects will be encouraged to modify their plans in such a way to increase the
scores to achieve better projects and reduce the potential for sprawl-inducing projects. CCTA will develop the
grant criteria and scoring system with input from the sub-regions and public advisory committee.
Revise Major Streets and Complete Streets Project Grants
The current draft TEP contemplates awarding funds from this category based on existing project requests and unequal
sub-regional project submissions. We recommend CCTA allocate the funds in the four regions based on CCTA's
geographic and population distribution formula; establish a competitive grant cycle and award the funds based on the
performance criteria described above. We also support the language in the Major Streets Complete Streets Program
version 2.2 released to the CCTA Board on March 16, 2016, with the pilot program requiring protected bike lanes.
Increase Pedestrian, Bicycle & Trail Facilities
Many communities throughout California are dedicating between 5 to 10 percent of their transportation sales
tax measure proceeds to pedestrian, bicycle and trail facilities. We believe Contra Costa County should do the
same. Local streets and roads funds are inadequate to build modern bikeways or add sidewalks where
needed, especially with dwindling state gas tax revenues. Additional dedicated funding is needed to complete
and maintain a trail network and improve walking and bicycling throughout the county.
Increase Senior/Disabilities Funding
We support increased funding for transportation for seniors and those with disabilities. This will ensure that
Contra Costa County can provide accessible transportation options for people of all abilities and ages,
especially as demographic changes occur and more residents of the county choose to age in place. We also
strongly support the full funding and implementation of a mobility management system that will ensure that
these services are delivered in the best way possible across the entire county and to connections throughout
the region.
Increase BART and Bus Transit Funding
We support $400 million for BART that will ensure access improvements at stations throughout the county,
which polls well with voters. This includes the $300 million that is being negotiated between CCTA and BART.
We also support $300 million for capital and operating costs for bus and non-rail transit that relieves
congestion, provides commute alternatives, serves transit-dependent residents, reduces pollutant emissions,
supports infill housing and employment, demonstrates innovative approaches, and/or improves service
effectiveness and efficiency.
In order to ensure the most beneficial use of these funds, CCTA should prepare a Countywide Transit Strategic
Plan that identifies goals, strategies and metrics, and should allocate transit funds to the projects, services and
providers in accordance with the plan. High priority should be given to achieving 15-minute headways in high-
ridership travel corridors. Because the transit needs of county residents, as well as transportation technology
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 92 of 107
and means of servicing transit needs, will evolve over time, CCTA should update its strategic plan and re-
evaluate its allocations on a regular cycle.
Strengthen the Urban Limit Line & Growth Management Program
Contra Costa County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL) and Growth Management Program (GMP) are popular with
voters and must be enhanced as part of the new measure.
We recommend that CCTA remove the 30-acre exemption policy for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa. The
policy has not proven useful and removing it will provide clarity for all stakeholders and provide direction for
focusing development within the ULL.
Protecting Contra Costa County’s farms and rangelands is a high priority for county voters and for consumers
around the region. To build on previous efforts in Contra Costa County, namely the City of Brentwood, all
jurisdictions with agricultural land within their planning area, including rangelands, must adopt a model
Agricultural Protection Ordinance, with the intent to permanently preserve farms and rangelands and
mitigate for impacts and the loss of those lands. Applicable jurisdictions will be required to adopt Agricultural
Protection Ordinances to receive Return to Source funding as part of an amended Growth Management
Checklist. In addition, any loss of farmland outside of the current boundaries of the ULL should be required to
be mitigated through permanent protection of farmland in Contra Costa at a rate of three acres preserved for
every acre lost.
We also recommend that smart planning policies be considered in the checklist for public information as
affirmed by the CCTA board. This will help to provide consistency between jurisdictions and reduce land use
conflicts. These policies include: a) Hillside development ordinance b) Ridgeline protection ordinance c) Open
space system with major ridgelines defined d) Protection of wildlife corridors e) Plan to conserve buffers
around open space and agriculture f) Prohibitions on culverting blueline creeks for anything more than road
crossings in the shortest length possible g) No development of major subdivisions, urban development, or
urban services allowed in non-urban Priority Conservation Areas.
Support RAMP
The Advanced Mitigation Program is a win-win solution for Contra Costa County. It saves time for project
delivery. It is cost-effective. And it also ensures the proactive and strategic conservation of species, habitats
(including watershed protection), as well as farms and rangelands, impacted by publicly subsidized
transportation projects. We support CCTA staff implementing the TNC/MTC RAMP pilot program in Contra
Costa County with the additional inclusion of agricultural mitigations, recognizing that transportation and
development projects may significantly impact these lands and they are otherwise unprotected by state and
federal policy.
Sincerely yours,
Ron Brown, Save Mount Diablo, Retired Executive Director
Joel Devalcourt, Greenbelt Alliance, East Bay Regional Representative
Dave Campbell, Bike East Bay, Advocacy Director
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 93 of 107
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 94 of 107
Agenda Item 1.1.2
Membership Models for Public
Oversight Committee
Contra Costa Transportation
Authority
April 6, 2016
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 95 of 107
Alameda CTC Measure BB
•17 Members
•10 at-large members selected Board of Supervisors and
the Alameda County Mayors’ Conference
•Seven members from stakeholder organizations
–League of Women’s Voters
–Alameda County Taxpayer’s Association
–Sierra Club
–Alameda County Labor Council
–East Bay Economic Development Alliance
–Alameda County Paratransit Advisory and Planning
Committee (PAPCO)
–East Bay Bicycle Coalition
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 96 of 107
BART Potential Bond Measure
•BART Board would solicit and appoint members
from professional organizations:
–American Society of Civil Engineers
–American Institute of Electrical Engineers
–American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
–Association for Budgeting and Financial Management
section of the American Society for Public
Administration
–Project Management Institute
–League of Woman Voters, Bay Area
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 97 of 107
Public School Bond Programs
Best Practices include:
•At least half of the members should be knowledgeable in finance
and construction management and acquisitions.
•To maintain independence from Board:
–Identify groups in the community that should be represented and have
them appoint members; or
–Identify a group in the community to manage the selection process
•Committee should have at least 12 members and no more than 18
•To eliminate any potential conflict of interest, members should not
be paid and should also be restricted from working for the
Authority
•The committee should be trained and have resources available to
conduct work
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 98 of 107
Recommendation
•Blended Approach
–5 appointed by RTPCS and BOS
–5 Professional Organizations
–5 Advocacy and Interest Groups
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 99 of 107
CCTA DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLANVersion 2.2 v. BAC, EBLC, BIA Proposal Version BIA ENVIRO2.2 % Version % Difference1 Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements $540.0 23.09% $423.0 18.08% -$117.00 -21.67%538.0$ 5% dedicated to infill incentives1a Additional Local Streets $17.0 0.73% $17.0 0.73% $0.00 0.00%1c Housing production RTS $0.0 0.00% $117.0 5.00% $117.00 100.00%2 Major Streets & Complete Streets Grants $200.0 8.55% $200.0 8.55% $0.00 0.00%200.0$3 BART $300.0 12.83% $300.0 12.83% $0.00 0.00%400.0$4 East CC Transit Extension $70.0 2.99% $70.0 2.99% $0.00 0.00%100.0$5 High Capacity Transit - I-80 Corridor $20.0 0.86% $66.5 2.84% $46.50 232.50%110.0$6 I-80 Interchange Imp - San Pablo Dam & Central $60.0 2.57% $60.0 2.57% $0.00 0.00%150.0$ South County Hogh Performance express buss150.0$Central County High Perfmance Corridor express buss & 680/24 interchange7 High Capacity Transit I-680 & SR 24 $140.0 5.99% $230.0 9.83% $90.00 64.29%8 SR 242 & SR 4 Corridors in Central & Eact CC $70.0 2.99% $70.0 2.99% $0.00 0.00%
9 I-680 & SR 4 Interchange Imp $60.0 2.57% $60.0 2.57% $0.00 0.00%
10 East CC Corridor (Vasdco/Byron Highway)$117.0 5.00% $117.0 5.00% $0.00 0.00%
11 Advanced Mitigation TBD TBD 160.0$ 6% of entire measure
12 Bus & Non-Rail Transit $240.0 10.26% $230.0 9.83% -$10.00 -4.17%300.0$
13 Transportation for Seniors & Disabled $77.6 3.32% $77.8 3.33% $0.20 0.26%117.0$
14 Safe Transportation for Childern $52.0 2.22% $52.0 2.22% $0.00 0.00%46.0$
15 Intercity Rail and Ferry $50.0 2.14% $50.0 2.14% $0.00 0.00%
16 Ped, Bike & Trail $66.7 2.85% $117.0 5.00% $50.30 75.41%117.0$
17 $140.0 5.99% $0.0 0.00% -$140.00 -100.00%69.0$
18 Innovative Transp Tech/Connected Com $53.2 2.27% $35.0 1.50% -$18.20 -34.21%14.0$
19 Transp Planning, Fac & Services $23.4 1.00% $23.4 1.00% $0.00 0.00%29.7$
20 Reg Transportation Priorities $18.7 0.80% $0.0 0.00% -$18.70 -100.00%
21 Administration $23.4 1.00% $23.4 1.00% $0.00 0.00%23.4$
TOTAL $2,339.0 100.00%$2,339.1 100.0%$0.10 2,524.1$over -185.1
Community Development Investment Grant Program
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 100 of 107
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
March 31, 2016
Subject: New Sustainable Transportation Funding
The Honorable Jim Frazier
P.O. Box 942849
State Capitol Room 3091
Sacramento, CA 94249-0011
Dear Assemblyman Frazier,
On behalf of the County of Contra Costa, I write to urge you to take action to avert the looming transportation
crisis in the State of California and your district by working to find a bipartisan solution in 2016.
The primary sources of revenue to maintain, preserve, repair, and rehabilitate highways and local roads and
bridges are state and federal gasoline excise taxes. Neither the state nor federal gas tax has been increased in
more than 20 years. Both gas taxes are not adjusted for inflation or increases in the cost of construction.
Increases in fuel efficiency, which is critical to reduce costs to motorists and meet our environmental goals,
means that vehicles are travelling more yet paying less for use of the transportation system. These issues are
compounded by gas tax fluctuations which hamper the ability to reliably plan and deliver road repairs and safety
improvements.
The longer we wait to address our failing transportation infrastructure, the more it will cost in the long run, we
need an immediate funding solution. Thank you in advance for your support on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Candace Andersen, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District II
cc: The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor, State of California
The Honorable Kevin de Leon, President Pro Tem, California State Senate
The Honorable Jean Fuller, Minority Leader, California State Senate
The Honorable Anthony Rendon, Speaker, California State Assembly
The Honorable Chad Mayes, Minority Floor Leader, California State Assembly
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335‐1900
Contra
Costa
County
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 101 of 107
In the matter of:
3Z 8l~Mfr*u~M~
~~ ~~ ~~?~, ~4~
Resolution No . 2016/133
Urging the State to provide new sustainable funding for State and Local transportation infrastructure
WHEREAS, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. has called an extraordinary session to address the immense
underfunding of California's transportation infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81% of streets and roads in California, and from
the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to the bus station, people are
dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network; and
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has participated in efforts with the California State Association of
Counties, League of California Cities, and California's Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to study
unmet funding needs for local roads and bridges, including sidewalks and other essential components; and
WHEREAS, the resulting 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which
provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network's condition and funding
needs, indicates that the condition of the local transportation network is deteriorating as predicted in the
initial 2008 study; and
WHEREAS, the results show that California 's local streets and roads are on a path of significant decline. On
a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), t h e statewide average pavement condition index (PCI) is 66,
placing it in the "at risk" category where pavements will begin to deteriorate much more rapidly and require
rehabilitation or rebuilding rather than more cost-effective preventative maintenance if funding is not
increased; and
WHEREAS, iffunding remains at the current levels, in 10 years, 25% oflocal streets and roads in California
will be in "failed" condition; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties need an additional $1.7 billion just to maintain a status quo pavement
condition of 66, and much more revenue to operate the system with Best Management Practices, which
would reduce the total amount of funding needed for maintenance in the future; and
WHEREAS, models show that an additional $3 billion annual investment in the local streets and roads
system is expected to improve pavement conditions statewide from an average "at risk" condition to an
average "good" condition; and
WHEREAS, if additional funding isn 't secur ed now, it will cost taxpayers twice as much to fix the local
system in the future , as failure to act this year will increase unmet funding needs for local transportation
facilities by $1 I billion in five years and $21 billion in ten years ; and
WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system provides well-paying construction jobs and boosts
local economies; and
WHEREAS, the local street and road system is also critical for farm to market needs, interconnectivity,
multimodal needs , and commerce; and
WHEREAS, police, fire , and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to react quickly to
emergency calls and a few minutes of delay can be a matter of life and death; and
WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition will reduce drive
times and traffi,~ congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience safer and more
appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions reductions goals; and
WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which results in less air pollution
from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the local system, the state highway system needs an additional $5.7 billion
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 102 of 107
annually to address the state's deferred maintenance; and
WHEREAS, in order to bring the local system back into a cost-effective condition, at least $7.3 billion
annually in new money going directly to cities and counties; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors strongly urges the Governor and
Legislature to identity a sufficient and stable funding source for local street and road and state highway maintenance and
rehabilitation to ensure the safe and efficient mobility of the traveling public and the economic vitality of California. RESOLVED I
RESOLVEJD FURTHER, that Contra Costa County strongly urges the Governor and Legislature to adopt the following priorities
for funding California 's streets and roads: 1. Make a significant new investment in transportation infrastructure. Any
package should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually and should remain in place for at least 10 years or until an alternative
method of funding our transportation system is agreed upon 2. Focus on maintaining and rehabilitating the current
system. Repairing California's streets and highways involves much more t han fixing potholes . It requires major road pavement
overlays, fixing unsafe bridges, providing safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians, replacing storm water culverts, as well as
operational improvements that necessitate the: construction of auxiliary lanes to relieve traffic congestion choke points and fixing
design deficiencies that have created unsafe merging and other trafftc hazards . Efforts to supply funding for transit in addition to
funding for roads should also focus on fixing the system first. 3. Equal split between state and local projects. We support
sharing revenue for roadway maintenance equally (50/50) between the state and cities and counties, given the equally-pressing
funding needs of both systems, as well as the longstanding historical precedent for collecting transportation user fees through a
centralized system and sharing the revenues across the entire network through direct subventions . Ensuring that funding to local
governments is provided directly, without intermediaries, will accelerate project delivery and ensure maximum accountability.
4. Raise r•~venues across a broad range of options. Research by the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation
California shows that voters strongly support increased funding for transportation improvements . They are much more open to a
package that spreads potential tax or fee increases across a broad range of options, including fuel taxes, license fees, and
registration fees, rather than just one source. Additionally, any package should move California toward an all-users pay structure,
in which everyone who benefits from the system contributes to maintaining it-from traditional gasoline-fueled vehicles, to new
hybri ds or electric vehicles, to commercial vehicles . 5 . Invest a portion of diesel tax and/or cap & trade revenue to
high-priority goods movement projects. While the focus of a transportation funding package should be on maintaining and
rehabilitating the existing system, California has a critical need to upgrade the goods movement infrastructure that is essential to
our economic well-being. Establi shing a framework to mak e appropriate investments in major goods movement arteries can lay
the ground work fo r greater investments in the future that will also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions .
6. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers' investment s and taxpayers must be assured that all
transportation revenues are spent responsibly. Local governments are accu med to emplo ing transparent processes for
selecting road maintenance projects aided by pave t ems, as well as re r · the expenditure of
transportation funds through the St1te Control s Loca oads Ann 1 ReR
~~
District I Supervisor
-__::______::____w{f
KAREN MITCHOFF
District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken
and entered on the minutes of the Board of S upervisors on the date
shown
ATTESTED: M..-ch 15,2016
David J. Twa,
By ~UL~epu ~
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 103 of 107
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: April 5, 2016
SUBJECT: Pending State Transportation Funding Legislation
At present there are three major measures in the Legislature seeking to increase the state
transportation revenue base with an emphasis on offsetting the recent historical trend that
saw significant deferral of funding for maintaining and reconstructing the state and local
transportation systems. While each proposal offers a variety of revenue increases for
maintenance, they each also include funding for other activities, ranging from freight
infrastructure, Active Transportation, and rail to transit, the common core emphasis is on a
“Fix It First” priority policy.
In addition to new revenue sources and proposed allocations, each bill or author includes or
is also working on accountability or process or delivery reform elements, which are not
detailed here.
From an overview perspective, the three major bills are:
Governor’s Transportation Plan – Generates $3.7 billion in new annual funding;
SB X1 1(Beall) – Generates $6 billion in new annual funding;
AB 1591 (Frazier) – Generates more than $7 billion in new annual funding;
The following provides a more detailed overview of the sources of new annual funding, other
sources of funding, and proposed expenditure allocations for the respective bills.
Governor’s Plan
This was a first surfaced by the Administration last summer and has since been embedded
into the 2016-17 State Budget Act, with the revenues generated distributed to designated
programs.
Funding sources:
Base Gas Tax: No new tax rate
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 104 of 107
2
Price-based Gas Tax: Resets the Tax Swap increment back to 18 cents (up from BOE
adopted 9.8 cents for July 2016) that generates an estimated $900 million.
Diesel Tax: Increases by 11 cents for an additional $300 million in revenues.
New Road User Fee: $65 per vehicle, which generates $2 billion.
Cap and Trade: augmented allocations for transit and complete streets: $500 million.
Allocations
Highway and Road rehabilitation and maintenance: $2.9 billion
Freight mobility: $200 million
Rail/Complete Streets: $500 million
SBX1 1 (Beall):
This bill was introduced in summer 2015, and has successfully passed the Special Session
Transportation Committee; it is currently pending amendments in Special Session Fiscal
Committee.
New Revenues
Gas Tax: 12 cents; $2 billion.
Price-based Gas Tax: Reset to 17.3 cents; $900 million.
Diesel Tax: 22 cents increase; $600 million.
Vehicle Registration Fee: Increase of $35 per vehicle; $1 billion.
New Highway User Fee: $35 per vehicle; $1 billion.
ZEV Registration Fee: $100 million; $25 million.
Allocations
Highway and Road rehabilitation and maintenance: $5.5 billion
Freight Mobility: $500 million
Rail or transit: (to be included)
AB 1591 (Frazier)
This measure is pending it’s first hearing in the Assembly Regular Session.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 105 of 107
3
New Revenues
Gas Tax: 22.5 cents; $3.5 billion.
Price-based Gas Tax: Reset to 17.3 cents; $900 million.
Diesel Tax: 30 cents; $800 million.
Vehicle Registration Fee: $38 per vehicle; $1 billion.
ZEV Registration Fee: $165 per vehicle; $35 million.
Allocations:
Highway and Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance: $5.8 billion
Freight Mobility: $1.2 billion
Rail or Transit: $200 million.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 106 of 107
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: April 6, 2016
SUBJECT: April TWIC Report
Key Bills ‐ Update
Presented below are brief summaries of bills of interest to the authority, including AB 1592 (Bonilla)
and AB 1665 (Bonilla). A separate memo provides details on the 3 main bills introduced to address
the state’s transportation funding crisis.
AB 1592 (Bonilla)
This measure authorizes the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to conduct a pilot project for the
testing of autonomous vehicles. The measure was heard by the Assembly Transportation Committee
on April 4, and was approved, 16‐0, in spite of minor, late opposition from transit unions.
AB 1665 (Bonilla)
This bill authorizes the taxing authority for a countywide transportation program to be available to
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and extend the period of authorization from 2020 to 2024.
The bill was heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 6. There was late
opposition from a statewide taxpayers organization, apparently most concerned with the extension
of the sunset date from 2020 to 2024. The bill was approved on a party line vote, 6‐3, and will be
considered in Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee within the next week.
4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 107 of 107