HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 07142016 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
July 14, 2016
*PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT TIME FOR THIS MEETING:
*2:00 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, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation
and Development)
4.REVIEW record of meeting for June 9, 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.RECEIVE update on state legislation regarding bed bugs from the Integrated Pest
Management Coordinator, receive report on status of public comment/concerns
and take ACTION as appropriate. (Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator)
6.ACCEPT the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP) for
fiscal years 2015/2016 to 2021/2022 and RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors
fix a public hearing for approval of the CRIPP. (Nancy Wein, Department of Public
Works)
7.CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, 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)
8.COMMUNICATION/News Clippings
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 1 of 199
9.Adjourn to next meeting date, currently scheduled for Thursday, August 11, 2016 at
1:00 p.m.
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
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 2 of 199
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
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 3 of 199
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:07/14/2016
Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 4 of 199
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:07/14/2016
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for June 9, 2016, Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure 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 June 9, 2016, Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
06-09-16 TWIC Mtg Sign-In Sheet
06-09-16 TWIC Meeting Minutes
Handout-Alamo Improvemnt Assoc Ltr
Handout-Green Infrastructure
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 5 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 6 of 199
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
June 9, 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
Present: Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Attendees: Leland Frayseth, Citizen
Sandy Fink, Alamo Improvement Association
Christina Kiefer, San Ramon Valley Fire
Roy Wendel, San Ramon Valley Fire
Ernie Avila, CCCounty WD
Mark Seedall, CCCounty WD
Mike Carlson, CCCounty Flood Control
Michael Kent, CCCounty Hazardous Materials Comm.
John Barclay, CCCounty Health Plan
Mary Halle, CCCounty PWD
Carrie Ricci, CCCounty PWD
Steve Kowalewski, CCCounty PWD
Leigh Chavez, CCCounty PWD
Cece Sellgren, CCCounty PWD
Julie Bueren, CCCounty PWD
John Cunningham, CCCounty DCD
1.Introductions
Please see attached sign-in sheet, hand-outs and "Attendees" section, above.
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be
limited to three minutes).
Leland Frayseth addressed the Committee raising several issues:
- On the issue of the recent State Route 4 shootings, he expressed concern that as a public asset, there was an
obligation for all affected public agencies to address the issue. (The Committee indicated that the appropriate
County Departments were involved in responding to the situation.),
- On the issue of the Board of Supervisor's May 24th closed session discussion regarding the Metropolitan
Water District potential purchase of Delta islands, he indicated that he would like more information than
what was reported out. (The Committee indicated that any court filings are public information.), and
- On the issue of water quality on Bethel Island in the event of a flood, he indicated that the State has
responded to his concerns, but not the County. (The Committee indicated that in this case, given the
jurisdiction of the issue, the State is the appropriate agency to contact.)
3.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 7 of 199
3.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the May 12, 2016, Committee Meeting with any
necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously approved the May 12, 2016 Meeting Record.
5.ACCEPT report on the policy and financial implications of implementing the new Municipal Regional Permit 2.0,
CONSIDER staff’s recommendation to prepare a Financial Report for a future Committee meeting outlining the
financial issues in more detail, and PROVIDE direction and feedback to staff.
The Committee unanimously accepted the report, approved the staff recommendations, and further directed
staff to; engage the cities on the issue, track benefits and outcomes of current activities, consult with DCD
staff regarding franchise fee possibilities, send a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board stating the
County will have challenges in complying with Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 2.0, and to report back
as indicated in the recommendations.
6.ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit to Caltrans
and MTC grant applications for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Cycle 3.
The Committee unanimously accepted the staff recommendation.
7.CONSIDER Department responses to the Pipeline Safety Report and DIRECT staff on next steps.
The Committee unanimously accepted the recommendation and further directed staff to bring a
comprehensive report back to the Committee with an update on how we are implementing the
recommendations of the study, what recommendations are we not acting on (and why), how does the County
response relate to the original recommendations in the Pipeline Safety Report, is that response proportional to
the risk, and what other Counties are doing regarding any restrictions. Staff was also directed to keep the
community, including the Alamo Improvement Association, informed of when the item comes back to either
TWIC or the Board of Supervisors.
8.CONSIDER Report on proposed Endangered Species Act fee and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee received the report and directed staff to draft a letter to the County's legislative delegation
communicating the concerns of TWIC with the new fees. (Final letter attached under
COMMUNICATION/News Clipping Items).
9.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.
The Committee received the report, heard testimony from Contra Costa Health Services (John Barclay)
regarding coordination with transit agencies, and directed staff to set up a meeting with CCHS and the
appropriate transit agencies.
10.Adjourn to next meeting date; **PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT TIME SCHEDULED FOR NEXT TWIC
MEEETING: The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, July 14, 2016, at **2:00** p.m.
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
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 8 of 199
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
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 9 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 10 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 11 of 199
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:07/14/2016
Subject:Integrated Pest Management Report
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 8
Referral Name: MONITOR the Implementation of the Integrated Pest Management
Policy.
Presenter: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator Contact: Tanya Drlik
(925)335-3214
Referral History:
The TWI Committee has asked the Integrated Pest Management Coordinator to update the
Committee yearly on the County's integrated pest management program.
Referral Update:
The TWI Committee asked the Integrated Pest Management Coordinator to update the Committee
mid-year on the progress of state legislation on bed bugs (AB 551), and to report on any concerns
raised by the public. See attached report on public concerns.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT Integrated Pest Management report, and take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
NONE.
Attachments
County Staff Responses to PfSE Concerns
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 12 of 199
Contra Costa County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public
Regarding the County Integrated Pest Management Program
November June 29, 20165
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Chairing the IPM Committee should be rotated; a scribe not associated with the Committee should be
used to take notes
2/17/16-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“Chairing the IPM Advisory
Committee should be rotated
among members who wish to
chair. A Scribe should be
independent of Committee
members and staff involved with
the IPM Program.”
•Every 2 years the Committee holds an election for officers. Anyone who wishes
to chair the committee can nominate themselves.
•The Committee elects a secretary to help take notes for the Committee’s minutes
which are written by staff. There is no outside person who could be a scribe.
Staff has found no unique or innovative pesticide alternatives in the Bay Area or Nation
11/4/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“In the staff document provided
titled 2015 IPM Program
Accomplishments, I was very
surprised to read that staff believes
after reviewing programs
throughout the ‘Bay Area and the
nation’, that ‘there is nothing
unique or innovative in the Bay
Area or the nation.’”
•PfSE appears to be concerned that staff has found no unique or innovative
approaches to pest management. This concern seems to stem from a mis-
reading of the 2015 IPM Program Accomplishments document in the section on
the work history of the IPM Program Data Management subcommittee. The
phrase actually reads: “Looked for data other than pesticide use to measure
implementation of IPM in CCC; found nothing unique or innovative in the Bay
Area or the nation”
The IPM Coordinator does not allow the IPM Committee members and the public adequate time to
review documents
9/2/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“People are often reluctant to admit
that they have not had time to
review documents before voting on
minutes and other items.
Committee members are likely to
just go along with the majority and
vote to accept documents as Staff
submits them…It is more
reasonable to provide at least four
to six weeks of time for volunteers
to fit in the review amongst a busy
schedule.” (9/2/15)
•The IPM Coordinator sends out agenda materials in accordance with the Brown
Act and County policy, which is 96 hours prior to the time of the public meeting.
•At the end of each meeting, the next meeting’s agenda is planned so that
members are aware of and can plan time for review of long or numerous
documents.
•Since the inception of the IPM Advisory Committee, the practice has been to
distribute the minutes with the agenda materials. Because the by-laws were
being updated to reflect the current designations for IPM Committee seats and to
change public member terms, the IPM Coordinator proposed changing the by-
laws to reflect the current practice regarding distribution of the minutes. On
9/2/15 the IPM Committee members discussed these by-laws changes and
heard comment from the public on the issue. The Committee voted to
unanimously approve all the by-laws changes. The changes were approved by
the full Board of Supervisors.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 13 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
“…I find it appalling that Staff
would propose to totally eliminate
the By-Laws language that
requires a timely distribution of the
meeting minutes to the IPM
Advisory Committee. It has been
difficult to read all the documents
required for review within 5 days
[from when] they are provided,
which is a recent improvement to
providing it 3 days prior to
meetings that was practiced before
my letter earlier this year…The By-
Laws currently states that minutes
be distributed 1 week after the
meeting…I believe it’s reasonable
to amend [the by-laws] to
distributing the materials within 2
weeks after the meeting to give
staff time to prepare the meeting
minutes, but eliminating this
important timeline is not acceptable
to the community.” (9/2/15)
IPM subcommittees should focus on pesticide use and not on bed bugs or removing turf
2/16/15-IPM
2/17/15-IPM
2/20/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
3/4/15-IPM
5/6/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
9/2/15-IPM
11/4/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of the subcommittees
working on bed bugs, a community
problem, rather than County-only
pesticide issues and working on
turf removal around buildings
rather than on pesticide use in
rights-of-way
• Bed bugs affect 1000s of Contra Costa residents, both in municipalities and the
unincorporated areas of the County. In order to get relief, desperate citizens are
using many different kinds of pesticides in the home, throughout the bedroom,
and often on the bedding itself. Reports indicate that frequently pesticides are
used to excess and in a manner contrary to the labeled directions. This intimate
contact with, and misuse of, pesticides is very troubling. This is a serious issue of
pesticide exposure and contamination as well as an issue of the well-being of
Contra Costa residents that the County has an obligation to address.
• There are also bed bug issues that need to be addressed in County buildings.
Staff and buildings are vulnerable where the public goes in and out of offices
frequently and in large numbers. Staff and supervisors need training in identifying
risks, actual infestations, and opportunities for prevention.
• Converting turf to drought-tolerant landscaping accomplishes several things:
o Saves millions of gallons of water in this time of serious drought.
o Reduces the need for weed control and thus for herbicides. The limited
irrigation and wood chip mulch between the drought-tolerant plants is not
conducive to weed growth, Few weeds sprout in the dry soil under the
mulch, and those that do sprout can often be hand-pulled.
o Addresses herbicide use near buildings, which is where people have the
greatest chance of being exposed to these pesticides.
o Reduces maintenance hours because turf is a high maintenance plant.
o Frees Grounds maintenance staff to better manage other landscapes and
continue to reduce their use of pesticide.
o Reduces the amount of electricity used to pump water, the amount of gas
used in lawn mowers and trimmers and in trucks to travel to and from sites
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 14 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
for maintenance, and reduces the amount of pesticide and fertilizer used in
maintaining the turf. This reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
o Demonstrates that the County is a leader in landscaping more wisely for the
arid climate in which we live.
County not tracking pesticide use separately for Public Works rights-of-way/roadsides, flood control
channels, and County-owned parcels
3/2/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
3/16/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We do not see any good reason
why pesticide usage is not being
provided to the community for each
roadside and flood control
program.” (3/2/15)
• The County has always tracked pesticide use separately for roadsides, flood
control channels, and County-owned parcels, but because of a recent change in
the way the Department reported pesticide use to the State of California, the
state Pesticide Use Reports for FY 12-13 and FY 13-14 were not separated. The
database that Public Works uses to track pesticide use cannot produce reports
for PfSE that are user friendly since the database was never intended to be a
pesticide use reporting tool. As a courtesy to PfSE, the Department has resumed
separating pesticide use for the 3 programs when it reports to the state. These
Pesticide Use Reports have been provided to PfSE for FY 14-15.
Report the total amount of pesticide used not just the active ingredients
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Report total amount, not just the
active ingredients of pesticides
used in usage spreadsheet”
• In the spread sheet prepared by the IPM Coordinator every year for pesticide use
by County operations, the total amount of pesticide product used is recorded as
well as the total amount of pesticide active ingredient used for each product.
• The California Department of Pesticide Regulation reports pesticide use for the
state in pounds of active ingredient. The County has adopted this system so that
pesticide use reporting is aligned with the state. But as noted above, the County
spreadsheet also records total pounds or gallons of pesticide product used.
• The spreadsheet is posted on the IPM website and attached to the annual report.
Corrections to the minutes of the IPM Advisory Committee or its subcommittees requested by PfSE
5/6/15-IPM
6/9/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of PfSE requesting changes
to the minutes and then changes
are not made
• The IPM Committee members vote on whether or not to make corrections to the
minutes. The members do not always vote to make PfSE’s corrections, additions,
and changes. The IPM Coordinator includes written changes from PfSE (as well
as other public comment) as attachments to the official record of the meeting.
The official agenda, minutes, public comment, and other attachments are posted
on the IPM website.
The herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) has been designated as a probable human
carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
6/9/15-IPM
7/8/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
9/2/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Considering that RoundUp
products with the active ingredient,
glyphosate, is [sic] being applied at
the rate of nearly 1,000 lbs
annually in the Grounds Program
alone, and that glyphosate has
been listed as a Probable Human
Carcinogen by the World Health
Organization earlier this year, are
there any plans by the county to
• The IPM Coordinator has been attending meetings in San Francisco with IPM
coordinators and city and county staff from around the Bay to discuss the
Roundup issue. At this point we do not have a less hazardous product with
equivalent efficacy to replace Roundup, but we continue to look for one. The
Grounds Division uses Roundup as a spot treatment and uses a little as
necessary. In FY 14-15 the Grounds Division used 311 lbs. of glyphosate, the
active ingredient in Roundup.
• The most serious risk of exposure to Roundup is to the applicator because that
person is in close contact with the material, sometimes daily. The law and the
County require applicators to wear personal protective equipment and to be
trained annually to prevent exposure. In light of the new probable carcinogen
designation, the County is looking at whether there are additional precautions
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 15 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
eliminate this risky chemical to
reduce exposure to the community
and wildlife?”
that should be taken to protect workers.
• IARC identifies the potential for a chemical to cause cancer but does not quantify
any increased risk to people from a chemical so designated nor does it
recommend a safe level of exposure. Those designations are left up to regulatory
agencies around the world. The County is waiting for the USEPA to complete its
review of glyphosate.
• On 11/12/15, the European Food Safety Authority ruled that glyphosate probably
does not cause cancer in humans despite IARC’s findings.
Questions posed during public comment for items not on the agenda are not answered by the IPM
Committee
8/6/15 From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“…please allow ample time for
answering and discussing these 6
questions as listed in order of
priority at the next meeting agenda.
Community members have been
waiting patiently since last year for
most of these questions to be
addressed.”
• The IPM Committee does not take up and discuss issues that are not on the
published agenda for the meeting as this would be a violation of the Brown Act.
• Members of the Committee can request to have public concerns put on the
agenda for a future meeting.
IPM Committee members should RSVP for each meeting
6/9/15-IPM
7/8/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“I attended the April 14, 2015
meeting when we waited for over
30 minutes for staff and community
members on the [Weed sub]
Committee to arrive to no avail.
Staff had to regretfully cancel the
meeting due to lack of a quorum.
…consider asking for a heads-up
from committee members if they
cannot attend a future IPM
meeting.” (6/9/15 and 7/8/15)
“Would the county request
Committee members to provide in
writing, anticipation of absenteeism
so that those who arrive at
meetings are not waiting for an
hour only for the meeting to be
cancelled due to lack of a quorum.”
(8/6/15)
• IPM Committee members alert the IPM Coordinator when they know they will be
late or will be missing a meeting of either the full committee or a subcommittee.
Unfortunately, unexpected circumstances do arise from time to time.
• The Weed subcommittee meeting on April 14, 2015 was the first meeting of the
full IPM Committee or any of its subcommittees that had to be cancelled for lack
of a quorum since the IPM Advisory Committee was formed in 2010.
Quorums have been disregarded in previous subcommittee meetings
6/9/15-IPM
7/8/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
• All subcommittees consider whether or not there is a quorum before proceeding
with a meeting. Attendance is tracked in each set of minutes.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 16 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
“According to Shirley Shelangoski
who had attended all
subcommittees between 2012-
2014, quorums were not
considered in subcommittees until
the recent year. Before,
subcommittee meetings were held
regardless of a lack of quorum.”
Absences on the IPM Committee
8/6/15-IPM
8/26/15 Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Will the county track absenteeism
and provide the data annually so
that those who missed more than
two in a given year be considered
for removal from membership as
stated in the By-Laws?”
•Absences are tracked in the minutes of every meeting of the full IPM Committee
and each of its subcommittees. Attendance at meetings is reported annually to
the Board of Supervisors.
Pesticide Use around the Hazardous Materials Office and Co. Admin Bldg in Martinez
2/20/15-IPM
8/615-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of members of PfSE
observing pesticide use around the
Hazardous Materials Office at 4585
Pacheco Blvd. in Martinez without
posting
“Currently, pesticides are used
outside the auspices of the County
IPM program in many buildings,
including the Hazardous Materials
building and the County
Administration building.” (2/17/16)
•The Hazardous Materials Program rents space from ERRG, a company that
occupies the top floor of the building. They and not the County are responsible
for maintaining the building and the property.
•The County’s posting policy does not require private owners of buildings to post
their pesticide use.
•On 8/6/15, PfSE videoed a Clark Pest Control technician spraying around the
building at 4585 Pacheco Blvd. Clark, the contractor for ERRG, was using a
pesticide called indoxacarb for ants that had been invading the building,
particularly the top floor. Indoxacarb is listed as a “reduced risk” pesticide by the
USEPA and is used by Pestec, the County contractor, in baits for cockroaches
and ants. Hazardous Materials staff who experienced ant problems were
educated by the IPM Coordinator, all food debris was removed, and boric acid
baits were used in the two Hazardous Materials offices with ants trailing through.
•No pesticides are being used in or around the County Administration building at
651 Pine Street that are not applied by Pestec, the County contractor, as part of
the County IPM program. We are not aware of any pesticides being used at other
County buildings that are not applied by Pestec. If PfSE has specific evidence of
this happening, we would gladly investigate.
IPM Contract Language and reviewing contracts
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“the county still does not have IPM
language in its contracts with pest
control contractors”
“Contractors conducting pest
•2009: the IPM Coordinator and County staff added IPM language to the contract
for pest management in & around Co. buildings. The contractor emphasizes
education, sanitation, and pest proofing as primary solutions. Insecticides, mainly
in the form of baits, are used as a last resort. For the control of rats and mice in
and around County buildings, the County only uses sanitation, education, and
trapping.
•Special Districts currently hires only 1 contractor for pest control. He is employed
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 17 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
8/26/15-Email
2/17/16
control should be evaluated
annually by the IPM Advisory
Committee and contracts bid upon
and assessed for a strong IPM
track record.” (2/17/16)
“The Public Works Dept’s Special
District currently has on its payroll,
a contractor who did not have to
bid with IPM experience as a
criteria and uses only rodenticides,
including 2nd generation [sic] in
public parks.” (2/17/16)
by means of a purchase order, which is not an appropriate vehicle for IPM
contract language; however,
o as a condition of his employment, he is required to abide by the Public
Works “Landscape Design, Construction, and Maintenance Standards and
Guidelines”1
o this has been explained to PfSE several times.
which contain language outlining the IPM approach. This also
applies to any other contractor hired by Special Districts.
•Spring 2012: to reinforce the IPM standards, the Special Districts Manager sent a
letter to each Special Districts’ contractor detailing the IPM approach expected of
them. This is an on-going practice and any new contractors will receive the same
letter to emphasize the County’s IPM principles.
•On 11/28/12, Susan JunFish asked for Special Districts contracts and purchase
orders; on 11/29/12 the IPM Coordinator sent her the contracts, purchase orders,
and letters mentioned above that were sent out by Special Districts.
•On 2/14/13, Susan JunFish asked again for copies of the letters and was sent
them on 2/15/13.
•The Grounds Division occasionally hires a contractor to apply pesticides that the
Division does not have staff or equipment to apply itself. The IPM Coordinator
considers that these contracts or purchase orders do not require IPM language
because the contractor is hired for a specific pesticide application and not to
perform IPM services or make any IPM decisions. In these cases the Grounds
Division has already gone through the IPM decision making process and has
decided the specific work ordered is appropriate.
•Reviewing contracts has not been in the purview of the IPM Advisory Committee.
•The 1 contractor hired by Special Districts for pest control (see also the 2nd bullet,
above) uses mostly trapping for vertebrate pests. He used 0.04 ounces of the
rodenticide diphacinone (a 1st generation anticoagulant) in FY 14-15. He does not
use any 2nd generation anticoagulants.
•Since the IPM Program began reporting data on pesticide use in Special Districts
in FY 08-09, no 2nd generation anticoagulants have been used.
Unprofessional Behavior by County Staff
11/6/13-IPM
11/13/13-IO
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“serious pattern of hostile and
unprofessional treatment to the
community by County staff”
“continued name-calling, shouting,
and put-downs by county staff and
Committee members at IPM
meetings”
“require staff to take training in
order to learn how to work
productively in public meetings”
•Staff disagree with the assertions that staff have been hostile or unprofessional
toward members of PfSE or that staff have engaged in name-calling, shouting, or
put-downs in any committee meetings. However, without reference to specific
incidents on specific dates, it is impossible for staff to respond in detail.
•Members of the public have always had ample opportunity (within defined limits)
to participate in all aspects of IPM Committee meetings.
•Starting in 2014, IPM full committee and subcommittee meetings will strictly
adhere to the Ground Rules adopted unanimously by the IPM Committee on May
5, 2010. The IPM Coordinator will distribute Committee Ground Rules with each
agenda packet. This will make public participation more fair and prevent one or a
few individuals from dominating public comment. This course of action should limit
the potential opportunities for improper discourse.
1 http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2147
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 18 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Make Audio and/or Video Recordings of IPM Committee Meetings
3/6/14-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“record meetings with a
camcorder”
“The Community requested to have
IPM related meetings recorded to
achieve accurate meeting minutes
that reflect what actually happened
at the meetings and to encourage
professional behavior.”
•Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner in 2013, suggested that meetings be
audio recorded (no video). The issue may be taken up at a future IPM Committee
meeting.
•No other advisory bodies video or audio record their meetings. If the public wishes
to record meetings, they may do so and should announce their intention at the
beginning of the meeting.
•It appears that PfSE is recording all IPM Committee meetings on a laptop, so they
will be able to reference those recordings if need be.
Intimidation of a member of Parents for a Safer Environment by the IPM Coordinator
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“we ask that in the future, [County]
staff not contact the community
and pressure them to retract their
public comments”
On November 13, 2013, Margaret Lynwood submitted a written public comment to
the Internal Operations Committee. In the comment, she stated that she had “been
attending pesticide related meetings and [had] discovered a serious pattern of
hostile and unprofessional treatment to the community by county staff.” Since Ms.
Lynwood did not provide specific details, and the IPM coordinator had no record of
her attending and did not remember seeing her in the last 4 years at any IPM
Committee or subcommittee meetings, but only at TWIC and IO meetings, she
contacted Ms. Lynwood by phone to understand her concerns and ask her if she felt
that County Supervisors or other staff in TWIC or IO meetings had exhibited
unprofessional behavior. She said, “No,” and was unable to cite a specific instance
when she had witnessed such behavior. The IPM Coordinator did not ask her to
retract her public comment.
Use of Pre-Emergent Herbicides
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The Community wants to be
assured that the Public Works Dept
does not use pesticides along the
Flood Control District that has [sic]
residual activity before a
forecasted rainstorm.”
This is an issue about pre-emergent herbicides and was discussed in a
subcommittee meeting on 10/29/13 and again in the Advisory Committee meeting
on 11/6/13. Both meetings were attended by both Susan JunFish and Shirley
Shelangoski of PfSE.
The following points were made:
•Pre-emergent herbicides have residual activity by design because they are meant
to prevent the germination of weeds over an extended period of time, sometimes
a number of weeks.
•Pre-emergent herbicides are used by Public Works as part of their herbicide
rotation program to prevent the development of herbicide-resistant weeds.
Herbicide rotation is one of a number of best practices strongly recommended by
the University of California and many other researchers to prevent herbicide
resistance2. Creating herbicide-resistant weeds is considered an extremely
serious problem by weed scientists throughout the world.
2 2012. Norsworthy, Jason K., et al. Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations. Weed Science 2012 Special
Issue:31-62.
2000. Prather, Timothy S., J.M. DiTlmaso, and J.S. Holt. Herbicide Resistance: Definition and Management Strategies. University of California, Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication #8012. 14 pp.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 19 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
•Pre-emergent herbicides are not applied on flood control channel banks; they are
used on flood control access roads above the banks.
•Pre-emergent herbicides need irrigation or rainfall shortly after their application,
typically within a few days to several weeks, to carry them shallowly into the soil
where they become active. Because there is no irrigation on flood control access
roads, pre-emergent herbicides must be applied prior to a rain event.
•The Department follows all label requirements for the application of pre-emergent
herbicides (and all other herbicides). Note that a pesticide label is law and must
be strictly followed.
•The use of pre-emergent herbicides can reduce the total amount of herbicide
needed to control weeds in the County because it takes a smaller amount of pre-
emergent herbicide to control weeds in an area than it would using a post-
emergent herbicide.
Use of Garlon 3A® (triclopyr) herbicide on flood control channel slopes without considering its half-
life
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We want the Public works
Department to consider the
residual activity (or half-life) of
pesticides prior to application.
Particularly along the Flood Control
District before a forecasted rain
that can wash pesticides into the
channels and contaminate the
water that flows to the Bays”
•Staff has reviewed EPA documents for triclopyr reregistration; information on
triclopyr in the Nature Conservancy’s Weed Control Methods Handbook;
information on triclopyr in the Weed Science Society of America’s Herbicide
Handbook; and the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation’s “Environmental
Fate of Triclopyr” (January 1997); and has found that triclopyr:
o Is practically non-toxic to birds, fish, and crustaceans
o Is of very low toxicity to mammals and is rapidly absorbed and then rapidly
excreted by the kidneys, primarily in unmetabolized form
o Has an average half-life in soil of 30 days (considered short persistence)
o Would have little toxicological hazard to fish and wildlife as currently used in
forestry (CCC’s use is similar, although the County uses less product per
acre than studies cited)
o Has a low Koc, which indicates mobility in soil; however, studies show that
triclopyr is only somewhat prone to lateral movement and is practically not
prone to vertical movement. In addition, triclopyr is fairly immobile in the
sub-surface flow.
o Could be used without harm to nearby streams in forestry applications if
buffer zones are used around streams and ephemeral drainage routes.
•CCC Public Works Vegetation Management uses Garlon 3A as follows:
o Garlon 3A is a broadleaf contact herbicide with no pre-emergent qualities. It
does not kill grasses, so it is often used with Roundup (glyphosate), which
does kill grasses.
o Generally Garlon 3A is not used during the rainy season.
o It is used on roadsides, flood control channel slopes, and flood control
channel access roads.
o On flood control channel slopes, Garlon 3A is sprayed down the slope no
further than the toe of the slope. Flood control channels are trapezoidal in
cross section, and the toe of the slope is where the slope meets the flat part
of the channel. Depending on the site, the water in the channel is from 10-
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 20 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
50 ft. from the toe.
o If there is a chance of the herbicide getting into the water, Public Works
uses Renovate 3, which has the same active ingredient (triclopyr), but is
labeled for aquatic use.
Posting for pesticide use
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
4/2/14-IPM
12/4/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
2/17/16
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The county staff are still not
posting when applying pesticide in
parks, along hiking trails, major
intersections of rights of ways,
along flood control districts where
many people, children and their
pets frequent.”
“Posting online of pesticide
applications”
“Posting online of pesticide use
reports from each program as they
are generated on a monthly basis
[for fulfilling reporting requirements
with the state Department of
Pesticide Regulation]”
Provide a list of where pesticide
applications were posted for each
IPM program and how many signs
were used in 2013. (4/2/14)
“The County’s Posting Policy
states that posting is required
where there is foot access by the
public or where the area is used for
recreation…PfSE has shown you
photos of children walking along
these access trails…These access
roads look just like walking trails
along often idyllic looking creeks
that the community use on a daily
basis.” (12/4/14)
Concerns about pesticide posting
(2/17/15)
“Posting is still not done in most
treated areas where people have
foot access and where they
recreate per the CC County’s
Posting Policy.” (3/2/15)
• In 2009 the Departments developed a pesticide use posting policy. The policy
does not require posting in “rights-of-way or other areas that the general public
does not use for recreation or pedestrian purposes”.
• The CCC posting policy, including the provision mentioned above, is consistent
with, and very similar to the posting policies of Santa Clara and Marin Counties
and with the City of San Francisco.
• The policy was reviewed and discussed by the IPM Committee when it was first
developed, and in 2012 was revised to allow web posting and allow permanent
signs in certain areas.
• County Departments have verified that they abide by the posting policy.
• The County’s website for online posting of pesticide applications (for the areas
required by the CCC posting policy) was up and running as of 3/10/15.
• Pesticide use reports that are generated for the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation are provided yearly to Parents for a Safer Environment.
Monthly reports are available if the public wishes to view them.
• In the 5/27/14 IPM Transparency subcommittee meeting, the IPM Coordinator
presented a chart with a list of pesticide application postings and the number of
signs use for the 2013 calendar year.
• Note that the County Posting Policy states that posting is “Not required in
locations that the public does not use for recreation or pedestrian purposes”
Recreation is defined as “any activity where significant physical contact with the
treated area is likely to occur”.
• On Pinole Creek, in the photo submitted by PfSE, the Public Works Department
does not treat the access road the children are shown walking on.
• Most of the County’s Flood Control access roads are within locked gates with
signs saying “Property of Contra Costa. No Trespassing”. No one should be
jogging or walking along these roads.
• If PfSE can provide the County with information on specific access roads and
specific times when people have been exposed to pesticide spraying, the County
will investigate immediately
• Without information on specific locations, the County is unable to investigate this
concern about not posting “in most treated areas where people have foot access
and where they recreate…”.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 21 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Adopting an IPM ordinance
9/4/13-IPM
11/6/13-IPM
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Issue of adopting an IPM
ordinance for the County
• In 2009, Susan JunFish proposed the need for an IPM Ordinance to the BOS.
The Board directed the Committee to investigate the issue.
• In 2009, County Counsel wrote an opinion recommending the use of an
administrative bulletin to supplement the County’s IPM Policy.
• County Counsel continues to stand by their 2009 opinion.
• At several meetings in 2010 and 2011, the IPM Committee studied the issue and
heard presentations from PfSE and from other counties. In 2011 the Committee
concluded unanimously that the County should adopt an IPM Administrative
Bulletin to supplement the IPM Policy that the County adopted in 2002. In CCC
an administrative bulletin serves to direct staff and carries consequences for non-
compliance.
• The IPM Committee found no advantage to adopting an IPM ordinance.
• In April of 2013, the IPM Administrative Bulletin was adopted.
• In the fall of 2013, the IPM Committee again reviewed the issue of adopting an
IPM Ordinance. For the second time, the Committee saw no advantage to
developing an ordinance and once again voted unanimously to recommend the
continued use of the IPM Policy supplemented by the IPM Administrative Bulletin.
Reporting “Bad Actor” pesticides
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
9/2/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Disagreement on how the County
should report “Bad Actor 3
• Since FY 00-01, the County has been publishing pesticide use figures that
include use figures for “Bad Actors”.
”
pesticides in the IPM Annual
Report
• Note that all pesticides used by County operations are reported in the IPM Annual
Report, regardless of the toxicity or hazards of the pesticide. At issue is the
categorization of pesticides in the report, not whether all use is reported.
• Susan JunFish, of Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE), has been asking that
additional pesticides be reported as “Bad Actors”. To resolve this issue, the IPM
Committee heard presentations from Susan JunFish and held a special meeting
of the Data Management subcommittee on March 25, 2013 devoted exclusively to
this issue. Dr. Susan Kegley 4
• After hearing Dr. Kegley’s presentation and discussing the issue with her and with
representatives of PfSE, the subcommittee members concluded that the County
should report as “Bad Actors” only those that are designated as such in the
Pesticide Action Network database.
was invited to speak, as requested by Ms. JunFish.
• June 26, 2013: The IPM Committee voted unanimously to make changes to the
2012 IPM Annual to reflect the recommendation from the Data Management
subcommittee, as noted above. The IPM Coordinator continues to report
pesticides as “Bad Actors” only if they are designated as such in the PAN
database.
3 “Bad Actor” is a term coined by 2 advocacy groups, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and Californians for Pesticide Reform, to identify a “most toxic” set
of pesticides. These pesticides are at least one of the following: known or probable carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants, cholinesterase
inhibitors, known groundwater contaminants, or pesticides with high acute toxicity. The pesticides designated as “Bad Actors” can be found in the PAN
database on line: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ 4 Ph.D. Organic/Inorganic Chemistry; Principal and CEO, Pesticide Research Institute; former Senior Staff Scientist for Pesticide Action Network (PAN);
instrumental in the development of the PAN database.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 22 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Use of Paraquat and Other Bad Actors for Aquatic Weed Control by the Department of Agriculture
2/17/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Use of paraquat for Aquatic Weed
Control and other broad applied
Bad Actor Pesticides by the
Department of Agriculture.”
(Particular mention of South
American sponge plant in the Delta
was made.)
•The Agriculture Department has not used paraquat in any aquatic weed
applications and does not apply herbicides to the Delta for aquatic weeds. In the
past, the Department has treated purple loosestrife in County waterways that feed
into the Delta, but from this point forward they will not be treating any aquatic
weeds.
•The State Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) has treated various
areas in the Delta for invasive aquatic weeds over the years, and in September
2012, Governor Brown signed legislation authorizing DBW to add South
American sponge plant to the list of weeds they treat.
•State weed science experts judged that South American sponge plant posed a
serious threat to the ecosystems in California waterways. This was based on
research, the biology of the plant, and the rapid rate of its spread in California.
•Judicious use of herbicide to eliminate small infestations before they take over
and completely clog Delta waterways is an excellent use of herbicide and will
prevent huge expenditures of labor and herbicide in the future. This kind of
preventive use of a pesticide to reduce the necessity to use large amounts of
pesticide when the pest has built to great numbers is a recognized and legitimate
IPM tactic.
Providing comments on the kestrel study, and rodenticides use concernsissues
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We have asked the Dept of Ag
and the IPM Advisory Committee
to provide comments on the
Kestrel study and PfSE's Draft
LD50 document in the past two
years.”
In conjunction with this research
paper, PfSE has brought up its
concern about the rodenticides
used by County operations.
“Contractors [in Special Districts]
use pesticides [rodenticides] before
demonstrating alternatives first.”
(8/26/15)
“I would like to first point out that
the Special District program of
Public Works is still using
rodenticides in the county parks…It
would be helpful to see the
decision making tree on the way
rodenticides are chosen instead of
traps or asphyxiation methods
using safer gases like carbon
dioxide.” (3/16/16)
•On 9/18/12 Susan JunFish circulated to members of the IPM Committee the
abstract from the kestrel study mentioned at left. On 2/4/13, the IPM Coordinator
circulated the actual research paper to all the members of the IPM Committee.
•On November 22, 2013, Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner, sent a formal
response to Susan JunFish regarding the kestrel study. (TWIC and the IPM
Committee Chair and IPM Coordinator were cc’ed on this communication.)
•On January 7, 2014, Vince Guise re-sent the formal response to Susan JunFish
and Shirley Shelangoski. On January 16. 2014, Shirley Shelangoski confirmed
having received the document.
•Susan JunFish asked the Committee to comment on the study, and the formal
response was provided by the Agriculture Dept.
•Regarding “PfSE’s Draft LD50 document”, neither the Committee nor County staff
can comment on data calculated by Susan JunFish that have no references or
clear calculation methods. This was conveyed to PfSE in the Department of
Agriculture’s Kestrel response letter.
•Note that as part of the Department of Agriculture’s ground squirrel program, the
Department surveys ground squirrel treated areas for ground squirrel carcasses
(or any other carcasses). Staff rarely find dead ground squirrels above ground,
which is consistent with U.C. research in the state and the experience of other
agencies. Staff has never found secondary kill, such as raptors or predatory
mammals, in areas the Department treats. This does not mean, nor does the
County claim, that no secondary kill ever occurs in the course of the County’s
treatment program.
•The IPM Committee did not discuss the research paper specifically; however, the
Committee and County staff took the following steps regarding the rodenticide
issue:
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 23 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
o In 2012, the Agriculture Dept. conducted an in-house trial of live-trapping of
ground squirrels as a possible alternative to rodenticides treatment. See
below for more detail.
o At their January 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from the
Agriculture Dept on the trapping study and heard a presentation from the
State Department of Fish and Wildlife on secondary poisoning of raptors and
other predators and the state’s efforts to restrict use of the more toxic 2nd
generation anticoagulant rodenticides (CCC does not use 2nd generation
anticoagulants because of their toxicity and their hazards to non-target
animals that consume poisoned rodents).
o At their March 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from Dr.
Jim Hale on wildlife issues in CCC that included discussion of the impacts of
rodenticides.
o At their May 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from Mt.
Diablo Audubon on their campaign to curb the use of 2nd generation
rodenticides.
o The Agriculture and Public Works Departments jointly prepared a map of the
County marking where rodenticides are used by the Agriculture Dept. This
map was presented in separate meetings to Supervisors Gioia, Mitchoff, and
Andersen, and to Susan JunFish & Shirley Shelangoski of PfSE. In these
meetings the Agricultural Commissioner explained the Department’s ground
squirrel program and the live trapping study.
o The Agriculture Dept. prepared a very detailed decision making document for
ground squirrel management in the County to record their decision making
process and explain the complexities involved in their decisions, including
biology, safety, efficacy, cost and the goals of the program. This document
was discussed extensively in a subcommittee meeting and again in a regular
Committee meeting. PfSE members were present and participated in the
discussion.
o In 2013, the Agriculture Dept revised its ground squirrel baiting methodology
to make it safer for staff, to make applications more precisely targeted, and to
reduce the amount of bait used each season. The amount of bait used by the
Department has been reduced by over 50% since 2011. Use has gone from
35,915 lbs in 2011 and 14,271 lbs in 2013. 14,271 lbs of bait is 1.4 lbs. of
actual diphacinone.
o In February and again in August of 2013, the IPM Coordinator investigated
rodenticides use by contractors to Special Districts. She presented her
findings to the Committee at the 9/4/13 meeting.
o The Special Districts’ contractor has reduced his use of anticoagulant bait
from 188 lbs in FY 12-13 to 88 lbs in FY 13-14 and to 53.5 lbs in FY 14-15.
The amount of actual anticoagulant active ingredient in 53.5 lbs is 0.0027 lbs (
0.04 oz). The contractor has increased trapping and is not using any of the
more toxic and dangerous 2nd generation anticoagulants.
o In the spring of 2016, the IPM Decision-Making subcommittee asked the IPM
Coordinator to create a decision-making document for gopher management in
the County. The document was finished in June 2016. In the Grounds
Division, the gopher manager uses only carbon dioxide asphyxiation and
traps to control gophers in County landscaping. The Special Districts’
contractor uses trapping and diphacinone, a 1st generation anticoagulant
rodenticide, for gophers in Livorna Park. He uses trapping in Livorna
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 24 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
wherever it is safe to do so, i.e., where children are unlikely to find and play
with the traps. He uses diphacinone in the Hidden Pond and Driftwood
landscaping zones because the budgets in these two Special Districts will not
cover trapping, which is more labor intensive. Both those landscaping zones
are frontage property. The only other location where the Special Districts’
contractor manages vertebrate pests is the Alamo School field, where he is
using traps.
o As of May 2016, Special Districts is no longer baiting with diphacinone for rats
in Livorna Park. The shrubs that were being damaged by rat gnawing have
recovered and are thriving. The contractor will continue to monitor at Livorna
for rat damage.
o On 3/5/14, the IPM Committee heard an update from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife on the regulations concerning 2nd generation
anticoagulant rodenticides and on secondary poisoning of raptors and
mammalian predators by anticoagulant rodenticides.
Trapping for ground squirrels
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
10/9/14-TWIC
1/14/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“[PfSE] asked TWIC to instruct the
Department of Agriculture and
Public Works Dept to use trapping
methods [for ground squirrels]”
“Santa Clara spends only
$25/ground squirrel trapping &
removal”
“Isn’t it worth the effort to learn how
the other counties are doing using
only trapping for ground squirrel
control?” (10/9/14)
“One cannot compare efficiency of
our [County] staff applying
rodenticides and compare that to
them trapping and stacking up
overtime costs during the learning
curve…A good-faith comparison
would have been to utilize expert
trappers vs our staff applying
rodenticides, and then comparing
costs.” (10/9/14)
“[The IPM Coordinator] states that
the county would incur a charge of
$16,720 per linear mile for ground
squirrel control if we paid a
contractor who charges
$25/squirrel trapped. This is very
speculative and we would like to
see the county take bids from
trappers and share the proposals
• In 2012, the Agriculture Department ran an extensive, in-house ground squirrel
live trapping trial to determine the feasibility of using live traps to protect critical
County infrastructure from ground squirrel burrowing.
o The trapping was successful in that staff were easily able to capture 152
ground squirrels in the 1,200 linear foot trial area along a County road over
the 5 day trial period.
o The squirrels were euthanized on site by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
o Unfortunately, squirrels from the surrounding area quickly moved into the
vacant burrows. This makes trapping ineffective in areas with
surrounding pressure from ground squirrels.
o When the Department uses rodenticide bait, the squirrels do not move back
into the vacant burrows for an extended period of time. The Department
surmises that because baited squirrels die mostly in their burrows, the
carcasses repel any newcomers.
o The Department found that live trapping would be prohibitive. It would cost
$5,074/linear mile compared to $220/linear mile using bait. The Department
treats around 925 linear miles of roadway each year.
o Note that along roadsides, the Department spreads bait in a 12 to 15 ft wide
swath at a rate of 2 to 3 oat kernels per square foot only in areas where
ground squirrels are active. This treatment method takes advantage of the
natural foraging habit of the ground squirrel, an animal that is highly adapted
to finding individual seed kernels on the ground.
o The Department verified the expense by contacting 2 pest control
contractors. Using their fees per hour or per squirrel trapped, the
Department estimated that the cost to use a contractor to trap ground
squirrels would be between $12,524 and $16,700 per linear mile. This does
not compare favorably to the Department estimate of $5,074/linear if work
were done by Department staff.
o Note that at the $25/squirrel rate quoted by PfSE, it would cost the
County $16,720/linear mile if the ground squirrel catch rate were
similar to the 152 squirrels/1,200 linear feet. This is 3 times more than it
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 25 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
with the Committee.” (1/14/15)
“Pilot Trial of rodenticides vs
tapping done in 2012, biased &
scientifically indefensible.”
(8/26/15)
“Cost of trapping inflated.”
(8/26/15)
cost for Agriculture Department personnel to trap over a linear mile, so using
a contractor would not save money, even if this method were effective.
o One of the pest control contractors who was contacted for an estimate said
he had also observed the ineffectiveness of trapping in areas with
surrounding ground squirrel pressure.
o The Department also observed some other unexpected outcomes:
Traps were checked daily, but staff found squirrels bloodied and
wounded from fighting with each other or trying to chew their way out of
the traps.
Traps were vandalized by the public even though large signs warned
people to leave the traps alone. This exposed the public to health risks
from bites and scratches and from transmissible diseases carried by
ground squirrels.
o In certain small areas that have a limited number of ground squirrel colonies,
live trapping may be a viable alternative.
•Santa Clara County Regional Parks find live trapping effective for their limited use
of the method. They trap squirrels around Regional Park buildings to prevent
undermining of foundations. This is a very small area compared to the hundreds
of miles of roads involved in CCC. Park rangers are close by to educate the
public and to observe the traps continually. This reduces vandalism and allows
park personnel to have squirrels dispatched soon after they are trapped, which
prevents harm to the squirrels from fighting or gnawing the cage.
•In March 2006, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors directed county staff to
avoid the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within county-owned properties and
facilities. To address these concerns, the county hired a consultant and formed
an ad hoc committee. The County developed an IPM program and as a result of a
subsequent study, the ad hoc committee and the Board recommended broadcast
baiting with diphacinone as the primary control method for ground squirrels. The
Board approved this program in December 2006.
•The CCC Agriculture Department has also evaluated kill traps but has chosen not
to use that method for many reasons, including the increased risk of taking non-
target animals, the risk of injury to curious children, and the expense.
CCC is the only Bay Area county using rodenticides for ground squirrels
12/5/13-TWIC
10/9/14--TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“[Contra Costa is] currently the only
Bay Area county to continue to use
the archaic and non-specific to
target pest method of rodenticides
to kill grounds squirrels”
“It’s great that the Agriculture
Department has decreased usage
of rodenticides from 36,615 pounds
[of treated grain] applied two years
ago to 14,391 pounds [of treated
grain] applied in the most recent
•Contra Costa County is not the only Bay Area county using rodenticide bait to
manage ground squirrels.
Note that CCC uses diphacinone-treated bait to protect critical infrastructure in
the County from damage caused by ground squirrel burrowing. Diphacinone is a
1st generation anticoagulant that is less toxic and less persistent in animal tissues
than 2nd generation anticoagulants. The Agriculture Department endeavors to
maintain a relatively ground squirrel-free 100 ft buffer along various County roads
(mainly in East County), along levees and railroad embankments, and around
earthen dams and bridge abutments. To maintain this buffer, the Department
treats a 12 to 15 ft. swath.
o The Santa Clara Valley Water District uses diphacinone- and
chlorophacinone-treated bait in areas similar to the sites the CCC
Agriculture Department treats for the CC Water District.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 26 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
fiscal year. However it is still
14,301 pound [sic] more of bait
applied than all Marin, San
Francisco, and Santa Clara
counties combined that do not use
any rodenticides at all in open
space.” (10/9/14)
o Alameda County engages in a ground squirrel treatment program using
diphacinone bait that is very similar to CCC. They treat roadsides and levees
and Zone 7 Water District sites and use a similar amount of diphacinone-
treated bait.
•San Francisco City and County allows the use of bromadiolone bait (a 2nd
generation anticoagulant rodenticide) at the SF Airport and by commercial
lessees on city properties that are not adjacent to natural areas. Second
generation anticoagulants are more toxic and more persistent in the tissues of
poisoned animals than 1st generation anticoagulants, such as the diphacinone
that CCC Department of Agriculture uses. Bromadiolone persists in liver tissues
for 248 days compared to 90 days for diphacinone which makes sub-lethally
poisoned animals walking hazards for predators much longer.
•Note that San Francisco allows the use of diphacinone for baiting rats in areas
with high public health concerns and where trapping is infeasible. CCC uses only
trapping to control rats and mice in and around County buildings. But note also
that CCC is far less urbanized than San Francisco, and therefore does not have
the same kind of pest pressure from rats.
•Marin and Napa County Public Works Departments reported that they have
nowhere near the kind of ground squirrel populations that East Contra Costa
County has, and consequently, they don’t do anything about the few ground
squirrels along their roads.
The County should use volunteers and free labor
12/5/13-TWIC
3/6/14-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The County should use free labor
programs
•This could be particularly helpful around County buildings. The Grounds Manager
would welcome Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE) volunteers to pull weeds
at particular sites, but PfSE would first need to negotiate with the County to
determine if PfSE volunteers would be permitted work on County landscaping. If
the work were approved, PfSE would need to organize and supervise the
volunteers.
•Note that County unions have protested the use of inmate labor for jobs that
could be filled by union members. The union recently won a grievance against the
Sheriff’s Department regarding the use of inmate labor for grounds maintenance
work. The union has filed a grievance against the fire department regarding the
use of inmate labor to clear brush. The Grounds Manager does not anticipate that
PfSE volunteers pulling weeds would precipitate these kinds of union actions.
•In the County’s other IPM programs, using volunteers is more difficult.
o “Free” labor involves considerable County resources including outreach to
solicit volunteers, planning and organizing work sessions, staff time for
training volunteers, transportation of volunteers, equipment for volunteers
and staff time for supervision.
o Almost all of the Agriculture Department’s noxious weed program involves
activity on private land or on lands that are not owned or managed by the
County. Use of volunteer help in these areas would involve liability for those
land owners or managers.
o Much of the Public Works Department’s creek and roadside vegetation
management involves work in dangerous areas such as roadsides or steep
and rocky slopes and requires the use of hazardous equipment such as
chain saws and brush cutters. County liability for volunteers performing this
kind of work would be extremely high.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 27 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
o The County’s structural IPM program is not suited to the use of volunteer
labor.
•Note that the County does use volunteers, most notably in creek restoration and
clean up, for creek water quality monitoring and for outreach to the public about
creek water quality and the value of healthy creeks and watersheds.
Grazing has no significant impact on water quality
12/4/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“…[I]n each of the four case
studies, grazing had NO significant
impact on water quality. It is my
hope that this research can provide
decision makers with confidence
that managed grazing is an
effective, economical and safe
vegetation management tool along
watercourses.”
“Small PfSE Pilot Trial in 2009
showed no contaminants
downstream of grazing.” (8/26/15)
•The County is aware that grazing does not have a significant impact on water
quality. Economics and not water quality is the limiting factor in the vegetation
management situations in the County. Public Works continues to expand its
grazing program where it is most appropriate and/or cost-effective, and grazing
has become a permanent tool in the County’s IPM Toolbox.
The County should expand goat grazing and competitive planting
12/5/13-TWIC
3/5/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
8/2615-Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“The County should expand the
competitive planting and goat
grazing programs”
“[One decision-making document]
asserts that goat grazing costs
much more than herbicide
spraying; however it appears the
cost of grazing during the in-
season are [sic] being compared
with herbicide usage. Other case
studies we are evaluating show
that grazing is cost effective and
even cheaper than herbicide
usage.” (2/17/15)
Grazing costs are inflated and cost
of herbicide use is deflated.
(8/2615)
•The County Flood Control District is partnering with Restoration Trust, an
Oakland-based non-profit, in a native planting experiment along Clayton Valley
Drain (near Hwy 4 adjacent to Walnut Creek). The study involves planting 2
species of native sedge and 1 species of native grass. These are perennial
species that stay green year round and are resistant to fire. The plants are
compatible with flood control objectives because they do not have woody stems,
and during flood events, they would lie down on the slope, thus reducing flow
impedance. They are not sensitive to broadleaf herbicides that will be needed to
control weeds at least until the plants have spread enough to outcompete weeds.
County volunteers installed the first plantings on December 7, 2013
•Note that it is conceivable that herbicides may always have to be used on these
plantings to prevent the area from being overrun with weeds because the
surrounding weed pressure is very high.
•Restoration Trust will be monitoring the test plots for the next 5 years to assess
the survival of the native plants and their degree of successful competition with
non-native annual species. The County will gather information over the next few
years to determine whether, how, and where to expand this kind of planting. The
County cannot expand this project without data on its costs and viability.
•Over the last 3 years, the Public Works Department has expanded its use of goat
grazing considerably. In 2012 they grazed 99 acres, in 2014 they grazed 336
acres, and in 2015 they project around 300 acres. It is now a regular
management tool for the Department. Every site the County manages differs in
the ease with which goats can be used and their suitability for managing
vegetation. The Department uses goats where they are appropriate and cost
effective, and continues to gather data on costs and long-term effectiveness at
individual sites. Cost is affected by many factors:
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 28 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
o The size of the site—loading and unloading the animals is a fixed cost, so
small sites cost more per acre than large sites
o The ease of access to the site—the harder it is to get the goats into an area,
the more expensive it is
o The availability of water—if water must be trucked in, the cost is greater
o The security of the site—the more fencing that is required and the more the
fences must be taken down and erected within the site both increase the cost
o The time of year—because of the law of supply and demand, cost is greater
during the peak grazing season
o The presence of endangered species—sites with endangered species and
other restrictions from the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife are good candidates
for grazing regardless of the cost
•Although the cost of off-season grazing is less expensive than during the peak
grazing season, Public Works cannot effectively manage all the weeds that grow
in the Flood Control District only with off-season grazing.
Considering least-toxic alternatives before choosing pesticides
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
2/17/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Staff has still not demonstrated
that for each pest control problem,
least toxic alternatives were
evaluated prior to choosing
pesticides.”
Estimates for costs of herbicide
applications need to include cost of
permits, tracking requirements,
storage of chemicals, licensing,
training, etc.
“The IPM Advisory Committee has
not yet reviewed several key data
in the [decision-making documents]
that justify using broadcast
herbicide spraying along Right of
Ways and rodenticide usage in
open space.” (2/17/15)
“Also, has the county investigated
least toxic methods in accordance
with the IPM Policy?” (8/6/15)
•In 2012, the IPM Committee developed a form for recording IPM decisions made
by the Departments. In 2013, each IPM program in the County produced at least
1 decision-making document for a specific pest or pest management situation
(the Agriculture Department produced 2 documents that year).
•These documents show which least-toxic alternatives are considered and tested,
which are being regularly employed, which are not, and why.
•In 2013, each decision-making document was extensively reviewed by the
Decision-Making subcommittee with PfSE members in attendance.
•Recording the thought processes and decision-making path for each pest or pest
management situation takes considerable time (approximately 40 hours of work
per document).
•In 2014, the Decision-Making subcommittee reviewed and, after numerous
revisions, accepted 4 more decision-making documents. These discussions were
conducted in public with members of PfSE in attendance.
•In 2015, the Weed subcommittee reviewed and revised 1 more decision-making
document which covered how the County decides to use grazing as a
management tool.
•In 2014, the Cost Accounting subcommittee chose to research the costs
associated with altering landscapes around County buildings to require less
maintenance, less water, and less herbicide. The subcommittee concluded that
this is a very worthy goal, but more complicated to achieve than expected. Sites
must be considered individually because one plan will not fit all, and in the midst
of severe drought, it is not the time to begin replanting. The subcommittee also
explored the idea of replacing lawns with artificial turf, but decided that it is not
the answer except in very specific, limited situations. Artificial turf has high up-
front costs, still requires maintenance, can become infested with weeds growing
in soil that accumulates on top of the mat, and has environmental consequences
at the end of its life,
•Herbicide treatment costs reported in the 2013 IPM Annual Report included all
associated costs mentioned by PfSE. When costs are compared in future
documents, every effort will be made to include all related costs for both
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 29 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
pesticides and alternatives.
Excessive pesticide use in CCC
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
12/4/14-TWIC
3/10/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
3/16/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Contra Costa County uses more
pesticide than any other Bay Area
County (or, than several Bay Area
Counties combined)
“lack of progress is evident in that
the county has not significantly
altered their use of pesticide since
2009”
“The single most underlying
problem I see in the IPM Program
is that there is little to no leadership
in guiding the County to reduce
pesticides. (12/4/14)
“Compare the quantity and the type
of pesticides being used by
neighboring counties of Marin,
S.F., and Santa Clara Counties
[sic] for the same pest problems.”
(2/17/16)
“…I am concerned about the
exponential increase of herbicides
being applied by the Grounds
program in the last fiscal year [FY
14-15].” (3/16/16)
“The Right of Ways program of
Public Works alone used over
10,200 lbs of pesticides last fiscal
year, using 20 herbicides…These
[sic] program needs review of why
so much pesticides are required
and at such high rates.” (3/16/16)
• The assertion that CCC uses more pesticide than any other Bay Area County, or
other counties combined, is hard to evaluate since staff have not seen current
pesticide use figures for County operations in other Bay Area Counties.
• This could be researched, but would take time. It is difficult to compare counties,
all of which vary greatly in their size, their budgets, their staff, their pests, their
weather, and the kinds of responsibilities they choose to undertake. Staff feel that
comparing pesticide use in various counties is not particularly relevant to how
well Contra Costa County operations are implementing IPM.
• In 2012 and 2013, the IPM Data Management subcommittee undertook to find
additional metrics to evaluate the County’s IPM programs. This proved to be a
difficult task, and the committee’s research did not discover any unique or
innovative measures for evaluating IPM programs in other Bay Area counties, or
across the U.S.
• The subcommittee agreed that pesticide use data do not reveal whether the
County is implementing IPM, and so in 2012, the subcommittee developed the
IPM Priority Assessment Tool. This is a compilation of IPM best management
practices (BMPs). The subcommittee asked the Departments to fill out the form in
2012 and 2013 and report the percentage of implementation of each of the
BMPs.
• It is important to understand that pesticide use can increase and decrease from
year to year depending on the pest population, the weather, the invasion of new
and perhaps difficult to control pests, the use of new products that contain small
percentages of active ingredient, the use of chemicals that are less hazardous
but not as effective, the addition or subtraction of new pest management projects
to a department’s workload, and cuts or increases to budgets or staff that change
priorities or workload.
• Since FY 2000-2001, the County has reduced its pesticide use by 727%--from
18,931 lbs of active ingredient in FY 00-01 to 4780688 lbs of active ingredient in
FY 14-1513-14.
• Since FY 2000-2001, each Department has been evaluating its pesticide use and
researching options for eliminating or reducing pesticide use. County operations
have eliminated the use of 242 of the 31 “Bad Actor” pesticides that they had
been using. Since FY 2000-2001, the County has reduced its use of “Bad Actor”
pesticides by 84%.
• The County’s pesticide use trend follows a trend typical of other pollution
reduction programs. Early reductions are dramatic during the period when
changes that are easy to make are accomplished. Once this “low-hanging fruit”
has been plucked, it takes more time and effort to investigate and analyze where
additional changes can be made. The County is entering this period, and if further
reductions in pesticide use are to be made, it will require time for focused study
and additional funding for implementation.
• Note that County operations use about 2% of all the pesticide (active ingredients)
that is required to be reported in the County. The total reported to the state does
not include homeowner use, which researchers suspect is a considerable
amount.
• In FY 14-15, the Grounds Division used only 1/3 of the pesticide it used in FY 00-
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 30 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
01.The amount used in FY 14-15 was 154 lbs. of active ingredient less than in
FY 13-14.
•In FY 14-15 the Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance
Division (the “Right of Ways program” that PfSE refers to) used 4,780 lbs. of
pesticide active ingredients. This is a little more than ¼ of the pesticide they used
in FY 00-01.
CCC should do more IPM training and outreach to County staff and the public
12/5/13-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
3/16/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“the County IPM Coordinator and
the IPM Advisory Committee
[should] provide annual IPM
training and outreach programs to
both county staff and the public”
The County should “provide
training and conferences such as
those conducted by Santa Clara
and San Francisco counties which
train hundreds of interested
participants.”
•The IPM Committee is an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and does
not have a budget, nor does it have the staff or the mandate to provide outreach
and training.
•There is no need to duplicate San Francisco and Santa Clara’s regional IPM
conferences, and it would be impossible for the IPM Coordinator to do so without
staff and budget.
•In 2012, the IPM Coordinator partnered with cities in CCC to provide a half-day
landscape IPM training to City and County staff and will probably do so again in
the future.
•The IPM Coordinator provides extensive education in person and over the phone
to County staff and Contra Costa citizens on bed bug awareness and an IPM
approach to managing bed bugs. The IPM Coordinator produces educational
materials on bed bugs for professionals and lay people. Materials are housed on
the Health Services bed bug website (cchealth.org/bedbugs).
•The Departments provide annual training to County staff that includes IPM.
•County staff attend numerous trainings and conferences that include IPM training
in order to stay current on pest management research and to maintain their
various licenses.
•The Department of Agriculture has a biologist on-call from 8 AM to 5 PM each
weekday to answer questions from the public about pests and pest management.
Biologists base their responses on IPM principles and on materials and resources
from the U.C. Statewide IPM Program.
•Every day in the course of their work, County staff from Public Works, Health
Services and the Department of Agriculture engage citizens in dialog about the
pest management work the County does and the IPM principles the County
employs.
•The Department of Agriculture provides many training sessions each year on
pesticide safety (including IPM issues) to growers, farm workers, agencies, and
the pest control industry.
•The Department of Agriculture is a member of the Egeria densa Integrated Pest
Management Committee and developed the Contra Costa Delta/Discovery Bay
Region Brazilian Waterweed (Egeria densa) Integrated Pest Management Plan.
•The County Clean Water Program sponsors an annual Bay Friendly Landscaping
training for County staff and professional landscapers throughout the county. This
training includes information about IPM and about reducing inputs into and
outputs from landscaping activities to prevent pollution in creeks and the Bay.
•The County Clean Water Program provides support for watershed coordinators
and friends of creeks groups that coordinate volunteers to conduct general
outreach to the community about water quality in creeks and the value and
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 31 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
importance of wildlife habitat, watersheds, and creek restoration.
•The County Clean Water Program provides support to the Bringing Back the
Natives Garden Tour which educates the public about the many benefits of
gardening with California native plants.
•The County Clean Water Program supports the Our Water, Our World Program in
Contra Costa County (a program originally developed by CC Central Sanitary
District). This program provides in-store IPM education directly to consumers who
are purchasing pesticides. IPM training is also provided for nursery and hardware
store employees.
•In 2014 the County Clean Water Program launched 3 other IPM and pesticide
public education programs.
•The Contra Costa Master Gardener Program trains volunteers with a curriculum
that includes IPM. Master Gardener volunteers are available Monday through
Thursday from 9 to Noon to answer gardening and pest management questions
from the public. Advice is based on materials and resources from the U.C.
Statewide IPM Program. Master Gardeners also provide presentations on
gardening and IPM to a broad cross section of Contra Costa citizens.
•The IPM Coordinator has been working closely with the Cities of El Cerrito and
San Pablo over the past 2 years to develop IPM guidance for cities on
implementing IPM and to develop standard operating procedures for various
pests.
•The IPM Coordinator accepts many speaking engagements throughout the
County and the region to provide training on IPM and especially on bed bug
issues.
•The IPM Coordinator and other County staff have been working closely with cities
to provide guidance on the crises of bed bug infestations they are experiencing.
•The IPM Coordinator is working with Code Enforcement in the City of Richmond
to develop bed bug training for Code Enforcement officers throughout the state.
•Every month the IPM Coordinator spends a significant number of hours talking
with citizens about least-hazardous bed bug control.
•The Agricultural Department represents the California Agricultural
Commissioner’s and Sealer’s Association as the sitting member of the California
Invasive Species Advisory Task Force.
•In October 2013, County staff attended a Parents for a Safer Environment’s IPM
workshop and found it informative. Parents for a Safer Environment can provide a
useful community service by hosting more such workshops.
•In April 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided an in-person IPM tutorial for the
Grounds Division’s new spray technician.
•In May 2014, the IPM Coordinator arranged an IPM workshop given by Pestec,
the County’s Structural IPM Contractor, for the County’s Head Start Home Base
educators. Pestec presented information on how to prevent pests in the home
and simple, non-toxic strategies for low income families to use to combat pest
invasions. Home Base educators provide in-home education to Head Start
families.
•In May 2014, the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division sponsored a
workshop on IPM for bed bugs for County Environmental Health Inspectors and
code enforcement officers in Contra Costa municipalities.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 32 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
• In July 2014, the County hosted a presentation by the U.C. Horticultural Advisor
on how landscapes should be managed during drought and how to plan
landscapes for what is likely to be continual droughts. County staff, both
administrators and maintenance personnel, along with park personnel from the
city of Danville attended.
• In July 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided a bed bug awareness training for the
residents of Meadow Wood at Alamo Creek, a senior living facility in Danville,
along with subsequent consultation with individual residents and staff.
• In September 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided the Greater Richmond
Interfaith Program with assistance for a bed bug infestation at their Family
Housing Program.
• In February 2015, the IPM Coordinator met with staff at the Bay Area Rescue
Mission in Richmond to discuss bed bug prevention.
• In June 2015, the IPM Coordinator completed an IPM Guidance manual for
municipalities in Contra Costa County with help from Beth Baldwin of the County
Clean Water Program and Stephen Pree of the City of El Cerrito. The three of
them presented an IPM workshop for municipal staff that included information on
how to use the manual and resources available to them within the County.
• In November 2015, the IPM Coordinator and Luis Agurto from Pestec provided a
bed bug training for County Adult Protective Services staff who have been
encountering bed bug problems in their clients homes more frequently.
• In April 2016, the IPM Coordinator helped arrange a County-sponsored Bay
Friendly Landscaping refresher training at the Pittsburg Civic Center open to all
Bay Friendly certified landscaping professionals in the County.
• In April 2016, the IPM Coordinator and Luis Agurto from Pestec provided a bed
bug awareness training for staff from the Behavioral Health Division.
• In May 2016, the IPM Coordinator arranged a talk on mosquitoes as vectors of
disease by Dr. Steve Schutz of CC Mosquito and Vector Control for the IPM
Advisory Committee.
• In May 2016, the IPM Coordinator gave a class in home and garden pests at the
Gardens at Heather Farms for the general public.
• In May 2016, the IPM Coordinator helped arrange a talk at the Richmond Civic
Center on vertebrate pest management for County and municipal staff and
professional landscapers.
• In May 2016, the IPM Coordinator provided a bed bug prevention training to the
County’s Discovery House staff.
• In June 2016, the IPM Coordinator and Carlos Agurto from Pestec provided a bed
bug prevention refresher training to the Concord Homeless Shelter and Calli
House youth shelter staff.
Violations of the Brown Act
12/5/13-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
8/6/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“continued violations of the Brown
Act including repeated disposal of
original meeting minutes, repeated
failure to provide public records at
all or much later than 10 working
• Staff always respond within 10 days to public records requests. In almost all
cases staff respond within 1 to 3 days. The only reason for delay has been to find
and collect documents that have been requested.
• The County takes public records requests seriously and responds promptly to
each one.
• Hand written meeting minutes are recycled after official minutes have been typed
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 33 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
day, and meeting minutes that do
not accurately reflect comments
made or not made by participants”
“our county’s IPM policy and the
Public Records Act have been
violated at least on a quarterly
basis by staff since 2009.” (3/2/15)
“We are still waiting to learn where
Fusilade II Turf and Ornamental
herbicide had been applied by the
Grounds Program in the past
years” (8/6/15)
up. Official minutes, once approved by the IPM Committee, are posted on the
IPM website.
• The IPM Committee approves the minutes for each meeting. The public is
provided time to comment on the minutes, and as the IPM Committee sees fit, the
minutes are corrected.
• Staff are ready to respond to any specific instances or claims of Brown Act
violations. Staff maintain written logs of all public records requests.
• On July 8, 2015 Susan JunFish formally requested information about Fusilade
use by the Grounds Division. On July 16, 2015 the IPM Coordinator provided her
with a chart, created for her, showing how much and where Fusilade was used (0
used in FY 12-13 and FY 14-15 and 0.1 pound used once in a parking lot in FY
13-14).
Financial incentives to serve on the IPM Committee/Conflict of interest on the IPM Committee
12/5/13-TWIC
1/14/15 IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The County should “discourage
financial incentives of [IPM
Committee] applicants by providing
a minimum of a 5 year moratorium
for those who serve to be eligible
for receiving a county contract or
any funding”
“In 2009, Michael Baefsky, a
community representative of the
IPM Advisory Committee received
a contract with the former General
Services Department according to
a document from Terry Mann,
former Deputy Director of the
General Services Dept. After
receiving that contract, Mr.
Baefsky’s behavior on the
Committee changed significantly.”
• Staff disagree that there are any kinds of financial incentives to serve on the IPM
Advisory Committee, but will defer to the Board of Supervisors on whether to
impose such a moratorium.
• If the public has evidence of financial incentives for serving on the IPM
Committee, we request that they bring that evidence forward.
• Michael Baefsky was not a member of the IPM Advisory Committee when he was
asked to contract with General Services to advise the County on non-chemical
methods to manage weeds on the Camino Tassajara medians in 2009. His
contract ended in 2009. That year he attended meetings of the IPM Task Force,
an informal body with no official appointees. The IPM Advisory Committee was
not created until 2010, and he was appointed by the Board to an At-Large seat in
2010. He has held no contracts with the County since 2009.
• The IPM Committee bylaws state the following in sections III.B.2&3:
• “Contractors who provide pest management services to the County may
not serve on the Committee. The exception is A.1.d., above, the Current
Structural Pest Management Contractor with General Services
Department.
• “If a member’s work status or residence changes, he/she must notify the
Committee in writing, within thirty (30) days of their change in status. The
Chair will review the change of status and determine if the member is still
eligible for membership according to these by-laws. If they are found to be
ineligible, the member will be asked to resign his/her position.”
Monetary compensation or gifts from pesticide salespeople
12/5/13-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We are requesting that TWIC
require that all staff involved in
• County staff do not receive (and have not been offered) gifts or compensation in
any form from pesticide salespeople or any other salespeople. Accepting gifts or
compensation would be against County policy5 and would subject staff and their
departments to disciplinary action
5 California Government Code § 1090 prevents county employees and officials from being "financially interested" in any contract made by them in their
official capacity, or by anybody or board of which they are members.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 34 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
ordering pesticides from
salespersons fill out a form
disclosing any monetary
compensation or any other forms
of gifts from pesticide
salespersons”
•If the public has evidence of County staff taking bribes, we urge the public to
provide that evidence for investigation.
IPM Committee did not accept all of Parents for a Safer Environment’s priorities as their own
2/12/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
The IPM Committee is planning to
include only 70% of PfSE’s
priorities as the Committee’s
priorities for 2014
•The IPM Committee devoted more than an entire meeting to the discussion of its
work priorities for 2014. The public was fully involved in the discussion and PfSE
provided documents and testimony detailing their own priorities. The Committee
had a thorough discussion and then voted on which priorities to pursue.
IPM Coordinator references statements by members of Parents for a Safer Environment that were never made
3/2/15 From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“PfSE members also feel a lack of
goodwill and collaboration when
the IPM Coordinator references
statements by members that were
never made. For example, in the
Response Table, it states that a
PfSE member stated at the
February 12, 2015 [sic] TWIC
meeting that ‘The IPM Committee
is planning to include only 70% of
PfSE’s priorities as the
Committee’s priorities for 2014.’
We would be thrilled if this was the
case…”
•In her written public comments to TWIC on February 12, 2014, Susan JunFish
states: “We believe that the Committee is planning to address about 70% of the
priority issues the community has raised, so we are hopeful. The two areas where
there has been no plan to address are columns 4 and 5 of the table.”
The IPM Committee needs a non-voting facilitator
2/12/14-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment:
“an impartial, non-voting facilitator
would make the meetings run
smoother and become more
viable”
•Staff believe that meetings are run effectively and efficiently.
•The new IPM Committee chair has been very effective at running the 2014 and
2015 IPM Committee meetings and allowing the public ample opportunities to
provide comment.
California Government Code § 81000 et seq., known as the Political Reform Act, requires, among other things, that certain public employees perform their
duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interest. See Cal Gov Code § 81001(b). It also prevents certain employees from
using their positions to influence county decisions in which they have a financial interest. See Cal Gov Code 87100. The Act also requires certain employees
and officers to file a Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests (the CCC Agricultural Commissioner, the managers in Public Works and the IPM
Coordinator fill out this form) See Cal Gov Code 89503.
CCC Administrative Bulletin 117.6, paragraph 6, can be read to prevent employees from accepting any gift which "is intended, or could reasonably
considered as tending to influence business or applications pending before the Board of Supervisors."
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 35 of 199
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
IPM = IPM
Committee or
subcommittees
IO=Internal
Operations
Committee
Issues Raised by the
Public
Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff
from January 2009 to the present
Parents for a Safer Environment disagrees with responses to “unresolved” issues in the Triennial
Review Report
11/6/13-IPM
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment:
Disagreement with the response by
staff to “unresolved issues” in the
Triennial Review Report for the
IPM Advisory Committee
•The response in dispute refers to the question in Section VIII of the Triennial
Review report to the Board of Supervisors from the IPM Committee: “The
purpose of this section is to briefly describe any potential issues raised by
advisory body members, stakeholders, or the general public that the advisory
body has been unable to resolve.”
•The response given to this question in the report accurately reflects the response
intended by the IPM Committee as agreed at their November 6, 2013 meeting.
•The Triennial Review Report has been accepted by TWIC and the BOS, and the
IPM Committee cannot go back and change the report.
•The issue in question for the IPM Committee was whether to describe in Section
VIII only issues that the Committee had been unable to resolve, or to also include
a discussion of issues that PfSE felt were still unresolved. The Committee
debated this and decided to also include a discussion of issues that PfSE felt
were unresolved. However, it was completely clear from the discussion at the
meeting that the Committee agreed that the issues described in this section (with
the exception of the two that were noted as ongoing) had previously been given
due consideration by the Committee, and that the Committee had addressed the
issues. The Committee directed the IPM Coordinator to meet with the Committee
Secretary to compile Committee and staff responses to the “unresolved” PfSE
issues to include in the report and then to submit the report.
•Note that in the IPM Committee’s extensive planning sessions for 2014 work, the
Committee did not identify any of the “unresolved” issues as priorities for 2014.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 36 of 199
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:07/14/2016
Subject:Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP)
2015/2016-2021-2022
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: Nancy Wein, Department of Public
Works
Contact: Nancy Wein
(925)313-2275
Referral History:
The CRIPP is a programming document for the funding of capital road improvement and
preservation projects within Contra Costa County. It includes estimated project costs, funding
source information, and scheduling information for known potential projects within the next
seven fiscal years. It also includes revenue projections and a summary of estimated project-related
expenditures for each funding source.
The CRIPP was established by Resolution 89/306 under the County Road Improvement Policy
(Policy). The Policy was authorized by Government Code Section 66002 and is required under the
Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa Transportation and Growth Management
Program Ordinance approved by the voters in November 1988 (Measure C-88) and reaffirmed in
2004 with passage of Measure J. Measure J requires that each participating local agency develop
a five-year CRIPP. In 1991, the CRIPP was expanded to cover seven years to conform to the
Congestion Management Plan, and in 1992 the CRIPP update was changed to a biennial
schedule.
Approval of the CRIPP by the Board of Supervisors does not automatically approve each
individual project listed in the CRIPP. Each project in the CRIPP is subject to a separate public
review, engineering feasibility analysis, and environmental assessment before the Board of
Supervisors will consider final approval of the project. As this is a planning level document,
adoption of the CRIPP will not preclude development and construction of projects that have not
been identified.
As more information is gathered about a project, the Public Works Department may determine
that the project will cost more than originally estimated for reasons not known at this time. In
such a case, the Public Works Department will study various alternatives to find a solution to the
funding shortfall.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 37 of 199
The Public Works Department will adjust subsequent CRIPPs to reflect any changes in project
scope or cost.
Adopting a CRIPP to guide our capital improvements will do several things for the County:
• Increase public awareness of how and where funds will be spent on our road system.
• Enhance public trust and increase funding transparency by demonstrating that funds are
programmed and expended in accordance with an approved program.
• Encourage more public involvement in the programming and expenditure of our capital funds.
• Provide accurate “accountability” of whether our transportation system will meet an
acceptable level of service to satisfy our growth management policies.
• Provide a basis for projecting staffing needs over the next seven years.
• Provide a budget tool to track expenditures of each type of funding utilized for capital
improvements.
Referral Update:
On April 14, 2016, the TWIC accepted a report on the impacts to County transportation projects
from the declining State Gas Tax. The current draft of the CRIPP reflects the project delay
strategy presented at the April 14 th TWIC meeting. If the State Legislature fails to take effective
action, the County will likely need to indefinitely delay several projects and lose the already
secured grant funds associated with those projects. In addition, road deferred maintenance will
continue to increase and our aging transportation infrastructure will cost more to fix in the future.
The Public Works Department has prepared the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation
Program (CRIPP) update intended to program capital road improvement projects in
unincorporated Contra Costa County for fiscal years 2015/2016 to 2021/2022.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP) for fiscal years
2015/2016 to 2021/2022 and RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors fix a public hearing for
approval of the CRIPP.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
100% Various Funds. Approval and adoption of the CRIPP will provide a programming
document that programs funds for capital road improvement and preservation projects within the
County. Preparation of the CRIPP is a requirement of the Growth Management Program and
Measure J Funding.
Attachments
2016-07-14 CRIPP - TWIC version v2 reduced
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 38 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 39 of 199
SUMMARY
On May 19, 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Capital Road Improvement Policy to
guide the development and continuation of the Capital Road Improvement & Preservation
Program (CRIPP). On April 17, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved the first CRIPP. This
CRIPP is updated every other year during the odd years (i.e. 2015, 2017, 2019). The 2015/2016
CRIPP summarizes the County’s road improvement projects for the next seven years (Fiscal
Years 2015/16 through 2021/22). The CRIPP conforms to the Congestion Management Plan,
which is also a seven-year planning document.
It should be noted that the CRIPP is a programming document that, once approved, will provide
a strategic plan and a schedule for the Public Works Director to program the engineering work
on these projects. Approval of the CRIPP by the Board does not automatically approve each
individual project listed in the CRIPP. Each project in the CRIPP must undergo its own individual
engineering feasibility analysis and environmental assessment. Some projects may have
unexpected cost increases and/or project scope changes after thorough environmental studies.
The CRIPP, therefore, is expected to change as we learn more about each project.
State Gas Tax is the largest source of revenue for the County’s capital road program. It is also a
primary funding source used by the County to leverage grant funds. The County has seen a
significant reduction in the amount of State Gas Tax it receives to operate and maintain our local
unincorporated road network. This impact is reflected in the 2015 CRIPP. To address the Gas
Tax revenue reduction, the County is deploying 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 take effective
action 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. These changes
will need to be reflected in future CRIPP updates.
The CRIPP is organized in two components. Section I shows capital outlays and revenues for
each of the County's primary road-related revenue sources over the next seven years. Section II
contains the project descriptions for each individual project identified in Section I. The tables
showing the anticipated capital outlays for each individual project are included with the individual
project descriptions, giving the user of the CRIPP a complete picture of each project all in one
place in the document.
Section I shows the anticipated revenue and fund expenditures for all road-related funding
sources for the next seven years. There is a table for each funding source, showing the
estimated expenditures broken down by project, the year when the expenditure is expected to
occur, and the projected yearly revenue for the fund. Projects with multiple funding sources are
listed under more than one funding source.
Section II provides detailed information on each of the projects that are programmed to receive
funding in the next seven years. The information provided for each project includes a project
name, project location, purpose and need, a brief project description, source of funding, the
Supervisor District, and the anticipated expenditure plan. Projects awaiting fund allocation
(underfunded) are listed in Section III. Projects are organized alphabetically.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 40 of 199
The table of contents lists all funding sources and projects in the order they appear in the CRIPP.
A second list cross-references the projects by County Supervisorial District to enable the user to
find a project geographically in the context of its Supervisorial District.
The appendix includes Board policies and the Area of Benefit project lists.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 41 of 199
Table of Contents 1
CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Table of Contents
CRIPP Introduction & Background PAGE #
Introduction and Background 1
Figure 1: Projected 7 Year Revenue for the Road Program 6
Table A: Summary of Projected Annual Revenue 8
Table B: Summary of Projected Annual Project Expenditures 10
Table C: Acronyms for Grant Programs and other Funding Sources used
in the CRIPP 11
Disclaimer of Liability and Warranties 13
Section I: Funding Sources PAGE #
Taxes, Bond Measures, Grants & Other Local Funds
Gas Tax Funds I-1
Figure 2: Projected Gas Tax For Capital Improvement Program in 2015 CRIPP I-2
State Match Funds I-3
Measure J: Return to Source Funds I-4
Measure J: Regional Funds I-4
Federal, State and Regional Grant Funds I-5
Other Local Funds I-6
Areas of Benefit
Alamo Area of Benefit I-7
Bay Point Area of Benefit I-7
Bethel Island Area of Benefit I-8
Briones Area of Benefit I-8
Central County Area of Benefit I-9
Discovery Bay Area of Benefit I-9
East County (Regional) Area of Benefit I-10
Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit I-10
Martinez Area of Benefit I-11
North Richmond Area of Benefit I-11
Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit I-12
Richmond/El Sobrante Area of Benefit I-12
South County Area of Benefit I-13
South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit I-13
West County Area of Benefit I-14
County Trust Funds
Discovery Bay West Mitigation Funds I-14
Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Funds I-15
Navy Mitigation Funds I-15
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 42 of 199
Table of Contents 2
Section II: Active Projects PAGE #
Projects
Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - east of Bear Creek Road
Intersection II-1
Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - Rancho La Boca Road to
Ferndale Road II-2
Bailey Road Overlay Project - SR4 to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance II-3
Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement
Project II-4
Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Sellers Avenue to Bixler Road II-5
Bay Point Curb Ramp Project II-6
Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project II-7
Bay Point Utility Undergrounding Project II-8
Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements II-9
Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct (Bridge No.
28C0121)II-10
Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements II-11
Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project - Finley Road to
Windemere Parkway II-12
Camino Tassajara Shoulder Widening - 1.1 mile South of Highland Road
to 0.3 mile North of Windemere II-13
Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements II-14
Canal Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0376)II-15
Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0403)II-16
Giaramita Street Sidewalk Replacement II-17
Jersey Island Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0405)II-18
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes II-19
Main Street, Byron Sidewalk Improvements II-20
Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0141)II-21
Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0143 & 28C0145)II-22
Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer
Valley Road II-23
Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements II-24
Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0442)II-25
May Road Sidewalk Extension Project II-26
Miranda Avenue Sidewalk Improvements II-27
Morgan Territory Bridge Scour Repairs II-28
Orwood Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge No. 28C0024)II-29
Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - Windhover Way to Goree
Court II-30
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 43 of 199
Table of Contents 3
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31
Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements II-32
Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian
Improvements II-33
Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project II-34
Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Project II-35
San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Project II-36
San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project II-37
Stormwater Treatment Demonstration Project II-38
Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project II-39
County-Wide Projects
County-Wide Curb Ramp Projects II-40
County-Wide Operation & Safety Improvements II-41
County-Wide Overlay Project II-42
County-Wide Surface Treatments II-43
County-Wide Traffic Calming II-44
Section III: Underfunded Projects III-1
Appendices PAGE #
Appendix A: County Road Improvement Policy A-1
Appendix B: Guidelines For Expenditure of Gas Tax Revenue B-1
Appendix C: Board Order Approving the 2015 CRIPP and TWIC Report C-1
Appendix D: Area of Benefit Maps and Project Lists D-1
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 44 of 199
Table of Contents 4
CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Projects by County Supervisorial District
DISTRICT 1
Active Projects PAGE #
Giaramita Street Sidewalk Replacement II-17
May Road Sidewalk Extension Project II-26
San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Project II-36
San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project II-37
Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project II-39
Underfunded Projects III-1
Alhambra Valley Road Slide Repair – 0.7 miles west of Castro Ranch Road
Alhambra Valley Road Slide Repair – 0.4 miles west of Bear Creek Road
Appian Way & Pebble Drive Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements
Appian Way Complete Streets Project - San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Road
Appian Way Complete Streets Project - Valley View Road to Pinole City Limits
Arlington Boulevard & Amherst Avenue & Sunset Drive Intersection Improvements
Bear Creek Road & Happy Valley Road Intersection Improvements
Brookside Drive Widening – Fred Jackson Way to Union Pacific Railroad
Castro Ranch Road Widening - San Pablo Dam Road to Olinda Road
Colusa Avenue Complete Streets Project
Del Monte Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0207)
El Portal Drive Widening - San Pablo City Limits to San Pablo Dam Road
Fred Jackson Way Improvements - Grove Avenue to Brookside Drive
Fred Jackson Way/Goodrick Avenue Realignment
La Paloma Road Pedestrian and Roadway Improvements
North Richmond Sidewalk Replacement
North Richmond Truck Route - Parr Boulevard to Market Avenue
Olinda Road Pedestrian Improvements - Valley View Road to 850 ft south of Valley
View Road
Parr Boulevard Widening – Richmond Pkwy to Union Pacific Railroad
Pitt Way Roadway Improvements
Pittsburg Ave Widening - Fred Jackson Way to Richmond Parkway
San Pablo Dam Road Improvements (Various Locations)
San Pablo Dam Rd & Greenridge Drive Signal Improvements
San Pablo Dam Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Tri Lane to Appian
Way
Seventh Street Extension to Brookside Drive
Tara Hills Drive Complete Streets Project
Valley View Road Widening - San Pablo Dam Road to Appian Way
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 45 of 199
II-17
II-39
II-39
II-36
II-26
2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map
Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II.
2) County-wide Projects are not shown on this map.
3)District I contains 121.96 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway.
Projects are identified with the
page number in Section II. 07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 46 of 199
Table of Contents 6
CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Projects by County Supervisorial District
DISTRICT 2
Active Projects PAGE #
Miranda Avenue Sidewalk Improvements II-27
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31
Underfunded Projects III-1
Bear Creek Road & Happy Valley Road Intersection Improvements
Boulevard Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Project
Bridgefield Road at Olympic Boulevard Intersection Improvement
Danville Blvd & Hemme Avenue Intersection Improvements
Dewing Lane Pedestrian Bridge
Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements
Fish Ranch Road Safety Improvements - SR 24 to Grizzly Peak Road
Iron Horse Trail Flashers
Miranda Ave Improvements - Stone Valley Road to Stone Valley Middle School
Newell Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation
Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvements - Ashbourne Drive to Alameda County
Limits
Olympic Boulevard & Boulevard Way & Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection
ImprovementsOlympic Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Short Term
Olympic Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Long Term
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements on Livorna Road, Stone Valley Road, and
Danville Boulevard
Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Schools in Alamo
Pinehurst Road Bicycle Improvements
Pleasant Hill Road Bicycle Improvements - Geary Road to Taylor Boulevard
Reliez Valley Road Bicycle Improvements - North of Grayson Road to Withers
AvenueSpringbrook Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Stone Valley Road Improvements - High Eagle Road to Roundhill Road
Stone Valley Road Improvements - Roundhill Road to Glenwood Court
Stone Valley Road Improvements - Stone Valley Way to High Eagle Road
Tice Valley Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 47 of 199
2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map
II-27
Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II.
2) II-31 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is not shown for District II
3) County-wide Projects are not shown on this map.
4)District II contains 100.64 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. 07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 48 of 199
Table of Contents 8
CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Projects by County Supervisorial District
DISTRICT 3
Active Projects PAGE #
Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Sellers Avenue to Bixler Road II-5
Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements II-9
Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct (Bridge No. 28C0121) II-10
Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements II-11
Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project - Finley Road to Windemere
Parkway II-12
Camino Tassajara Shoulder Widening - 1.1 mile South of Highland Road to 0.3 mile
North of Windemere II-13
Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0403)II-16
Jersey Island Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0405)II-18
Main Street, Byron Sidewalk Improvements II-20
Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0141)II-21
Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0143 & 28C0145)II-22
Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer Valley
Road II-23
Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements II-24
Morgan Territory Bridge Scour Repairs II-28
Orwood Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge No. 28C0024)II-29
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31
Underfunded Projects III-1
Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Deer Valley Road to Brentwood City Limits
Balfour Road & Byron Highway Intersection Improvements
Bethel Island Road Widening - Wells Lane to Sandmound Boulevard
Bethel Island Road & Sandmound Road Intersection Improvements
Bixler Road Improvements - SR 4 to Byer Road
Blackhawk Road Bikeway Project
Byer Road Improvements - Bixler Road to Byron Highway
Byron Highway & Byer Road Intersection Improvements
Byron Highway Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
Byron Highway Two-Way Left Turn Lane at Byron Elementary School
Byron Highway Widening - Camino Diablo to the Alameda County Line
Byron Highway Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street
Byron Highway Widening - Chestnut Street to SR 4
Byron Highway Widening - SR 4 to Camino Diablo
Camino Diablo Widening - Vasco Road to Byron Highway
Camino Tassajara Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 49 of 199
Table of Contents 9
Underfunded Projects (cont.)
Camino Tassajara Widening - Windemere Parkway to Alameda County Line
Chestnut Street Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway
Clipper Drive Improvements - Newport Drive to Discovery Bay Boulevard
Deer Valley Road Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
Delta Road Widening - Byron Highway to Holland Tract Road
Delta Road Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway
Discovery Bay Boulevard & Clipper Drive Intersection Improvements
Gateway Road Widening - Bethel Island Road to Piper Road
Highland Road Improvements - Camino Tassajara to Alameda County Line
Knightsen Avenue & Delta Road Intersection Improvements
Knightsen Avenue Widening - East Cypress Road to Delta Road
Knightsen Avenue/Eden Plains Road Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street
Marsh Creek Road & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements
Marsh Creek Road & Deer Valley Road Intersection Improvements
Marsh Creek Road Realignment & Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
Marsh Creek Trail
Morgan Territory Road Safety Improvements
Piper Road Widening - Gateway Road to Willow Road
Point of Timber Road & Byron Highway Intersection Improvements
Sandmound Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements - Mariner Rd to Cypress Road
Sandmound Boulevard Widening - Oakley City Limits to Mariner Road
Sellers Ave & Balfour Road Intersection Improvements
Sellers Avenue & Sunset Road Intersection Improvements
Sellers Avenue & Chestnut Avenue Intersection Improvements
Sellers Avenue & Marsh Creek Road Intersection Improvements
Sellers Avenue Widening - Brentwood City Limits to Marsh Creek Road
Sellers Avenue Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street
SR 4 & Byron Highway South Intersection Widening (Phase 2)
SR 4 & Newport Drive Signal
SR 4 Widening - Bixler Road to Discovery Bay Boulevard
SR239/Trilink: Byron Airport Connector
Sunset Road Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway
Vasco Road Safety Improvements (Phase 2)
Walnut Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Marsh Creek Road to Vasco Road
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 50 of 199
2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map
II-18
II-29
II-5
II-9
II-11
II-16
II-20
II-10 II-22 II-23,24
II-21
II-28
II-12
II-13
Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II.
2) II-31 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is not shown for District III
3)County-wide Projects are not shown on this map.
4)District III contains 220.57 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. 07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 51 of 199
Table of Contents 11
CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Projects by County Supervisorial District
DISTRICT 4
Active Projects PAGE #
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes II-19
Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements II-24
Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0442)II-25
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31
Underfunded Projects III-1
Ayers Road & Concord Boulevard Intersection Improvements
Ayers Road & Laurel Avenue Intersection Improvements
Ayers Road & Myrtle Drive Intersection Improvements
Bailey Road & Myrtle Drive Intersection Improvements
Bailey Road Improvements - Myrtle Drive to Concord City Limits
Buskirk Avenue Improvements - Treat Blvd to Pleasant Hill City Limits
Concord Avenue Bicycle Improvements - I-680 off-ramp to Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail Flashers
Las Juntas Way & Coggins Drive Intersection Improvements
Marsh Creek Road Realignment & Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
Marsh Creek Trail
Marsh Drive Improvements - Center Avenue to Iron Horse Trail
Mayhew Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - 200' west of Oberan Dr to
Bancroft Road
Mountain View Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - San Miguel Drive to Walnut
Boulevard
North Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill Area Pavement Rehabilitation
Oak Road Improvements - Treat Blvd to Pleasant Hill City Limits
Pleasant Hill BART Station Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
Reliez Valley Road Bicycle Improvements - North of Grayson Road to Withers
Avenue
Rudgear Road & San Miguel Drive Intersection Improvements
Rudgear Road/San Miguel/Walnut Boulevard/Mountain View Boulevard Safety
Improvements
San Miguel Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Treat Boulevard & Buskirk Avenue Intersection Improvements
Treat Boulevard & Jones Road Intersection Improvements
Treat Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Jones Road to Walnut Creek City Limits
Treat Boulevard (I-680 Overcrossing) Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 52 of 199
Table of Contents 12
Underfunded Projects (cont.)
Walnut Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements - View Lane to 250' west of Walnut
Court
Wayfinding Signage Placement for Walnut Creek and Iron Horse Trail
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 53 of 199
2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map
II-19
II-25
II-24
Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II.
2) II-31 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is not shown for District IV
3)County-wide Projects are not shown on this map.
4)District IV contains 40.83 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. 07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 54 of 199
Table of Contents 14
CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Projects by County Supervisorial District
DISTRICT 5
Active Projects PAGE #
Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - east of Bear Creek Road Intersection II-1
Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale
Road II-2
Bailey Road Overlay Project - SR4 to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance II-3
Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project II-4
Bay Point Curb Ramp Project II-6
Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project II-7
Bay Point Utility Undergrounding Project II-8
Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements II-14
Canal Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0376)II-15
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes II-19
Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - Windhover Way to Goree Court II-30
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31
Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements II-32
Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvements II-33
Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project II-34
Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Project II-35
Stormwater Treatment Demonstration Project II-38
Underfunded Projects III-1
Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
Alves Lane Extension - Willow Pass Road to Pacifica Avenue
Bailey Road Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements - Canal Road to Willow Pass Road
Bella Vista Infrastructure Improvements
Center Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Pacheco Boulevard to
Marsh Drive
Crockett Area Overlays & Reconstruction Project
Cummings Skyway Truck Lane Extension
Delta De Anza Trail Gap Closure (Various Locations)
Delta De Anza Trail Crossing Project
Driftwood Drive Improvements - Port Chicago Highway to Pacifica Avenue
Evora Road & Willow Pass Road Intersection Improvements
Kirker Pass Road Southbound Truck Lanes
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Runaway Truck Ramp
Local Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Upgrade at Benicia Bridge
Loftus Road Pedestrian Improvements - Canal Road to Willow Pass Road
Marsh Drive Improvements - Center Avenue to Iron Horse Trail
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 55 of 199
Table of Contents 15
Underfunded Projects (cont.)
McNabney Marsh Open Space Connection to Waterfront Road
Pacheco Boulevard & Center Avenue Intersection Improvements
Pacheco Boulevard & Muir Road Intersection Improvements
Pacheco Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Arnold Drive to Muir Road
Pacheco Boulevard Improvements - Morello Avenue to Blum Road
Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - east of Las Juntas Elementary School
Pacifica Avenue Extension - Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane
Pacifica Avenue Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0379)
Parker Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project
Pedestrian Improvements near Rodeo Hills Elementary School
Pleasant Hill Road & Taylor Boulevard Intersection Improvements
Pomona Street/Winslow Avenue/Carquinez Scenic Drive Safety Alignment Study
Port Chicago Highway Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Driftwood Drive to
McAvoy Road
Port Chicago Hwy Realignment Project - McAvoy Road to Skipper Road
Reliez Valley Road Bicycle Improvements - North of Grayson Road to Withers
Avenue
San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project - Rodeo to Crockett
Waterfront Road Grade Change Project
Willow Pass Road & Bailey Road Intersection Improvements
Willow Pass Road (West) & SR 4 Interchange Improvements
Willow Pass Road Improvements - Bailey Road to Pittsburg City Limits
Willow Pass Road Improvements - Evora Road to SR 4
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 56 of 199
2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map
II-1
II-2
II-35
II-32 II-4
II-14
II-3
II-8
II-15
II-7, 33
II-6, 34 II-38 II-30
II-19
Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II.
2) II-31 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is not shown for District V
3)County-wide Projects are not shown on this map.
4)District V contains 182.16 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. 07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 57 of 199
Table of Contents 17
CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Projects by County Supervisorial District
County-Wide
Active Projects PAGE #
County-Wide Curb Ramp Projects II-40
County-Wide Operation & Safety Improvements II-41
County-Wide Overlay Project II-42
County-Wide Surface Treatments II-43
County-Wide Traffic Calming II-44
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 58 of 199
Introduction & Background
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 59 of 199
Introduction 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program (CRIPP) is a programming
document for the funding of capital road improvement projects within Contra Costa County. It
includes estimated project costs, funding source information, and scheduling information for
known potential projects within the next seven fiscal years. It also includes revenue projections
and a summary of estimated project-related expenditures for each funding source.
Approval of the CRIPP by the Board of Supervisors does not automatically approve each
individual project listed in the CRIPP. Each project in the CRIPP is subject to a separate public
review, engineering feasibility analysis, and environmental assessment before the Board of
Supervisors will consider final approval of the project.
As more information is gathered about a project, the Public Works Department may
determine that the project will cost more than originally estimated for reasons not known at this
time. In such a case the Public Works Department will study various alternatives to find a
solution to the funding shortfall. The Public Works Department will adjust subsequent CRIPPs
to reflect any changes in project scope or cost.
The project costs in the CRIPP are for the current year. The CRIPP does not escalate
the project costs for future inflation. A large portion of the funding programmed in the CRIPP is
from fees associated with the Area of Benefit (AOB) programs, which are adjusted yearly to
provide for inflation. Since the ongoing Area of Benefit program inflates the majority of the
revenue in the CRIPP, and since the CRIPP is updated every two years, the added complication
and expense of inflating revenue and construction costs in the CRIPP is not justified. Anyone
using this document, as a planning device, should adjust the project costs as appropriate.
HISTORY OF THE CRIPP
The CRIPP was established by Resolution 89/306 under the County Road Improvement
Policy (attached as Appendix A). The Policy was authorized by Government Code Section
66002 and is required under the Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa
Transportation and Growth Management Program Ordinance approved by the voters in
November 1988 (Measure C-88). Measure C-88 required that each participating local agency
develop a five-year CRIPP to meet and/or maintain traffic service and performance standards.
In 1991, the CRIPP was expanded to cover seven years to conform to the Congestion
Management Plan, and in 1992 the CRIPP update was changed to a biennial schedule.
THE 2015 CRIPP
Pursuant to the County Road Improvement Policy, this 2015 CRIPP schedules road
improvement projects for fiscal years 2015/2016 through 2021/2022 and balances the estimated
project costs with the projected revenues.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 60 of 199
Introduction 2
A. REVENUE SOURCES
Principal revenue sources for road improvements include local Area of Benefit (AOB)
fees (charged to new development), federal and state grants, Measure J funds, State Match
funds, Gas Tax Funds, developer contributions, and funds from other agencies in cooperative
projects. The amount of AOB funds available to the County at any given time is directly related
to development. Measure J, State Match, and Gas Tax funds are largely dependent on the state
of the economy, and grant sources are directly affected by federal and state budgets.
Many projects are funded by a combination of AOB funds and other funding sources.
Shortfalls in AOB revenues can affect scheduling of projects that include federal and state
grants. Therefore, when the Public Works Department receives substantial federal and state
funding for a particular AOB project, that project is given high priority to prevent the loss of the
secured funding.
The primary funding sources are as follows:
1.Gas Tax Funds: Gas Tax Funds, also known as the Highway Users Tax Account, are
revenues paid by the State to cities and counties from the per-gallon motor vehicle fuel
tax. Appendix B of this CRIPP shows the County-adopted guidelines for the expenditure
of Gas Tax revenues following passage of Proposition 111 in 1990. The County uses the
majority of the Gas Tax funds to enhance road operation and maintenance. To the
extent that sufficient funds are available, the funds are used in the Capital Improvement
Program to improve traffic safety throughout the County by using them as the required
match to leverage funds from other sources. This allows the County to take full
advantage of federal and state grant opportunities.
Gas Tax Funds are made up of two parts: the Gas Excise Tax and the Price-Based Excise
Tax. The Gas Excise Tax portion is based on the amount (gallon) of gas purchased and
the Price-Based Excise Tax is dependent on the price of gas. Although the County has
seen a slight increase in the Gas Excise Tax over the past several years, this increase is
far short of the drastic reduction the County has seen in the Price-Based Excise Tax
portion of the Gas Tax. This trend affects the projected revenue as shown in Table A.
2.State Match Funds: State Match Funds are revenues paid by the State to counties
from the State Highway Account. The funds are to be used for transportation purposes
to match federally funded transportation projects. Funds received are treated as grants
with up-front lump sum payments and the unobligated balance of the County’s State
Matching monies is paid directly to the County, subject to availability from the State.
The County uses the State Match Funds to supplement federally funded projects.
3.Measure J (Measure C): The voters approved the Contra Costa Transportation
Improvement and Growth Management Program Ordinance (Measure C) in November
1988. Measure C provides for a ½-cent sales tax for transportation projects within
Contra Costa County. Measure C had a twenty-year life and expired in 2009. In
November 2004, voters approved the continuation of the County’s ½ - cent sales tax by
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 61 of 199
Introduction 3
passing Measure J and extended the transportation funding for 25 more years. The
Measure J funds are composed of Return to Source Funds, Regional Funds, and other
grants, such as Transportation for Livable Communities.
Return to Source Funds: A portion of the revenue is returned to local
jurisdictions to be used for maintenance of existing roadways and construction of
new facilities to fix capacity and safety problems in existence before 1988 (those
problems that came into existence after 1988 are presumed to be the
responsibility of new development). The proposed use for these funds is
outlined in this CRIPP.
Regional Funds: A portion of the revenue is designated for projects of a
regional significance. For the portion of these funds that the County has access
to, the proposed use is outlined in this CRIPP.
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC): A portion of the revenue is
designated for projects/programs for plans and facilities that support walkable,
mixed-use, transit-supportive communities or that encourage more walking,
bicycling and transit use. These funds are distributed through a grant program
administered by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
4.Area of Benefit Revenues: The unincorporated County is divided into Areas of
Benefit. Appendix D has a page for each AOB containing the current Ordinance
Number, the project list, and a map.
Within each AOB, road improvement projects to alleviate known traffic congestion or
traffic safety problems have been identified and prioritized. An AOB fee is charged to all
developments that create additional traffic in the area, to pay for these projects. The
fee amount varies depending on which AOB the property is located in, the amount of
traffic generated by the development, and the cost of the projects identified on that
AOB’s Project List.
A seven-year revenue estimate was made for each of the AOBs using the past five-year
revenue history, development potential and consulting with the Engineering Services
and the Finance Divisions of the Public Works Department.
The AOB program is constantly being updated. The updates include, revising the AOB
project lists, revising the fee schedules, adjusting the fee schedule for inflation, and
adjusting the remaining development potential. The updates may have a significant
impact on potential project funding. In addition, several AOBs are being merged or
incorporated into an adjacent AOB to become more fiscally efficient. Current AOB fees
can be accessed on the County web site at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
5.Trust Funds: When a large development makes a significant impact on the roadway
system, the developer may be required to contribute to a road improvement fund to
mitigate the impacts of the development. For the 2015 CRIPP, the County has three
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 62 of 199
Introduction 4
funds that are held in trust funds to be used for specific projects. Navy Mitigation
Funds in the Bay Point Area provided $5 million to help fund new transportation
improvements and waterfront access to offset the loss of Port Chicago Highway through
the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Other developer fees include the Discovery Bay
West Traffic Mitigation Funds, and the Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds. Each of these
funds is held in trust by the County and is listed as separate funding sources in this
CRIPP.
6.Grants: The Public Works Department continuously submits grant applications due at
various times of the year for projects throughout the County. Each type of grant has
unique project criteria. Some of these grants and their criteria are listed in Table C at
the end of this section. Most applications compete statewide for funding, from the
smallest safety project to the largest road extension project. In many cases where Gas
Tax funds are used, the Public Works Department looks for grants or other ways to
stretch its budget and to increase the number of improvement and maintenance
projects.
7.Other Local Funds: The County participates in several Regional Fee programs
throughout the County where the fee program is adopted by several participating
jurisdictions and is administered jointly through a separate authority. As these Regional
Fee programs are not under the authority of the County, the revenue and expenditures
for these programs are not included in the CRIPP. The Regional Fee programs include
the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA), the Southern
Contra Costa (SCC) Fees, West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Fee
(WCCTAC), and the Tri Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee.
B. PROJECTED ANNUAL REVENUE
Table A represents staff’s future revenue estimate, based on historical trends and
current development applications for the road program. Part I of the table (on the first page)
shows the projected revenue from all funding sources, Part II (on the second page) shows the
projected revenues from the Area of Benefit programs, and Part III (on the second page) shows
the project revenue from the County Trust Funds
Section 1 of Part I of Table A represents the total funding from various revenue sources
available to the road program from Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and non-CIP sources.
Section 2 represents that portion of the programs funded by Gas Tax and Measure J, since not
all the revenue from these sources is available for CIP projects in the CRIPP. Section 3
represents the actual available funding for CIP projects in the CRIPP by subtracting the funding
for the programs in Section 2 from the total available funding in Section 1.
Part II of Table A represents the funding sources from the Area of Benefit (AOB)
program. The rate at which AOB revenue is generated is tied to the land development rate. As
a result of the weakened economy, revenue collected from fees has decreased substantially
from 2005 through 2013. Future AOB revenue is expected to generate at a slower rate based
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 63 of 199
Introduction 5
upon assumptions of a gradual rebound in the economy as well as slowed growth in areas that
are reaching “build-out” conditions. Continued efforts to secure grants and maintain
cooperative relationships with other public agencies will allow the County to make the best use
of its financial resources for capital improvement projects.
Part III of Table A represents the funding sources from the County Trust Funds. Funds
held in County Trust Funds are only shown in the CRIPP if they are proposed to be used on
specific projects within the CRIPP time period.
C. ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
Table B, Summary of Projected Annual Project Expenditures, is a summary of the
expenditures expected from each of the identified funding sources. This table is based on the
costs of the planned projects within each funding source, and the expected revenue for that
funding source. If the revenues in Table A fall short of expectations, the expenditures in Table
B will have to be adjusted accordingly.
D. DIFFERENCES IN PROGRAMMING OF EARLIER YEARS VERSUS LATER YEARS
The years at the beginning of the period covered by this program have more projects
programmed in them than the later years. This is because immediate and near future
transportation needs are more easily determined than needs farther in the future. The later
years within this program have fewer projects programmed because their transportation needs
are not foreseen at this time. Additional funding may need to be sought in the later years to
offset transportation needs. For example, funds needed for maintenance activities continue to
increase as more infrastructure is built and construction costs rise. In addition, projects may
have unexpected cost increases and/or project scope changes, therefore, the CRIPP is expected
to change as we learn more about each project. As transportation issues arise, projects will be
programmed in response to these issues and supplemental funding will be sought to balance
the available funding for years. This will be reflected in future CRIPP updates.
E. CRIPP OUTLOOK
On April 14, 2016, the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee of the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors accepted a report on the impacts to County transportation projects
from the declining State Gas Tax (See Appendix C). The County is experiencing a significant
reduction in the State Gas Tax funding which is used to operate and maintain our local
unincorporated road network. To address the Gas Tax revenue reduction, the County is
deploying 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 take effective action 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. These changes will need to be reflected in future CRIPP
updates.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 64 of 199
Introduction 6
Figure 1: This pie chart shows that 60.8% of the total projected revenue over the next seven
year period is Gas Tax Funds. A decline in Gas Tax Funds will reduce the County’s ability to
leverage grant opportunities and ultimately construct capital improvement projects.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 65 of 199
Introduction 7
(This page was intentionally left blank)
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 66 of 199
No.Program Element
End of
FY 14/15
Balance
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected 7
Year (see
Fig 1)
Estimated
Available
Funds
60400 Gas Tax Funds (See Section 2)$ 12,929 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 21,000 $ 21,000 $ 21,000 $ 141,000 $ 153,929
State Match Funds (See Section 2)$ 1,750 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 700 $ 2,450
55750 Measure J Return to Source (See Section 2) $ 0 $ 1,900 $ 1,900 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 10,800 $ 10,800
Areas of Benefit (See Part II)$ 19,693 $ 821 $ 772 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 5,703 $ 25,396
County Trust Funds (See Part III)$ 15,841 $ 44 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 326 $ 16,167
Federal, State, & Regional Grant Funds $ 0 $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 $ 63,129 $ 63,129
Measure J Regional $ 0 $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6,271 $ 6,271
Other Local Funds $ 0 $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,084 $ 4,084
Subtotal $ 50,212 $ 35,292 $ 35,883 $ 31,747 $ 41,797 $ 34,857 $ 26,219 $ 26,219 $ 232,014 $ 282,227
$ per year Gas Tax Measure J $ per year Gas Tax Measure J $ per year Gas Tax Measure J
60500 Traffic Program $ 550 $ 115 $ 115 $ 0 $ 665 $ 665 $ 0 $ 665 $ 665 $ 0
60600 Road Engineering $ 650 $ 685 $ 685 $ 0 $ 1,335 $ 1,335 $ 0 $ 1,335 $ 1,335 $ 0
60700 Advance Engineering $ 750 $ 690 $ 590 $ 100 $ 1,340 $ 1,340 $ 0 $ 1,340 $ 1,340 $ 0
60800 Road Information and Services $ 0 $ 1,920 $ 1,920 $ 0 $ 1,730 $ 1,730 $ 0 $ 1,365 $ 1,365 $ 0
60100 General Road Maintenance $ 4,825 $ 5,663 $ 5,663 $ 0 $ 8,501 $ 7,511 $ 990 $ 9,888 $ 9,888 $ 0
60200 Pavement Maintenance $ 0 $ 3,790 $ 3,790 $ 0 $ 3,889 $ 3,519 $ 370 $ 4,360 $ 4,360 $ 0
Subtotal $ 6,775 $ 12,863 $ 12,763 $ 100 $ 17,460 $ 16,100 $ 1,360 $ 18,953 $ 18,953 $ 0
No.Program Element
End of
FY 14/15
Balance
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected
7 Year
Estimated
Available
Funds
60400 Gas Tax Funds (See Section 2)$ 6,154 $ 6,238 $ 2,900 $ 1,048 $ 1,048 $ 2,048 $ 2,048 $ 2,048 $ 17,375 $ 23,529
State Match Funds (See Section 2)$ 1,750 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 700 $ 2,450
55750 Measure J Return to Source (See Section 2) $ 0 $ 1,900 $ 540 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 9,440 $ 9,440
Areas of Benefit (See Part II)$ 19,693 $ 821 $ 772 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 5,703 $ 25,396
County Trust Funds (See Part III)$ 15,841 $ 44 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 326 $ 16,167
Federal, State, & Regional Grant Funds $ 0 $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 $ 63,129 $ 63,129
Measure J Regional $ 0 $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6,271 $ 6,271
Other Local Funds $ 0 $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,084 $ 4,084
Subtotal $ 43,437 $ 22,530 $ 18,423 $ 12,794 $ 22,845 $ 15,905 $ 7,267 $ 7,267 $ 107,029 $ 150,467Section 1Total Projected Revenue for the Road Program (Capital Improvement Program & Non-Capital Improvement Program)
Table A: Summary of Projected Annual Revenue
(All values shown in thousands of dollars)
Part I: Total Revenue Sources
Section 2Annual Allotted Revenue for Gas Tax, and Measure J (Non-Capital Improvement Program)
No.
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 to FY 21-22
Section 3Projected Revenue Available to the CRIPP for Capital Improvement Program Projects
Program
End of
FY 14/15
Balance
Introduction 8 07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 67 of 199
No.Program Element
End of
FY 14/15
Balance
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected
7 Year
Estimated
Available
Funds
1260 Alamo Area of Benefit $ 59 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 420 $ 479
1395 Bay Point Area of Benefit $ 937 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 210 $ 1,147
1290 Bethel Island Area of Benefit $ 392 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 70 $ 462
1241 Briones Area of Benefit $ 511 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 7 $ 518
1242 Central County Area of Benefit $ 3,203 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 525 $ 3,728
1390 Discovery Bay Area of Benefit $ 1,642 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 350 $ 1,992
1282 East County Regional Area of Benefit $ 4,635 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 1,750 $ 6,385
1231 Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit $ 45 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 7 $ 52
1240 Martinez Area of Benefit $ 2,531 $ 150 $ 150 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 1,300 $ 3,831
1234 North Richmond Area of Benefit $ 1,208 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 13 $ 1,221
1394 Richmond/El Sobrante Area of Benefit $ 411 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 105 $ 516
1399 Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit $ 464 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 35 $ 499
1270 South County Area of Benefit $ 3,373 $ 150 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 750 $ 4,123
1243 South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit $ 164 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 105 $ 269
1232 West County Area of Benefit $ 118 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 56 $ 174
Subtotal Areas of Benefit $ 19,693 $ 821 $ 772 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 5,703 $ 25,396
No.Program Element
End of
FY 14/15
Balance
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected 7
Year (see
Fig 1)
Estimated
Available
Funds
8192 Discovery Bay West Mitigation Funds $ 8,574 $ 17 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 137 $ 8,711
1106 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund $ 1,554 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 189 $ 1,743
1114 Navy Mitigation Funds $ 5,713 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5,713
Subtotal $ 15,841 $ 44 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 326 $ 16,167
Table A: Summary of Projected Annual Revenue (Cont.)
(All values shown in thousands of dollars)
Part II: Itemization of Area of Benefit Projected Revenue
Part III: Itemization of County Trust Fund's Projected Revenue
Introduction 9 07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 68 of 199
Program Element FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected
7 Year
Expenditures
Gas Tax Funds $ 7,397 $ 6,023 $ 10,821 $ 9,006 $ 8,771 $ 6,400 $ 4,400 $ 52,818
State Match Funds $ 100 $ 300 $ 100 $ 1,549 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,049
Measure J Return to Source $ 1,850 $ 540 $ 560 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 4,950
Total of all Areas of Benefit
(AOB) Funds $ 2,575 $ 1,898 $ 2,285 $ 1,325 $ 1,160 $ 570 $ 570 $ 10,383
Total County Trust Funds $ 279 $ 3,703 $ 5,404 $ 804 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 10,191
Federal, State, and Other
Regional Grant Funds $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 $ 63,129
Measure J Regional $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6,271
Other Local Funds $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,084
Total $ 25,629 $ 26,528 $ 28,547 $ 32,613 $ 21,919 $ 10,320 $ 8,320 $ 153,876
Alamo AOB $ 325 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 355
Bay Point AOB $ 130 $ 145 $ 65 $ 95 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 450
Bethel Island AOB $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 45
Briones AOB $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 40
Central County AOB $ 50 $ 70 $ 65 $ 505 $ 505 $ 505 $ 505 $ 2,205
Discovery Bay AOB $ 50 $ 55 $ 65 $ 505 $ 505 $ 15 $ 15 $ 1,210
East County (Regional) AOB $ 990 $ 306 $ 1,120 $ 75 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 2,506
Hercules/Rodeo/ Crockett
AOB $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5 $ 5 $ 50
Martinez AOB $ 327 $ 494 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 852
North Richmond AOB $ 35 $ 110 $ 505 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 670
Pacheco (West Concord)
AOB $ 20 $ 20 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 50
Richmond/El Sobrante AOB $ 45 $ 70 $ 65 $ 105 $ 105 $ 5 $ 5 $ 400
South County AOB $ 528 $ 547 $ 350 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 1,446
South Walnut Creek AOB $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 25
West County AOB $ 25 $ 25 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 80
Subtotal $ 2,575 $ 1,898 $ 2,285 $ 1,325 $ 1,160 $ 570 $ 570 $ 10,383
Discovery Bay West
Mitigation Funds $ 124 $ 3,468 $ 4,974 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 8,566
Keller Canyon Landfill
Mitigation Funds $ 0 $ 135 $ 280 $ 800 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,215
Navy Mitigation Funds $ 155 $ 100 $ 150 $ 4 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 410
Subtotal $ 279 $ 3,703 $ 5,404 $ 804 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 10,191
PART III: Itemization of County Trust Fund Expenditures
PART II: Itemization of Area of Benefit Expenditures
Table B: Summary of Projected Annual Expenditures (CIP)
(All values shown in thousands of dollars)
PART I: Expenditures from all County Sources
Introduction 10
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 69 of 199
Acronym Full Name Description Type
Alamo AOB Alamo Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
ATP Active Transportation Program Funds for projects/programs that encourage
increased use of active modes of transportation.Federal
Bay Point AOB Bay Point Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Bethel Island AOB Bethel Island Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Briones AOB Briones Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
CCWD Contra Costa Water District Funds contributed by the Contra Costa Water
District.Local
CDBG Community Development Block
Grant
Funds that can be used for frontage improvements in
economically depressed areas.Federal
Cent County AOB Central County Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Disco Bay AOB Discovery Bay Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Disco Bay West Discovery Bay West Mitigation
Funds
Mitigation fees collected for the Discovery Bay West
(Subdivision 8023)Local
DWR Department of Water Resources Bridge improvements.Local
East County Regional AOB East County (Regional) Area of
Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Former RDA Former Redevelopment Agency Bond funds designated for former redevelopment
areas.Local
Gas Tax Gas Tax Funds Sales tax on gasoline used to enhance road
operation and maintenance.Local
HBP Highway Bridge Program Funds for bridges in need of replacement, and for
seismic retrofit program.Federal
Herc/Rodeo/Crock AOB Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of
Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
HR3 High Risk Rural Road Program Funds for safety improvements to rural roads defined
as high risk.Federal
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement
Program
Funds for infrastructure-related highway safety
improvements that lead to a significant reduction in
traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public
roads.
Federal
Keller Canyon Mit Fund Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation
Funds Mitigation funds from Keller Canyon Landfill.Local
Lifeline Grant Lifeline Grant Funds intended to improve mobility for low-income
residents.Federal
Martinez AOB Martinez Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Measure J PBTF Measure J Pedestrian, Bicycle and
Trail Facilities Program Funds for pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities.Local
Measure J Regional Measure J: Regional Funds Portion of sales tax measure designated for projects
of regional significance.Local
Measure J RTS Measure J: Return to Source
Funds
Portion of sales tax measure returned to local
jurisdictions to be used for transportation projects
within Contra Costa County.
Local
Measure J TLC Measure J Transportation for
Livable Communities Program
Funds for projects/programs for plans and facilities
that encourage more walking, bicycling and transit
use.
Local
N Richmond AOB North Richmond Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Navy Mit Navy Mitigation Funds Mitigation funds from closure of Port Chicago
Highway.Local
OBAG One Bay Area Grant Program Grant program that focuses on transportation
investments in priority development areas (PDA's).Federal
Pacheco AOB Pacheco (West Concord) Area of
Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Phillips 66 funds Conoco Phillips 66 Conoco Phillips grant program to support the
community.Local
Acronyms for Grant Programs and other Funding Sources used in the CRIPP
Table C
Introduction 11
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 70 of 199
Acronym Full Name Description Type
Prop 1B Proposition 1B
This act makes safety improvements and repairs to
local streets and roads and improves seismic safety
of local bridges by providing for a bond issue.
State
Rich/El Sobr AOB Richmond/El Sobrante Area of
Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
RSS Abatement Fund Richmond Sanitary Service
Abatement Funds
Funds appropriated for the purchase of historic
markers on San Pablo Dam Road.Local
So County AOB South County Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
So Walnut Cr AOB South Walnut Creek Area of
Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
SR2S Safe Routes to School (State)Funds emphasize construction of infrastructure to aid
in safety near schools.Federal
State Match State Match Funds Funds to match federally funded transportation
projects.State
STIP State Transportation
Improvement Program
Funds transportation projects on and off the State
Highway System.Federal
TDA Transportation Development Act Funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.State
TVTC Fee Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee Regional traffic mitigation fees.Local
West County AOB West County Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local
Introduction 12
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 71 of 199
SECTION I
Funding Sources
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 72 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-1
Gas Tax Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 6,154 $ 4,994 $ 1,871 ($ 7,902) ($ 15,860) ($ 22,584) ($ 26,937) ($ 29,289)
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19 FY 19/20 FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 17,376 $ 6,238 $ 2,900 $ 1,048 $ 1,048 $ 2,048 $ 2,048 $ 2,048
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 52,818 $ 7,397 $ 6,023 $ 10,821 $ 9,006 $ 8,771 $ 6,400 $ 4,400
Alhambra Valley Road Safety
Improvements - east of Bear Creek
Road Intersection
$ 454 $ 454 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Balfour Road Shoulder Widening -
Sellers Avenue and Bixler Road $ 340 $ 0 $ 0 $ 340 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project $ 100 $ 0 $ 40 $ 40 $ 20 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bay Point Utility Undergrounding $ 38 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 38 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Byron Highway Bridge Replacement
over California Aqueduct (Bridge
No. 28C0121)
$ 384 $ 40 $ 120 $ 139 $ 50 $ 35 $ 0 $ 0
Byron Highway Traffic Safety
Improvements $ 100 $ 52 $ 10 $ 38 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Byron Highway & Camino Diablo
Intersection Improvements $ 1,057 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,057 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements $ 613 $ 286 $ 328 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Canal Road Bridge Replacement
(Bridge No. 28C0376) $ 290 $ 100 $ 100 $ 80 $ 10 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair
(Bridge No. 28C0403) $ 207 $ 91 $ 116 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
County-Wide Operation & Safety
Improvements $ 1,500 $ 300 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200
County-Wide Overlay Project $ 768 $ 768 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
County-Wide Surface Treatments $ 31,675 $ 2,838 $ 3,856 $ 5,426 $ 6,259 $ 5,597 $ 3,850 $ 3,850
Giaramita Street Sidewalk
Replacement Project $ 190 $ 190 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Jersey Island Road Bridge Repair
(Bridge No. 28C0405) $ 182 $ 68 $ 114 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck
Lanes $ 7,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 0
Main Street, Byron Sidewalk
Improvements $ 365 $ 24 $ 0 $ 341 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Creek Road Bridge
Replacement (Bridge No. 28C141) $ 834 $ 185 $ 219 $ 360 $ 70 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Creek Road Bridge
Replacement (Bridge No. 28C143 &
28C145)
$ 1,604 $ 200 $ 220 $ 274 $ 120 $ 790 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement
(Bridge No. 28C0442) $ 1,088 $ 20 $ 70 $ 100 $ 105 $ 93 $ 350 $ 350
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 73 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-2
Gas Tax Funds (cont.)
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Orwood Road Bridge Replacement
Project (Bridge No. 28C0024) $ 845 $ 745 $ 70 $ 30 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
- Central and East County $ 489 $ 0 $ 0 $ 489 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety
Improvements $ 192 $ 0 $ 0 $ 192 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Rio Vista Elementary School
Pedestrian Connection Project $ 20 $ 20 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure
Project $ 216 $ 0 $ 0 $ 216 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap
Project $ 292 $ 0 $ 66 $ 35 $ 135 $ 56 $ 0 $ 0
San Pablo Dam Road Walkability
Project $ 279 $ 279 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Stormwater Treatment
Demonstration Project $ 214 $ 214 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure
Project $ 463 $ 0 $ 0 $ 463 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 74 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-3
State Match Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 1,550 $ 1,550 $ 101 $ 201 $ 301 $ 401
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 700 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 2,049 $ 100 $ 300 $ 100 $ 1,549 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck
Lanes $ 1,849 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,549 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements $ 200 $ 0 $ 200 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 75 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-4
Measure J: Return to Source Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 0 $ 50 $ 50 $ 890 $ 1,790 $ 2,690 $ 3,590 $ 4,490
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 9,440 $ 1,900 $ 540 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 4,950 $ 1,850 $ 540 $ 560 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Byron Highway & Camino Diablo
Intersection Improvements $ 240 $ 100 $ 140 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
County-Wide Curb Ramp Projects $ 1,200 $ 0 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200
County-Wide Operation & Safety
Improvements $ 1,400 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200
County-Wide Surface Treatments $ 1,350 $ 1,350 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
County-Wide Traffic Calming $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100
Port Chicago Highway & Willow
Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian
Improvements
$ 100 $ 100 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure
Project $ 160 $ 100 $ 0 $ 60 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Measure J: Regional Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 6,271 $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 6,271 $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap
Closure Project: Finley Road to
Windemere Parkway
$ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck
Lanes $ 5,271 $ 533 $ 560 $ 584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 76 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-5
Federal, State, and Regional Grant Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 63,129 $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 63,129 $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850
Alhambra Valley Road Safety
Improvements - east of Bear Creek
Road Intersection
$ 1,510 $ 1,510 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Alhambra Valley Road Safety
Improvements - Rancho La Boca
Road to Ferndale Road
$ 510 $ 0 $ 510 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bailey Road/State Route 4
Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle
Improvement Project
$ 4,160 $ 0 $ 310 $ 410 $ 3,440 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project $ 480 $ 0 $ 55 $ 31 $ 394 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Byron Highway Bridge Replacement
over California Aqueduct (Bridge
No. 28C0121)
$ 12,980 $ 700 $ 795 $ 885 $ 6,000 $ 4,600 $ 0 $ 0
Byron Highway Traffic Safety
Improvements $ 515 $ 25 $ 60 $ 7 $ 423 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Byron Highway & Camino Diablo
Intersection Improvements $ 900 $ 0 $ 0 $ 900 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Camino Tassajara Safety
Improvements - 1.1 mile South of
Highland Road to 0.3 mile North of
to Windemere Parkway
$ 606 $ 0 $ 606 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements $ 1,134 $ 46 $ 1,088 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Canal Road Bridge Replacement
(Bridge No. 28C0376) $ 2,315 $ 140 $ 465 $ 1,520 $ 190 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
County-Wide Overlay Project $ 1,941 $ 1,941 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck
Lanes $ 2,650 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,650 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Creek Rd Safety
Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles
West of Deer Valley Rd
$ 1,365 $ 1,365 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety
Improvements $ 1,268 $ 0 $ 75 $ 75 $ 62 $ 1,056 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Creek Road Bridge
Replacement (Bridge No. 28C141) $ 3,356 $ 165 $ 621 $ 2,140 $ 430 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Creek Road Bridge
Replacement (Bridge No. 28C143 &
28C145)
$ 6,356 $ 400 $ 480 $ 286 $ 530 $ 4,660 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement
(Bridge No. 28C0442) $ 6,812 $ 40 $ 130 $ 350 $ 425 $ 167 $ 2,850 $ 2,850
Orwood Road Bridge Replacement
Project (Bridge No. 28C0024) $ 11,332 $ 5,680 $ 5,582 $ 70 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 77 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-6
Federal, State, and Regional Grant Funds (cont.)
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
- Central and East County $ 200 $ 101 $ 99 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety
Improvements $ 120 $ 106 $ 14 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Port Chicago Highway & Willow
Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian
Improvements
$ 1,131 $ 0 $ 1,131 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Rio Vista Elementary School
Pedestrian Connection Project $ 600 $ 0 $ 40 $ 45 $ 515 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap
Project $ 614 $ 0 $ 59 $ 25 $ 25 $ 505 $ 0 $ 0
Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure
Project $ 15 $ 0 $ 15 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Other Local Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 4,084 $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 4,084 $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0
Bay Point Area Curb Ramp Project $ 283 $ 0 $ 283 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Byron Highway Bridge Replacement
over California Aqueduct (Bridge
No. 28C0121)
$ 1,586 $ 60 $ 35 $ 241 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0
Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap
Closure Project: Finley Road to
Windemere Parkway
$ 1,250 $ 0 $ 866 $ 384 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Creek Rd Safety
Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles
West of Deer Valley Rd
$ 246 $ 246 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety
Improvements $ 26 $ 0 $ 0 $ 26 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure
Project $ 694 $ 110 $ 185 $ 399 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 78 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-7
Alamo Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 59 ($ 206) ($ 151) ($ 96) ($ 41) $ 14 $ 69 $ 124
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 420 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 355 $ 325 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Alamo AOB Administration $ 45 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Miranda Avenue Sidewalk
Improvements $ 310 $ 310 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bay Point Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance (in
1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 937 $ 837 $ 722 $ 687 $ 622 $ 647 $ 672 $ 697
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 210 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 450 $ 130 $ 145 $ 65 $ 95 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Bailey Road/State Route 4
Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle
Improvement Project
$ 220 $ 30 $ 90 $ 10 $ 90 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bay Point AOB Administration $ 45 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Rio Vista Elementary School
Pedestrian Connection Project $ 185 $ 85 $ 50 $ 50 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 79 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-8
Bethel Island Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 392 $ 387 $ 392 $ 397 $ 402 $ 407 $ 412 $ 417
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 70 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 45 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Bethel Island AOB Administration $ 45 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Briones Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 511 $ 497 $ 478 $ 474 $ 475 $ 476 $ 477 $ 478
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 7 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 40 $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Briones AOB Administration $ 40 $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 80 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-9
Central County Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 3,203 $ 3,228 $ 3,233 $ 3,243 $ 2,813 $ 2,383 $ 1,953 $ 1,523
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 525 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 2,205 $ 50 $ 70 $ 65 $ 505 $ 505 $ 505 $ 505
Central County AOB Administration $ 85 $ 30 $ 30 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Future AOB Projects $ 2,120 $ 20 $ 40 $ 60 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Discovery Bay Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 1,642 $ 1,642 $ 1,637 $ 1,622 $ 1,167 $ 712 $ 747 $ 782
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 350 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 1,210 $ 50 $ 55 $ 65 $ 505 $ 505 $ 15 $ 15
Discovery Bay AOB Administration $ 70 $ 30 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Future AOB Projects $ 1,140 $ 20 $ 40 $ 60 $ 500 $ 500 $ 10 $ 10
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 81 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-10
East County (Regional) Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 4,635 $ 3,894 $ 3,838 $ 2,968 $ 3,143 $ 3,388 $ 3,633 $ 3,878
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 1,750 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 2,506 $ 990 $ 306 $ 1,120 $ 75 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Byron Highway & Camino Diablo
Intersection Improvements $ 1,365 $ 119 $ 211 $ 1,035 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
East County AOB Administration $ 35 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Marsh Creek Rd Safety
Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles
West of Deer Valley Rd
$ 846 $ 846 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety
Improvements $ 260 $ 20 $ 90 $ 80 $ 70 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 45 $ 31 $ 12 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 6 $ 2
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 7 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 50 $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5 $ 5
Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett AOB
Administration $ 50 $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5 $ 5
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 82 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-11
Martinez Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 2,531 $ 2,353 $ 2,009 $ 2,199 $ 2,394 $ 2,589 $ 2,784 $ 2,979
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 1,300 $ 150 $ 150 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 852 $ 327 $ 494 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Alhambra Valley Road Safety
Improvements - Rancho La Boca
Road to Ferndale Road
$ 764 $ 290 $ 474 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Martinez AOB Administration $ 70 $ 20 $ 20 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap
Closure - Windhover Way to Goree
Court
$ 17 $ 17 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
North Richmond Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 1,208 $ 1,174 $ 1,066 $ 563 $ 560 $ 557 $ 554 $ 551
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 13 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 670 $ 35 $ 110 $ 505 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Future AOB Projects $ 610 $ 10 $ 100 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
North Richmond AOB Administration $ 60 $ 25 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 83 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-12
Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 464 $ 449 $ 434 $ 434 $ 434 $ 439 $ 444 $ 449
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 35 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 50 $ 20 $ 20 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Pacheco AOB Administration $ 50 $ 20 $ 20 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Richmond/El Sobrante Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 411 $ 381 $ 326 $ 276 $ 186 $ 96 $ 106 $ 116
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 105 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 400 $ 45 $ 70 $ 65 $ 105 $ 105 $ 5 $ 5
Future AOB Projects $ 300 $ 0 $ 40 $ 60 $ 100 $ 100 $ 0 $ 0
Richmond/El Sobrante AOB
Administration $ 100 $ 45 $ 30 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 84 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-13
South County Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 3,373 $ 2,995 $ 2,547 $ 2,297 $ 2,392 $ 2,487 $ 2,582 $ 2,677
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 750 $ 150 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 1,446 $ 528 $ 547 $ 350 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap
Closure Project: Finley Road to
Windemere Parkway
$ 1,000 $ 225 $ 430 $ 345 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Camino Tassajara Safety
Improvements - 1.1 mile South of
Highland Road to 0.3 mile North of
to Windemere Parkway
$ 331 $ 258 $ 72 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
South County AOB Administration $ 115 $ 45 $ 45 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 164 $ 174 $ 184 $ 194 $ 204 $ 214 $ 229 $ 244
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 105 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 25 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0
South Walnut Creek AOB
Administration $ 25 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 85 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-14
West County Area of Benefit
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 118 $ 101 $ 84 $ 82 $ 85 $ 88 $ 91 $ 94
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 56 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 80 $ 25 $ 25 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
West County AOB Administration $ 80 $ 25 $ 25 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Discovery Bay West Mitigation Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 8,574 $ 8,467 $ 5,019 $ 65 $ 85 $ 105 $ 125 $ 145
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 137 $ 17 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 8,566 $ 124 $ 3,468 $ 4,974 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Balfour Road Shoulder Widening -
Sellers Avenue and Bixler Road $ 8,566 $ 124 $ 3,468 $ 4,974 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 86 of 199
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-15
Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 1,554 $ 1,581 $ 1,473 $ 1,220 $ 447 $ 474 $ 501 $ 528
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 189 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 1,215 $ 0 $ 135 $ 280 $ 800 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bailey Road Overlay Project - State
Route 4 to Keller Canyon Landfill
Entrance
$ 1,215 $ 0 $ 135 $ 280 $ 800 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Navy Mitigation Funds
End of Year Cash Balance
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
End of FY
14/15
Balance
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
End of Year Balance $ 5,713 $ 5,558 $ 5,458 $ 5,308 $ 5,303 $ 5,303 $ 5,303 $ 5,303
Projected Revenue
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Revenue
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Projected Revenue $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Estimated Project Expenditures
(in 1,000's of Dollars)
Expenditure
Total
FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.)
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Total of All Projects $ 410 $ 155 $ 100 $ 150 $ 4 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bailey Road/State Route 4
Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle
Improvement Project
$ 125 $ 125 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Bay Point Utility Undergrounding $ 284 $ 30 $ 100 $ 150 $ 4 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 87 of 199
SECTION II
Active Projects
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 88 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4101 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 129 129
Environmental 354 354
Design
Engineering 474 474
Right-of-Way 234 234
Construction 2,235 270 1,964
Total 3,426 1,462 1,964
Gas Tax 1,069 615 454
HR3 796 186 610
HSIP 900 900
Prop 1B 661 661
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - East of Bear Creek Road
Intersection
225' west of the intersection to 2,200' east of the intersection with Bear Creek
Road
Improve safety along Alhambra Valley Road.
Realign horizontal and vertical curves; widen travel lanes to County standards;
install paved shoulders; relocate roadside obstacles
Supervisor District:
Safety
II-1
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 89 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4097 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 143 141 1 1
Environmental 306 190 66 50
Design
Engineering 401 236 105 60
Right-of-Way 142 9 118 15
Construction 858 858
Total 1,850 576 290 984
Gas Tax 139 139
HSIP 600 90 510
Martinez AOB 1,006 242 290 474
Prop 1B 105 105
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale
Road
Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale Road
This segment of roadway has had multiple collisions. The improvements will
improve safety.
Shoulder widening and relocation of roadside obstacles.
Supervisor District:
Safety
II-2
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 90 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:1046 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 60 60
Environmental 45 45
Design
Engineering 110 30 80
Right-of-Way
Construction 1,000 200 800
Total 1,215 135 280 800
Keller Canyon
Mitigation Fund 1,215 135 280 800
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Bailey Road Overlay Project - State Route 4 to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance
Unincorporated portions of Bailey Road from the State Route 4 westbound on-
ramp to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance.
Improve pavement condition along Bailey Road.
Overlay Bailey Road
Supervisor District:
Pavement
II-3
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 91 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order:4121 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 1,025 750 155 50 70
Environmental 10 10
Design
Engineering 650 350 300
Right-of-Way 10 10
Construction 3,560 30 3,530
Total 5,255 750 155 400 420 3,530
ATP 4,160 310 410 3,440
Bay Point AOB 220 30 90 10 90
Gas Tax 7 7
Measure J PBTF 345 345
Measure J RTS 100 100
Navy Mit 423 298 125
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Bailey Road/SR 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements
Along Bailey Road from BART Access Road to Canal Road
Improve bicycle and pedestrian access along Bailey Road through State Route 4
Interchange
Reconfigure interchange to improve bicycle and pedestrian access along Bailey
Road
Supervisor District:
Project Categories:Bicycle, Pedestrian, Signal
II-4
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 92 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4002 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 128 100 28
Environmental 204 133 71
Design
Engineering 907 881 25
Right-of-Way 810 110 700
Construction 8,082 2,768 5,314
Total 10,130 1,224 124 3,468 5,314
Disco Bay West 9,790 1,224 124 3,468 4,974
Gas Tax 340 340
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Sellers Avenue to Bixler Road
Balfour Road between Sellers Avenue and Bixler Road in the Discovery Bay and
unincorporated Brentwood Area.
Improve safety along Balfour Road.
Widen 3 miles of Balfour Road and construct paved shoulders.
Supervisor District:
Safety
II-5
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 93 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order 4031 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 50 50
Environmental
Design
Engineering
Right-of-Way
Construction 233 233
Total 283 283
Former RDA 283 283
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Bay Point Area Curb Ramp Project
Various locations throughout unincorporated Bay Point.
Upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current ADA requirements on roadways
planned for pavement surface treatment, as required by federal regulation.
Install new curb ramps and/or upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current ADA
standards.
Supervisor District
Project Categories:Curb Ramp
II-6
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 94 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4024 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 30 20 10
Environmental 35 35
Design
Engineering 121 40 61 20
Right-of-Way
Construction 394 394
Total 580 95 71 414
Gas Tax 100 40 40 20
HSIP 480 55 31 394
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project
Various unincorporated roadways throughout Bay Point
Increase traffic safety.
Replace regulatory and warning roadway signs to increase retroreflectivity within
the unincorporated Bay Point area.
Supervisor District:
Traffic
II-7
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 95 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Utility
Work Order:1017 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 253 223 30
Environmental
Design
Engineering 9 9
Right-of-Way 250 100 150
Construction 33 33
Total 545 223 30 100 150 42
Gas Tax 45 7 38
Navy Mit 500 216 30 100 150 4
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Bay Point Utility Undergrounding Project
In Bay Point, from the Pittsburg City Limits along Willow Pass Road west to Bailey
Road, and south along Bailey Road to Westbound SR 4 on-ramp.
Utilities will be placed underground to improve the aesthetics of the Bay Point
community near BART.
This project includes coordination for relocation of overhead utilities into a trench
along the project limits. PG&E is the designated trench lead.
Supervisor District:
Project Categories:
II-8
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 96 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order:4094 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 193 190 1 1 1
Environmental 418 103 40 275
Design
Engineering 541 436 30 75
Right-of-Way 149 1 148
Construction 2,991 2,991
Total 4,292 730 219 351 2,992
East County
Regional AOB 1,365 119 211 1,035
Gas Tax 1,354 297 1,057
HSIP 900 900
Measure J RTS 673 433 100 140
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements
Intersection at Byron Highway and Camino Diablo, Byron.
Construct safety improvements on all four legs of the intersection to include the
railroad crossing
Construct safety improvements with new traffic signal, left turn pockets, and
improve roadway vertical alignment over the railroad crossing
Supervisor District
Project Categories:Safety, Pedestrian, Railroad, Signal
II-9
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 97 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:1048 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY 15-
16
FY 16-
17
FY 17-
18
FY 18-
19
FY 19-
20
FY 20-
21
FY 21-
22
Preliminary
Engineering
Environmental
Design
Engineering 2,200 150 800 800 450
Right-of-Way 300 150 150
Construction 12,600 665 6,800 5,135
Total 15,100 150 800 950 1,265 6,800 5,135
DWR 1,616 30 60 35 241 750 500
Gas Tax 434 50 40 120 139 50 35
HBP 13,050 70 700 795 885 6,000 4,600
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct
(Bridge No. 28C0121)
On Byron Highway, approximately 1.4 miles northwest of Alameda County Line.
The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge replacement.
Supervisor District:
Bridge
II-10
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 98 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4011 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 47 27 10 10
Environmental 35 25 10
Design
Engineering 110 25 60 25
Right-of-Way
Construction 423 423
Total 615 77 70 45 423
Gas Tax 100 52 10 38
HSIP 515 25 60 7 423
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements
Byron Highway between Byron Hot Springs Road and Contra Costa/Alameda
County Line
Project needed to improve traffic safety and reduce number of head-on collisions.
Restripe centerline with double yellow no passing lines, install centerline rumble
strips, and replace signs to meet new retro-reflectivity standards.
Supervisor District:
Safety
II-11
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 99 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4010 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 100 30 40 30
Environmental 250 50 125 75
Design
Engineering 280 95 115 70
Right-of-Way 225 50 150 25
Construction 2,395 866 1,529
Total 3,250 225 1,296 1,729
Measure J 1,000 1,000
So County AOB 1,000 225 430 345
TVTC Fee 1,250 866 384
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project: Finley Road to Windemere
Parkway
On Camino Tassajara from Danville Town limits to Alameda County limits.
Complete gaps in the Class 2 bike lanes along Camino Tassajara.
Construct safety improvements on Camino Tassajara to improve bicycle and
vehicle travel from Danville Town limits to Alameda County limits.
Supervisor District:
Bicycle
II-12
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 100 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4072 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 80 78 2
Environmental 727 471 256
Design
Engineering 303 303
Right-of-Way 15 15
Construction 760 82 678
Total 1,885 949 258 678
HSIP 835 229 606
Prop 1B 150 150
So County AOB 900 569 258 72
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Camino Tassajara Safety Improvements - 1.1 mile S. of Highland Road to 0.3 mile
N. of to Windemere Parkway
1.1 mile south of Highland Rd to 0.3 miles north of Windemere Pkwy
Widen Roadway and adjust grade through an existing S-curve
Widen travel lanes and widen shoulders to accommodate Class 2 bike lane.
Supervisor District:
Bicycle, Safety
II-13
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 101 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order:4062 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 270 227 43
Environmental 211 178 33
Design
Engineering 425 285 140
Right-of-Way 44 3 41
Construction 1,690 75 1,615
Total 2,639 692 332 1,615
Gas Tax 989 376 286 328
Lifeline Grant 1,000 204 46 750
SR2S 450 113 338
State Match 200 200
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Canal Road between Loftus Road and Bailey Road in Bay Point.
Provide pedestrians and bicyclists safe access to Bel Air Elementary School
Construct new sidewalk and stripe new bike lanes along Canal Road.
Supervisor District:
Project Categories:Bicycle, Pedestrian
II-14
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 102 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4080 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 370 370
Environmental
Design
Engineering 325 180 145
Right-of-Way 180 60 120
Construction 2,100 300 1,600 200
Total 2,975 370 240 565 1,600 200
Gas Tax 410 120 100 100 80 10
HBP 2,565 250 140 465 1,520 190
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Canal Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0376)
On Canal Road over Contra Costa Canal, approximately 0.5 miles west of Bailey
Road.
The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge replacement.
Supervisor District:
Bridge
II-15
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 103 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4135 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering
Environmental 150 35 60 55
Design
Engineering 65 26 31 8
Right-of-Way
Construction 53 53
Total 268 61 91 116
Gas Tax 268 61 91 116
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0403)
On Clifton Court Road over Italian Slough, Byron area.
Repairs are needed to prevent further deterioration leading to bridge replacement.
Repair abutments.
Supervisor District:
Bridge, Maintenance
II-16
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 104 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4126 1
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 16 15
Environmental 7 7
Design
Engineering 183 168 15
Right-of-Way 3 3
Construction 347 172 175
Total 556 365 190
CDBG 90 90
Gas Tax 466 275 190
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Giaramita Street Sidewalk Replacement Project
Market Avenue to Verde Elementary School
The purpose of this project is to improve accessibility to Verde Elementary School
along the primary entrance to the school.
Install curb ramps and sidewalk.
Supervisor District:
Pedestrian
II-17
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 105 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4134 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering
Environmental 80 34 36 10
Design
Engineering 115 73 33 10
Right-of-Way
Construction 94 94
Total 289 107 68 114
Gas Tax 289 107 68 114
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Jersey Island Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0405)
On Jersey Island Road over Dutch Slough, Oakley area.
Repairs are needed to prevent further deterioration leading to bridge replacement.
Repair bridge elements, including blocks, piles, braces, and plates.
Supervisor District:
Bridge, Maintenance
II-18
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 106 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order:4052 4 ,5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 140 90 20 20 10
Environmental 469 257 113 100
Design
Engineering 1,892 651 500 500 241
Right-of-Way 136 12 40 84
Construction 17,143 2,000 1,350 9,793 2,000 2,000
Total 19,780 3,010 633 660 1,684 9,793 2,000 2,000
Gas Tax 9,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Measure J
Regional 6,148 877 533 560 584 3,594
Measure J RTS 33 33
State Match 1,949 100 100 100 100 1,549
STIP 2,650 2,650
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes
Clearbrook Drive in the City of Concord to the eastern intersection with Hess
Road.
Reduce congestion and improve safety along Kirker Pass Road.
Widen roadway to add truck climbing lane in the northbound direction.
Supervisor District:
Project Description:Safety
II-19
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 107 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4123 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 30 27 3
Environmental
Design
Engineering 90 69 21
Right-of-Way
Construction 341 341
Total 461 96 24 341
Gas Tax 461 96 24 341
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Main Street, Byron Sidewalk Improvements
On Main Street between Holway Drive to Camino Diablo.
Improve existing pedestrian facility along Main Street and restore the roadway
crown and drainage
Construct sidewalk improvements along Main Street.
Supervisor District:
Pedestrian
II-20
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 108 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4079 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 645 645
Environmental
Design
Engineering 430 250 180
Right-of-Way 160 100 60
Construction 3,600 600 2,500 500
Total 4,835 645 350 840 2,500 500
Gax Tax 1,029 195 185 219 360 70
HBP 3,806 450 165 621 2,140 430
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C141)
On Marsh Creek Road over Marsh Creek, approximately 1.8 mi east of Morgan
Territory Road.
The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge replacement.
Supervisor District:
Bridge
II-21
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 109 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4019 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering
Environmental
Design
Engineering 1,750 90 600 700 360
Right-of-Way 350 200 150
Construction 5,950 500 5,450
Total 8,050 90 600 700 560 650 5,450
Gas Tax 1,670 66 200 220 274 120 790
HBP 6,380 24 400 480 286 530 4,660
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C143 & 28C145)
On Marsh Creek Road over Marsh Creek, approximately 7.3 mi east of Morgan
Territory Road and 3 mi east of Deer Valley Road.
The existing bridges are approaching the end of their useful life.
Bridge replacement.
Supervisor District:
Bridge
II-22
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 110 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4025 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 81 81
Environmental 365 365
Design
Engineering 649 649
Right-of-Way 243 243
Construction 2,457 2,457
Total 3,795 1,338 2,457
CCWD 260 14 246
East County
Regional AOB 1,795 949 846
HR3 900 155 745
HSIP 620 620
Prop 1B 220 220
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer Valley
Road
West of Deer Valley Road
Improve safety along Marsh Creek Road
Realign curve and widen roadway along Marsh Creek Road
Supervisor District:
Safety
II-23
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 111 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4012 3 , 4
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 50 20 20 10
Environmental 70 45 25
Design
Engineering 312 100 100 112
Right-of-Way 20 20
Construction 1,076 20 1,056
Total 1,528 20 165 155 132 1,056
East County
Regional AOB 260 20 90 80 70
HSIP 1,268 75 75 62 1,056
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements
Located on Marsh Creek Road between the city limits of Clayton and Brentwood.
Improve roadway infrastructure to improve driver awareness and overall safety.
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes; Add lighting at Deer Valley Road and
Marsh Creek Road intersection
Supervisor District:
Safety
II-24
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 112 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4119 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering
Environmental
Design
Engineering 1,160 60 200 450 450
Right-of-Way 240 80 160
Construction 6,500 100 3,200 3,200
Total 7,900 60 200 450 530 260 3,200 3,200
Gas Tax 1,088 20 70 100 105 93 350 350
HBP 6,812 40 130 350 425 167 2,850 2,850
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0442)
On Marsh Drive over Walnut Creek, approximately 0.2 mi west of Solano Way.
The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge replacement.
Supervisor District:
Bridge
II-25
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 113 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4107 1
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 12 11 1
Environmental
Design
Engineering 157 148 9
Right-of-Way
Construction 165 79 86
Total 334 238 96
Gas Tax 234 138 96
TDA 100 100
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
May Road Sidewalk Extension Project
May Road across from Sheldon Elementary School
This project provides a sidewalk extension along May Road from the end of the
existing sidewalk to the pedestrian crosswalk at Sheldon School.
Install a sidewalk extension along May Road.
Supervisor District:
Pedestrian
II-26
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 114 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4111 2
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 25 25
Environmental
Design
Engineering 219 219
Right-of-Way 13 13
Construction 325 16 310
Total 582 272 310
Alamo AOB 494 184 310
TDA 88 88
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Miranda Avenue Sidewalk Improvements
Along Miranda Avenue near the intersection with Granite Drive, Alamo.
Improve pedestrian infrastructure for students walking to and from school
Construct sidewalk improvements along the frontage of Stone Valley Middle
School.
Supervisor District:
Pedestrian
II-27
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 115 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4145 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 203 3 200
Environmental
Design
Engineering 54 54
Right-of-Way 28 28
Construction 640 200 440
Total 926 3 428 494
Gas Tax 926 3 428 494
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Morgan Territory Bridge Scour Repairs
Repair of bridges 4.3 and 4.4 on Morgan Territory Road.
Repairs are needed to extend the service life of the bridges.
Place scour protection and repair bank erosion for bridges 4.3 and 4.4.
Supervisor District:
Bridge, Maintenance
II-28
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 116 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order 4076 3
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 1,750 1,750
Environmental
Design
Engineering 150 150
Right-of-Way 275 200 75
Construction 12,022 70 6,200 5,652 100
Total 14,197 2,020 6,425 5,652 100
Gas Tax 1,560 715 745 70 30
HBP 12,637 1,305 5,680 5,582 70
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Orwood Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge No. 28C0024)
On Orwood Road over Indian Slough.
The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge replacement.
Supervisor District
Project Description:Bridge
II-29
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 117 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4122 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 45 45
Environmental 17 17
Design
Engineering 412 395 17
Right-of-Way 176 175
Construction 453 193 260
Total 1,102 825 277
Gas Tax 38 38
Martinez AOB 440 423 17
Measure J TLC 524 264 260
TDA 100 100
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - Windhover Way to Goree Court
Pacheco Boulevard between Windhover Way and Goree Court
Provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Las Juntas Elementary School
Construct sidewalk, bike lane and shoulder on north side of Pacheco Boulevard
Supervisor District:
Bicycle, Pedestrian
II-30
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 118 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4112 Various
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 23 7 8 8
Environmental 35 20 15
Design
Engineering 94 64 30
Right-of-Way 18 8 10
Construction 526 36 489
Total 696 7 101 99 489
Gas Tax 496 7 489
TDA 200 101 99
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central & East County
Various school locations in Central & East County
Increase driver awareness at pedestrian crosswalks near schools
Construct Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) and ADA curb ramps at
designated crosswalks near schools.
Supervisor District:
Curb Ramp, Pedestrian
II-31
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 119 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order:4090 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 15 15
Environmental 6 6
Design
Engineering 70 70
Right-of-Way 15 15
Construction 232 14 218
Total 338 106 14 218
Gas Tax 192 192
Phillips 66 funds 26 26
TDA 120 106 14
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements
The project is located on Pomona Street at 3rd Avenue, Pomona Street at Rolph
Avenue.
The purpose of this project is to improve pedestrian safety along Pomona Street in
the town of Crockett by improving several existing crosswalks.
The project will add bulb-outs, pedestrian refuge islands, drainage facilities and
curb ramps at the intersection of Pomona Street and 3rd Avenue.
Supervisor District:
Project Categories:Pedestrian, Safety
II-32
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 120 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4054 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 86 81 5
Environmental 54 52 2
Design
Engineering 315 285 30
Right-of-Way 8 8
Construction 1,186 55 1,131
Total 1,649 418 100 1,131
ATP 800 800
Bay Point AOB 148 148
Measure J RTS 200 100 100
SR2S 442 111 331
TDA 60 60
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Road Sidewalk Improvements
Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road Intersection.
Improve safety of bicyclists and pedestrians along Port Chicago Highway and
Willow Pass Road.
Construct sidewalk and bike lanes. Reconfigure intersection to remove westbound
free right turn lane.
Supervisor District:
Bicycle, Pedestrian
II-33
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 121 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4141 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 71 60 11
Environmental 46 46
Design
Engineering 98 48 50
Right-of-Way 95 95
Construction 555 40 515
Total 865 60 105 90 95 515
ATP 600 40 45 515
Bay Point AOB 185 85 50 50
Gas Tax 80 60 20
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project
Pacifica Avenue from Mariners Cove Drive to 525 feet west
Fill sidewalk gap and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety
Provide sidewalk on the north side of Pacifica Avenue from Mariners Cove towards
Wharf Drive
Supervisor District:
Bicycle, Pedestrian
II-34
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 122 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4144 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 171 36 20 115
Environmental 30 30
Design
Engineering 50 50
Right-of-Way 30 10 20
Construction 665 50 615
Total 946 36 110 185 615
Former RDA 730 36 110 185 399
Gas Tax 216 216
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure
Investment Street and Pacific Avenue in downtown Rodeo
Provide continuous pedestrian improvements in downtown Rodeo area.
Construct sidewalk and curb ramps along Pacific Avenue. Improve access to
Rodeo Creek Trail on Investment Street.
Supervisor District:
Curb Ramp, Pedestrian
II-35
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 123 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:1
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 20 20
Environmental 55 55
Design
Engineering 140 50 50 40
Right-of-Way 130 10 120
Construction 561 561
Total 906 125 60 160 561
Gas Tax 292 66 35 135 56
HSIP 614 59 25 25 505
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Project
San Pablo Dam Road from Appian Way to Clark Road
Construct pedestrian improvements on San Pablo Dam Road to improve
connectivity and safety.
Construct sidewalk along San Pablo Dam Road to provide continuous pedestrian
path.
Supervisor District:
Pedestrian
II-36
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 124 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4051 1
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 440 436 4
Environmental 18 18
Design
Engineering 573 573
Right-of-Way 484 479 5
Construction 2,206 1,937 269
Total 3,722 3,442 279
Gas Tax 1,580 1,300 279
Measure J RTS 200 200
Measure J TLC 1,400 1,400
Prop 1B 500 500
RSS Abatement 42 42
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project
Downtown El Sobrante from Hillcrest Road to Appian Way
Provide sidewalk safety improvements in downtown area.
Reconstruct sidewalk, relocate bus stops, replace trees, and provide for potted
landscaping.
Supervisor District:
Pedestrian
II-37
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 125 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4125 5
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 2 2
Environmental 2 2
Design
Engineering 54 47 7
Right-of-Way
Construction 210 3 208
Total 268 53 215
Gas Tax 268 53 215
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Stormwater Treatment Demonstration Project
Public Works Department parking lot - 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez.
Improvements will provide offsite stormwater treatment mitigation.
Construct storm water treatment facility.
Supervisor District:
Other
II-38
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 126 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order:4211 1
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 24 24
Environmental 5 5
Design
Engineering 159 99 60
Right-of-Way 40 40
Construction 538 15 523
Total 765 128 100 15 523
Gas Tax 523 60 463
Measure J RTS 160 100 60
TDA 83 67 15
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project
Dolan Way, Flannery Road and Shamrock Drive in the Tara Hills area of
unincorporated San Pablo.
Improve pedestrian infrastructure by providing ADA curb ramps and bulb-outs
Install curb ramps along Dolan Way, Flannery Road and Shamrock Drive and
pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Dolan Way and Flannery Road.
Supervisor District:
Project Description:Curb Ramp
II-39
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 127 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order Various Countywide
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering
Environmental 30 5 5 5 5 5 5
Design
Engineering 300 50 50 50 50 50 50
Right-of-Way
Construction 870 145 145 145 145 145 145
Total 1,200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Measure J RTS 1,200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
County-Wide Curb Ramp Projects
Various locations throughout County
Upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current ADA requirements and provide ADA
access where it may not currently exist.
Install new curb ramps and/or upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current
standards.
Supervisor District
Project Categories:Curb Ramp
II-40
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 128 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:Traffic
Work Order:60490 Countywide
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Environmental 21 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Design
Engineering 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Right-of-Way
Construction 2,795 485 385 385 385 385 385 385
Total 2,900 500 400 400 400 400 400 400
Gas Tax 1,500 300 200 200 200 200 200 200
Measure J RTS 1,400 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
County-Wide Operation & Safety Improvements
Various locations throughout County.
To provide improvements to address operational and safety concerns on County
roads.
Install traffic signage, striping, signal modifications, and other small operational
and safety improvements.
Supervisor District:
II-41
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 129 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Project Categories:
Work Order:4073 Various
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 41 41
Environmental 54 54
Design
Engineering 259 259
Right-of-Way 1 1
Construction 2,709 2,709
Total 3,065 356 2,709
Gas Tax 1,124 356 768
OBAG 1,941 1,941
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
County-Wide Overlay Project
Portions of Vasco Road, Pleasant Hill Road, and Byron Highway.
Pavement rehabiilitation to extend the life of the existing pavement.
Provide pavement rehabilitation on portions of selected roadways.
Supervisor District:
Pavement
II-42
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 130 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order:60230
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 350 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Environmental 700 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Design
Engineering 1,400 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Right-of-Way
Construction 30,575 3,838 3,506 5,076 5,909 5,247 3,500 3,500
Total 33,025 4,188 3,856 5,426 6,259 5,597 3,850 3,850
Gas Tax 31,675 2,838 3,856 5,426 6,259 5,597 3,850 3,850
Measure J RTS 1,350 1,350
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
County-Wide Surface Treatments
Various locations throughout County.
2016 - Alamo, Bay Point
2017 - Walnut Creek, El Sobrante, Kensington, Bay View/Montalvin
2018 - Bay Point, Lafayette & Martinez Area, Kensington, Crockett
2019 - Clyde, North Richmond, Rollingwood, Pacheco, Kensington
2020 - Bay Point, El Sobrante
Surface treatment projects will refurbish the existing roadway, extend the life of
the road, and reduce the long-term maintenance costs.
Surface treatments such as chip seal or slurry seal includes cleaning the road
surface, weed removal, sweeping, site cleanup, and placing striping and
pavement markings.
Supervisor District:Countywide
Project Categories:Pavement, Maintenance
II-43
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 131 of 199
Contra Costa County
Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT
LOCATION
PURPOSE AND
NEED
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Work Order:60420 Countywide
Phase/Funding
Source Cost Cost to
Date
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
Preliminary
Engineering 15 3 3 3 3 3
Environmental 10 2 2 2 2 2
Design
Engineering 15 3 3 3 3 3
Right-of-Way
Construction 460 92 92 92 92 92
Total 500 100 100 100 100 100
Measure J RTS 500 100 100 100 100 100
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars
County-Wide Traffic Calming
Various locations throughout County.
To make residential streets as quiet and safe as possible, while still providing
access for neighbors and local businesses.
Plan for, design, and construct traffic calming devices and other neighborhood
traffic control devices.
Supervisor District:
Project Categories:Traffic
II-44
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 132 of 199
Section III
Underfunded Projects
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 133 of 199
III-1
2015 UNDERFUNDED PROJECT LIST
1.Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
2.Alhambra Valley Road Slide Repair – 0.4 miles west of Bear Creek Road
3.Alhambra Valley Road Slide Repair – 0.7 miles west of Castro Ranch Road
4.Alves Lane Extension - Willow Pass Road to Pacifica Avenue
5.Appian Way & Pebble Drive Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements
6.Appian Way Complete Streets Project - San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Road
7.Appian Way Complete Streets Project - Valley View Road to Pinole City Limits
8.Arlington Boulevard & Amherst Avenue & Sunset Drive Intersection Improvements
9.Ayers Road & Concord Boulevard Intersection Improvements
10.Ayers Road & Laurel Avenue Intersection Improvements
11.Ayers Road & Myrtle Drive Intersection Improvements
12.Bailey Road & Myrtle Drive Intersection Improvements
13.Bailey Road Improvements - Myrtle Drive to Concord City Limits
14.Bailey Road Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements - Canal Road to Willow Pass Road
15.Balfour Road & Byron Highway Intersection Improvements
16.Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Deer Valley Road to Brentwood City Limits
17.Bear Creek Road & Happy Valley Road Intersection Improvements
18.Bella Vista Infrastructure Improvements
19.Bethel Island Road & Sandmound Road Intersection Improvements
20.Bethel Island Road Widening - Wells Lane to Sandmound Boulevard
21.Bixler Road Improvements - SR 4 to Byer Road
22.Blackhawk Road Bikeway Project
23.Boulevard Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Project
24.Bridgefield Road at Olympic Boulevard Intersection Improvement
25.Brookside Drive Widening – Fred Jackson Way to Union Pacific Railroad
26.Buskirk Avenue Improvements - Treat Blvd to Pleasant Hill City Limits
27.Byer Road Improvements - Bixler Road to Byron Highway
28.Byron Highway & Byer Road Intersection Improvements
29.Byron Highway Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
30.Byron Highway Two-Way Left Turn Lane at Byron Elementary School
31.Byron Highway Widening - Camino Diablo to the Alameda County Line
32.Byron Highway Widening - Chestnut Street to SR 4
33.Byron Highway Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street
34.Byron Highway Widening - SR 4 to Camino Diablo
35.Camino Diablo Widening - Vasco Road to Byron Highway
36.Camino Tassajara Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
37.Camino Tassajara Widening - Windemere Parkway to Alameda County Line
38.Castro Ranch Road Widening - San Pablo Dam Road to Olinda Road
39.Center Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Pacheco Boulevard to
Marsh Drive
40.Chestnut Street Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway
41.Clipper Drive Improvements - Newport Drive to Discovery Bay Boulevard
42.Colusa Avenue Complete Streets Project
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 134 of 199
III-2
43.Concord Avenue Bicycle Improvements - I-680 off-ramp to Iron Horse Trail
44.Crockett Area Overlays & Reconstruction Project
45.Cummings Skyway Truck Lane Extension
46.Danville Blvd & Hemme Avenue Intersection Improvements
47.Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements
48.Deer Valley Road Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
49.Del Monte Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0207)
50.Delta De Anza Trail Crossing Project
51.Delta De Anza Trail Gap Closure (Various Locations)
52.Delta Road Widening - Byron Highway to Holland Tract Road
53.Delta Road Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway
54.Dewing Lane Pedestrian Bridge
55.Discovery Bay Boulevard & Clipper Drive Intersection Improvements
56.Driftwood Drive Improvements - Port Chicago Highway to Pacifica Avenue
57.El Portal Drive Widening - San Pablo City Limits to San Pablo Dam Road
58.Evora Road & Willow Pass Road Intersection Improvements
59.Fish Ranch Road Safety Improvements - SR 24 to Grizzly Peak Road
60.Fred Jackson Way Improvements - Grove Avenue to Brookside Drive
61.Fred Jackson Way/Goodrick Avenue Realignment
62.Gateway Road Widening - Bethel Island Road to Piper Road
63.Highland Road Improvements - Camino Tassajara to Alameda County Line
64.Iron Horse Trail Flashers
65.Kirker Pass Road Northbound Runaway Truck Ramp
66.Kirker Pass Road Southbound Truck Lanes
67.Knightsen Avenue & Delta Road Intersection Improvements
68.Knightsen Avenue Widening - East Cypress Road to Delta Road
69.Knightsen Avenue/Eden Plains Road Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street
70.La Paloma Road Pedestrian and Roadway Improvements
71.Las Juntas Way & Coggins Drive Intersection Improvements
72.Local Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Upgrade at Benicia Bridge
73.Loftus Road Pedestrian Improvements - Canal Road to Willow Pass Road
74.Marsh Creek Road & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements
75.Marsh Creek Road & Deer Valley Road Intersection Improvements
76.Marsh Creek Road Realignment & Safety Improvements (Various Locations)
77.Marsh Creek Trail
78.Marsh Drive Improvements - Center Avenue to Iron Horse Trail
79.Mayhew Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - 200' west of Oberan Dr to
Bancroft Road
80.McNabney Marsh Open Space Connection to Waterfront Road
81.Miranda Ave Improvements - Stone Valley Road to Stone Valley Middle School
82.Morgan Territory Road Safety Improvements
83.Mountain View Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - San Miguel Drive to Walnut
Boulevard
84.Newell Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation
85.Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvements - Ashbourne Drive to Alameda County
Limits
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 135 of 199
III-3
86.North Richmond Sidewalk Replacement
87.North Richmond Truck Route - Parr Boulevard to Market Avenue
88.North Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill Area Pavement Rehabilitation
89.Oak Road Improvements - Treat Blvd to Pleasant Hill City Limits
90.Olinda Road Pedestrian Improvements - Valley View Road to 850 ft south of Valley
View Road
91.Olympic Boulevard & Boulevard Way & Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection
Improvements
92.Olympic Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Long Term
93.Olympic Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Short Term
94.Pacheco Boulevard & Center Avenue Intersection Improvements
95.Pacheco Boulevard & Muir Road Intersection Improvements
96.Pacheco Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Arnold Drive to Muir Road
97.Pacheco Boulevard Improvements - Morello Avenue to Blum Road
98.Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - east of Las Juntas Elementary School
99.Pacifica Avenue Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0379)
100.Pacifica Avenue Extension - Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane
101.Parker Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project
102.Parr Boulevard Widening – Richmond Pkwy to Union Pacific Railroad
103.Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements on Livorna Road, Stone Valley Road, and
Danville Boulevard
104.Pedestrian Improvements near Rodeo Hills Elementary School
105.Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Schools in Alamo
106.Pinehurst Road Bicycle Improvements
107.Piper Road Widening - Gateway Road to Willow Road
108.Pitt Way Roadway Improvements
109.Pittsburg Ave Widening - Fred Jackson Way to Richmond Parkway
110.Pleasant Hill BART Station Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
111.Pleasant Hill Road & Taylor Boulevard Intersection Improvements
112.Pleasant Hill Road Bicycle Improvements - Geary Road to Taylor Boulevard
113.Point of Timber Road & Byron Highway Intersection Improvements
114.Pomona Street/Winslow Avenue/Carquinez Scenic Drive Safety Alignment Study
115.Port Chicago Highway Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Driftwood Drive to
McAvoy Road
116.Port Chicago Hwy Realignment Project - McAvoy Road to Skipper Road
117.Reliez Valley Road Bicycle Improvements - North of Grayson Road to Withers
Avenue
118.Rudgear Road & San Miguel Drive Intersection Improvements
119.Rudgear Road/San Miguel/Walnut Boulevard/Mountain View Boulevard Safety
Improvements
120.San Miguel Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
121.San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project - Rodeo to Crockett
122.San Pablo Dam Rd & Greenridge Drive Signal Improvements
123.San Pablo Dam Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Tri Lane to Appian
Way
124.San Pablo Dam Road Improvements (Various Locations)
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 136 of 199
III-4
125.Sandmound Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements - Mariner Rd to Cypress Road
126.Sandmound Boulevard Widening - Oakley City Limits to Mariner Road
127.Sellers Ave & Balfour Road Intersection Improvements
128.Sellers Avenue & Chestnut Avenue Intersection Improvements
129.Sellers Avenue & Marsh Creek Road Intersection Improvements
130.Sellers Avenue & Sunset Road Intersection Improvements
131.Sellers Avenue Widening - Brentwood City Limits to Marsh Creek Road
132.Sellers Avenue Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street
133.Seventh Street Extension to Brookside Drive
134.Springbrook Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
135.SR 4 & Byron Highway South Intersection Widening (Phase 2)
136.SR 4 & Newport Drive Signal
137.SR 4 Widening - Bixler Road to Discovery Bay Boulevard
138.SR239/Trilink: Byron Airport Connector
139.Stone Valley Road Improvements - High Eagle Road to Roundhill Road
140.Stone Valley Road Improvements - Roundhill Road to Glenwood Court
141.Stone Valley Road Improvements - Stone Valley Way to High Eagle Road
142.Sunset Road Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway
143.Tara Hills Drive Complete Streets Project
144.Tice Valley Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
145.Treat Boulevard & Buskirk Avenue Intersection Improvements
146.Treat Boulevard & Jones Road Intersection Improvements
147.Treat Boulevard (I-680 Overcrossing) Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
148.Treat Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Jones Road to Walnut Creek City Limits
149.Valley View Road Widening - San Pablo Dam Road to Appian Way
150.Vasco Road Safety Improvements (Phase 2)
151.Walnut Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Marsh Creek Road to Vasco Road
152.Waterfront Road Grade Change Project
153.Willow Pass Road & Bailey Road Intersection Improvements
154.Willow Pass Road (West) & SR 4 Interchange Improvements
155.Willow Pass Road Improvements - Bailey Road to Pittsburg City Limits
156.Willow Pass Road Improvements - Evora Road to SR 4
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 137 of 199
Appendices
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 138 of 199
Appendix A: County Road Improvement Policy
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 139 of 199
Appendix A - 1
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 140 of 199
Appendix A - 2
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 141 of 199
Appendix A - 3
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 142 of 199
Appendix A - 4
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 143 of 199
Appendix A - 5
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 144 of 199
Appendix A - 6
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 145 of 199
Appendix B: Guidelines for Expenditure of Gas Tax Revenue
(Proposition 111 Funds)
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 146 of 199
Appendix B - 1
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 147 of 199
Appendix B - 2
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 148 of 199
Appendix B - 3
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 149 of 199
Appendix B - 4
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 150 of 199
Appendix B - 5
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 151 of 199
Appendix B - 6
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 152 of 199
Appendix B - 7
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 153 of 199
Appendix B - 8
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 154 of 199
Appendix B - 9
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 155 of 199
Appendix B - 10
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 156 of 199
Appendix C: Board Order Approving the 2015 Capital Road Improvement
and Preservation Program and
the April 2016 TWIC Report
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 157 of 199
Appendix C - 1
(This page is intentionally left blank until the Board of Supervisors approves the 2015 CRIPP)
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 158 of 199
Appendix C - 2
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 159 of 199
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
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 160 of 199
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
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 161 of 199
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 Road4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 52 of 107
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 162 of 199
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
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 163 of 199
Appendix D: Area of Benefit Maps and Project Lists
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 164 of 199
HOW DOES THE AREA OF BENEFIT PROGRAM FIT INTO THE CRIPP?
As explained in the CRIPP Introduction and Background section, the CRIPP is a planning
document for known potential projects in the next 7 years.
The Area of Benefit Program (AOB) is just one potential funding source for County road
projects. Some of these road improvement projects are funded by AOB revenues,
provided those projects are on the approved AOB project list.
Not all projects on the AOB project lists will appear in the CRIPP. Some of the projects on
the AOB project lists fall outside of the 7 year planning window and therefore are not
included in the CRIPP project lists.
Each AOB project list was approved with each respective AOB ordinance. In order to
update an AOB project list, a separate update process will need to occur. Projects within
each AOB program may be removed or added when each AOB ordinance is updated and
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The update of a CRIPP is not the process in which
the County updates an AOB.
For reference, the following information for each adopted Area of Benefit is included:
Ordinance number
Approved/Proposed Project List
Boundary for the Area of Benefit
The AOB program is constantly being updated. The updates include revising the AOB
project list. At the time of the CRIPP development, several AOB programs were in the
process of being updated. The draft proposed project lists for these AOB programs are
presented in the 2015 CRIPP. These proposed project lists are in draft form and have not
yet been finalized or adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
For more information about the Areas of Benefit, contact Mary Halle at (925) 313-2000.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 165 of 199
Appendix D - 1
Alamo Regional Area of Benefit
Proposed Project List Schedule
Pending Alamo AOB update expected in 2016.
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Downtown Alamo Construct pedestrian safety improvements. Incomplete
2 Stone Valley Road from Stone
Valley Way to High Eagle Road
Widen to accommodate 2 travel lanes and
shoulders Complete
3 Stone Valley Road from High
Eagle Road to Roundhill Road
Widen to accommodate 2 travel lanes and
shoulders and a left turn lane at Roundhill Road Complete
4 Stone Valley Road form Roundhill
Road to Glenwood Court
Widen to accommodate 2 travel lanes and
shoulders Complete
5 Livorna Road, Stone Valley Road,
and Danville Boulevard Construct pedestrian and bicycle improvements.Incomplete
6 Alamo Schools
Construct pedestrian safety improvements at
Stone Valley Middle School, Alamo Elementary
School, and Rancho Romero Schools.
Incomplete
7
Miranda Avenue from Stone
Valley Road to Stone Valley
Middle School
Construct pedestrian and bicycle improvements.Incomplete
8 Danville Boulevard at Hemme
Avenue Intersection improvements.Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
Alamo Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 166 of 199
Appendix D - 2
Bay Point Area of Benefit
Proposed Project List Schedule
Pending Bay Point AOB update expected in 2016.
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Willow Pass Road Signalize EB and WB off-ramps at west interchange of SR4 Incomplete
2 Willow Pass Road Intersection improvements at Willow Pass Road and Evora
Road to facilitate traffic flow to WB SR 4.Incomplete
3 Willow Pass Road Restriping from Bailey Road to Pittsburg City Limits to
improve capacity.Incomplete
4 Willow Pass Road Bailey Road intersection improvements.Incomplete
5 Port Chicago
Highway
Widen to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian
improvements from Driftwood Drive to west of McAvoy
Road.
Incomplete
6 Port Chicago
Highway Realign from west of McAvoy Road to Skipper Road.Incomplete
7
Port Chicago
Highway & Willow
Pass Rd
Intersection
Construct multi-modal safety improvements through
intersection from Lynbrook Drive to Weldon Street.Incomplete
8 Driftwood Drive Construct pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements from
Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane extension.Incomplete
9 Pacifica Avenue Extend roadway from Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane
extension.Incomplete
10 Alves Lane Extend roadway from Willow Pass Road to Pacifica Avenue
extension.Incomplete
11 Bailey Road Bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Willow Pass
Road to Canal Road.Incomplete
12 Bailey Road Bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Canal Road to
BART.Incomplete
13 Loftus Road Construct bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements from
Canal Road to Willow Pass Road.Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 167 of 199
Appendix D - 3
Bay Point Area of Benefit Boundary
Clyde
Bay Point
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 168 of 199
Appendix D - 4
Bethel Island Area of Benefit
Proposed Project List Schedule
Pending Bethel Island AOB update expected in 2016.
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Bethel Island Rd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Wells Rd to
Sandmound Blvd.Incomplete
2 Sandmound Blvd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Oakley City
Limits to Mariner Rd.Incomplete
3 Sandmound Blvd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Mariner Rd to
Cypress Rd.Incomplete
4 Gateway Rd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Bethel Island
Rd to Piper Rd.Incomplete
5 Piper Rd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Gateway Rd
to Willow Rd.Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
Bethel Island Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 169 of 199
Appendix D - 5
Briones Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 88-27
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Alhambra Valley Road
Realign curves at Ferndale Road (mile post 5.6), Main
Road (mile post 6.2), and 4000 feet northwest of Bear
Creek road (mile post 2.9)
Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
Briones Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 170 of 199
Appendix D - 6
Central County Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 95-32
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Taylor Boulevard Safety and capacity improvements from Pleasant
Hill Road to Boyd Road Incomplete
2 Pleasant Hill Road / Taylor
Boulevard
Safety and Capacity improvements to existing
intersection Incomplete
3 Bailey Road Remove and replace existing bridge. New bridge
adequate for standard two-lane arterial Complete
4
Rudgear Road / San Miguel
Drive / Walnut Boulevard /
Mountain View Boulevard
Safety Improvements Incomplete
5 San Pablo Dam Road / Bear
Creek Road Construct Signal (County share)Complete
6 Paso Nogal / Golf Club Road Improve intersection Complete
7 Evora Road Extension Construct new road from Willow Pass Road
(Concord) to Port Chicago Highway Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
Central County Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 171 of 199
Appendix D - 7
Discovery Bay Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 97-27
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Byron Hwy Construction of Improvements at Byron
Elementary School Incomplete
2 Byron Hwy at SR4
(Phase 1)
Construct signal and interim intersection
improvements Complete
3 Byron Hwy at SR4
(Phase 2)Construction of ultimate intersection improvements Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
Discovery Bay Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 172 of 199
Appendix D - 8
East County Regional Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 2013-26
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Vasco Rd/Camino
Diablo intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
2 Marsh Creek Rd Construct safety improvements.Incomplete
3 Chestnut Street Widen roadway from Sellers Avenue to Byron Hwy.Incomplete
4 Delta Road Widen roadway from Byron Highway to Holland Tract Rd.Incomplete
5 Knightsen Ave & Eden
Plains Rd Widen roadway from Delta Rd to Chestnut St.Incomplete
6 Sunset Rd Widen roadway from Sellers Ave to Byron Hwy.Incomplete
7 Byron Highway Widen roadway from Camino Diablo to the Alameda
County Line.Incomplete
8 Byron Highway Construct two way left turn lane at Byron Elementary
School.Incomplete
9 SR 4/Byron Highway
intersection
Widen southern intersection of Byron Highway with SR 4
(Phase 2).Incomplete
10 Knightsen Avenue Widen roadway from East Cypress Rd to Delta Rd.Incomplete
11 Delta Road Widen roadway from Sellers Ave to Byron Highway.Incomplete
12 Sellers Avenue Widen roadway from Delta Rd to Chestnut St.Incomplete
13 Sellers Avenue Widen roadway from Main canal to Marsh Creek Rd.Incomplete
14 Byron Highway Widen roadway from Delta Rd to Chestnut St.Incomplete
15 Byron Highway Widen roadway from Chestnut St to SR 4.Incomplete
16 Byron Highway Widen roadway from SR 4 to Camino Diablo.Incomplete
17 Camino Diablo Widen roadway from Vasco Rd to Byron Highway.Incomplete
18 Knightsen Ave/Delta Rd
intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
19 Byron Highway/Camino
Diablo intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
20
Byron Highway/SR 4
/Point of Timber
intersection
Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
21 Sellers Ave/Marsh
Creek Rd intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
22 Balfour Rd/Byron
Highway intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
23 Sellers Ave/Sunset Rd
intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
24 Sellers Ave/Chestnut St
intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
25 Sellers Ave/Balfour Rd
intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 173 of 199
Appendix D - 9
East County Regional Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 174 of 199
Appendix D - 10
Hercules / Rodeo / Crockett Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 88-27
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Pomona Street Widen to provide shoulder from Crockett
Boulevard to 2nd street Complete
2 Pomona St / Winslow Ave /
Carquinez Scenic Alignment Study Incomplete
3 Crockett Boulevard
Widen to three lane arterial to provide for truck
climbing lane from Pomona Street to Cummings
Skyway
Complete
4 San Pablo Ave Modify signal at Union Oil entrance Complete
5 Pomona St Modify signal at 2nd Ave Complete
6 Parker Ave / San Pablo
Avenue / Willow Intersection Modify intersection and install signal Complete
7 Parker / Fourth Modify intersection and install signal Complete
8 Willow / Hawthorne Modify intersection and install signal Complete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
Hercules / Rodeo / Crockett Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 175 of 199
Appendix D - 11
Martinez Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 95-38
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Alhambra Valley Road Safety and capacity improvements from Martinez City
Limits to Ferndale Road Incomplete
2 Alhambra Valley Road Realign curves at Ferndale Road Complete
3 Pacheco Boulevard Realign grade crossing with AT&SF Incomplete
4 Pacheco Boulevard Widen arterial standard Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
Martinez Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 176 of 199
Appendix D - 12
North Richmond Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 94-3
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Parr Blvd Widen road between from Richmond Parkway, east
to AT&SF RR tracks Incomplete
2 Brookside Blvd Widen roadway; acquire ult. R/W at some locations; Incomplete
3 Pittsburg Ave / Extension Widen existing road & extend easterly to Third
Street* along property lines Incomplete
4 Third St Realignment*
Widen and realign Goodrick Avenue or Third Street*
to provide north-south circulation with only one
intersection with Parr Boulevard
Incomplete
*Third Street was renamed to Fred Jackson Way
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
North Richmond Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 177 of 199
Appendix D - 13
Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit
Proposed Project List Schedule
Pending West Concord AOB update expected in 2016.
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Pacheco Boulevard and Muir
Road
Construct 2nd right turn lane and
reconstruct/relocate bike pedestrian and traffic
signal improvements
Incomplete
2 Pacheco Boulevard and
Center Avenue
Improve traffic circulation improvements at the
intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Center
Avenue
Incomplete
3 Pacheco Boulevard from
Arnold Drive to Muir Road
Construct bike lanes from Arnold Drive to Muir
Road Incomplete
4
Center Avenue from Pacheco
Boulevard to Buchanan Field
Road
Construct bike lanes on Center Avenue from
Pacheco Boulevard to Buchanan Field Road Incomplete
5 Center Avenue from Berry
Drive to Marsh Drive
Construct sidewalk on Center Avenue from Berry
Drive to Marsh Drive Incomplete
6
Marsh Drive from Center
Avenue to the bridge near the
Iron Horse Regional Trail
Construct shoulders and bike lanes along Marsh
Drive from Center Avenue to Iron Horse Trail Incomplete
7
Concord Avenue from Contra
Costa Boulevard to the Iron
Horse Regional Trail
Construct a shared-use path along Concord
Avenue starting near Contra Costa Boulevard to
the Iron Horse Regional Trail
Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 178 of 199
Appendix D - 14
Richmond / El Sobrante Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 91-27
Item Location Description Project Status
1 San Pablo Dam Road Construct signal at Castro Ranch Rd Complete
2 Appian Triangle Construct new intersection Complete
3 San Pablo Dam Road Dual left turn lanes at Appian Way Complete
4 Appian Way Construct signal at Manor Rd Complete
5 San Pablo Dam Road Construct signal at Milton Drive Complete
6 Valley View Rd.Construct signal at May Rd Complete
7 Appian Way Construct signal at Pebble Drive Incomplete
8 Castro Ranch Road Widen from San Pablo Dam Rd to Olinda Rd Incomplete
9 El Portal Widen from I-80 to San Pablo Dam Rd Incomplete
10 San Pablo Dam Road Construct middle turn lane from Appian Way to Castro
Ranch Rd Incomplete
11 Appian Way Construct signal at Allview Ave Complete
12 San Pablo Dam Road Construct signal at Clark Rd Complete
13 Appian Way Construct ultimate improvements from Valley View Rd to
Pinole Incomplete
14 San Pablo Dam Rd. Construct improvements from Richmond to Appian Way Incomplete
15 San Pablo Dam Rd. Construct signal at Greenridge Drive Incomplete
16 Appian Way Construct ultimate improvements from Valley View Rd.
to San Pablo Dam Rd Incomplete
17 Appian Way Construct signal at La Paloma Rd Complete
18 El Portal Construct signal at Barranca Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 179 of 199
Appendix D - 15
Richmond / El Sobrante Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 180 of 199
Appendix D - 16
South County Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 96-27
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Camino Tassajara Improve County portion to two lane rural highway
standard Incomplete
2 Crow Canyon Road Various safety and capacity improvements, including a
truck climbing lane Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
South County Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 181 of 199
Appendix D - 17
South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 94-72
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Olympic Boulevard Widen from Tice Valley Boulevard to I - 680 Complete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit Boundary
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 182 of 199
Appendix D - 18
West County Area of Benefit
Project List Schedule
Current Ordinance 95-37
Item Location Description Project Status
1 Appian Triangle Widen to 4-lane arterial standard Incomplete
2 El Portal Drive Widen to 4-lane arterial standard from San Pablo
Dam Road to I-80 Incomplete
3 Milton Drive at San Pablo Dam
Rd Construct Signal Complete
4 San Pablo Dam Road at
Appian Way
Modify intersection to dual left turn onto Appian
Way Complete
5 San Pablo Dam Road Construct fifth lane from Appian Way to Castro
Ranch Road Incomplete
6 Arlington Improve intersections at Amherst and Sunset and
install signals Incomplete
Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB
West County Area of Benefit Boundary
- Area Excluded from West County AOB
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 183 of 199
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:07/14/2016
Subject:CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation
Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7883
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 foursections, 1) LOCAL, 2) REGIONAL, 3) STATE, and 4) FEDERAL.
1) LOCAL
Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
Background: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) is in the process of putting
a half-cent transportation sales tax on the ballot 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: A comprehensive report has not been developed for the July TWIC meeting. The
TEP was completed in early 2016 and has been approved by all of the cities and towns in the
County. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review the item prior to the July TWIC meeting
on July 12.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 184 of 199
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any Local issues of note and take ACTION as
appropriate.
2) REGIONAL
On June 9th, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Board of Directors voted to approve
putting a $3.5B bond measure on the November ballot for Alameda, Contra Costa, and San
Francisco counties. Information on the measure is attached to this report and staff will provide a
verbal update at the July meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any Regional issues of note and take ACTION as
appropriate.
3) STATE
Legislative Report
The legislative report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, is attached (July TWIC
Report).
Mr. Watts will be present at the July meeting to discuss state legislation and the status of the state
budget/transportation revenues.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any State issues of note and take ACTION as
appropriate.
4) FEDERAL
No written report in July.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any Federal issues of note and take ACTION as
appropriate.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, 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
July TWIC State Leg Report
Better BART Brochure
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 185 of 199
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Cunningham
FROM: Mark Watts
DATE: July 6, 2016
SUBJECT: July TWIC Report
Key Bills - Update
Presented below are brief summaries of bills of interest to the County, including AB 1592 (Bonilla), AB
1665 (Bonilla), and AB 1764 (Stone). A brief summary of the key transportation items acted upon on
the pending state budget is included, as well as an update on the effect locally of legislation approved
this year to begin state repayment of outstanding loans.
AB 1592 (Bonilla)
This measure authorizes the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to conduct a pilot project for the
testing of autonomous vehicles.
The Senate Transportation & Housing committee approved the bill on June 24th on a 10-0 vote.
Amendments recommended by the committee included a new requirement for insurance and limits
on the use of vehicle data. These amendments have necessitated that the bill be referred to the
Senate Appropriations Committee with the hearing there likely to be in early August.
AB 1665 (Bonilla)
The Governor approved this measure on July 1st; as the bill was approved by the Legislature with an
Urgency Clause included, it became effective immediately. The bill authorizes the taxing authority for
a countywide transportation program to be transferred from the County of Contra Costa to the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
AB 1746 (Stone)
This bill extends the present limited authority for a pilot program to operate transit buses on highway
shoulders to additional transit operators. The bill would provide this authorization to Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), as well as other agencies, including the Central Contra
Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA).
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 186 of 199
Late opposition from public safety organizations led to the bill failing to be considered in the Senate
Transportation & Housing committee on June 28th, as it was withdrawn by the author. Having thus
failed a critical deadline, it is no longer viable.
TCRP Repayment
The Traffic Congestion Relief Act of 2000 committed $4.9 billion to 141 specific projects in the so-
called Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), including the Bay Area Transit Connectivity
project that earmarked funds for the Hercules Train Station. Of the $3 million “programmed” for the
early phases of the project, $700,000 was caught up in one of the state budget crises and was part of
a larger set of loans to assist in balancing the state General Fund.
Earlier this year the legislature enacted AB 133 that begins to make repayments of TCRP funds for
projects like the Hercules Station, to meet the programming obligations made a decade ago. The CTC
has developed a policy guidance document that was approved at their recent regularly scheduled
meeting. It is intended that this repayment process provide the funds in January 2017, in line with the
provisions of AB 133.
STATE BUDGET UPDATE
On June 28th, Governor Brown approved the 2017 State Budget Act, along with a number of relevant
trailer bills.
I have summarized key budgetary items affecting transportation programs acted upon as reflected in
the budget, as well as highlighted issues relegated to the transportation budget trailer bills, AB 1610
and SB 838.
The Assembly has approved SB 838 and returned it to the Senate, while AB 1610 was approved by the
Senate and returned the Assembly for concurrence. These bills differ by one provision: SB 838 reflects
the Conference Committee Recommendation to authorize additional HOV Access stickers, while the
other bill does not. Discussions continue on this issue, which was originally proposed by the governor.
Cap And Trade
Due to the lower-than-expected auction revenues in the May auction, decisions on Cap and Trade
programmatic funding have been deferred by leadership until after June 15, 2016. As a consequence,
only a very modest amount of funds will be appropriated to state agencies for program
administration purposes. The balance of the $1.4 billion unspent since last year will be reserved for
further discussion in August. This extra time will allow for more analysis of the amounts of revenue
potentially available for appropriation in the budget year.
Transportation - Key Budget Actions, 2016-17
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 187 of 199
•Governor’s Transportation Budget Proposal. The subcommittees in both houses shifted the
Governor’s proposed $3.6 billion transportation funding and reform package back to the policy
process and removed those provisions from the budget package.
•Trade Corridor Federal Funding. The subcommittees rejected the Governor’s proposed trailer
bill language to establish a new trade corridor program to allocate new federal funds the State has
received from the recently enacted federal FAST Act.
AB 2170 (Frazier) addresses this matter now and discussions are under way with the Administration.
•Capital Outlay Support at Caltrans. The budget adjusts overall Capital Outlay Support baseline
staffing within the department, resulting in a reduction in overall staffing by 94 positions. This
adjustment reflects the changes to the program as a result of the status quo level of revenue.
•Federal Trade Grant Program. Both subcommittees approved provisional language to allow
the CTC to allocate federal and state capital funds to match grant funds as necessary in order to take
advantage of any federal FASTLANE grants awarded to the State of California for Caltrans nominated
projects.
This issue is addressed in both AB 1610 and SB 838.
•State Transit Assistance “Fix”: The budget conferees adopted Trailer Bill Language (contained
in both AB 1610 and SB 838) to overturn a recent reinterpretation of current law that has resulted in
a reallocation of existing funding in the State Transit Assistance program to an expanded base of
transit entities.
This issue is addressed in both AB 1610 and SB 838.
Pre-Prop 42 Loans. A surprise addition to the budget trailer bills, not discussed in the committee
process, this new proposal approves trailer bill language that allows the transfer of tribal gaming
revenues to the General Fund in the event that the State repays Traffic Congestion Relief Fund debts
earlier than anticipated.
Contained in both AB 1610 and SB 838.
HOV Lane Access. The Governor proposed in the budget to eliminate the cap on the number of
approved stickers (85,000, current law) that authorize plug-in hybrids to access HOV Lanes with single
occupants. Due to a disagreement between the two houses on this policy, the Transportation Trailer
Bills (AB 1610 and SB 838) have not progressed to the Governor. Negotiations are underway to
resolve this matter.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 188 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 189 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 190 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 191 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 192 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 193 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 194 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 195 of 199
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 196 of 199
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:07/14/2016
Subject:COMMUNICATION/News Clippings
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:
Communication items are added to the TWIC agenda on an as-needed basis.
Referral Update:
See attached communication.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
Letter Re: ESA Fees to Delegation
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 197 of 199
309 Diablo Road
Danville, CA 94526
Office: (925) 957-8860
Fax: (925) 820-3785
Cell: (925) 768-2163
candace.andersen@bos.cccounty.us
Candace Andersen
Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
District Two
June 16, 2016
Honorable Steve Glazer
Member of the Senate
State Capitol, Room 4082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Honorable Loni Hancock
Member of the Senate
State Capitol, Room 2082
Honorable Lois Wolk
Member of the Senate
State Capitol, Room 5114
Honorable Catharine Baker
Member of the Assembly
State Capitol, Room 4153
Honorable Susan Bonilla
Member of the Assembly
State Capitol, Room 4140
Honorable Jim Frazier
Member of the Assembly
State Capitol, Room 3091
Honorable Tony Thurmond
Member of the Assembly
State Capitol, Room 5150
RE: AB 1611 (Assembly Budget Committee) & SB 839 (Senate Budget Committee)
Public Resources Budget Trailer Bills
California Endangered Species Act Permit Application Fees – OPPOSE Unless
Amended
Dear Senators Glazer, Hancock, and Wolk and Assembly Members Baker, Bonilla, Frazier, and
Thurmond:
I am writing as the Chair of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors regarding the new
proposed fees for Section 2081 Incidental Take Permits under the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA). As you may know, counties are required to comply with CESA by
obtaining incidental take permits for a number of county projects including land use, general
planning, flood control, and water management activities. The proposed fees are brand new,
not proposed for a phase-in, and would range in cost from $7,500 to $30,000. The proposed
fee also gives the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) the authority to charge an
additional fee of up to $10,000 if the original fees are deemed to be insufficient.
While I understand the importance of local and state agencies having the ability to raise
revenue to cover the costs of the services they provide, the fees proposed by CDFW are
excessive and could result in counties having to defer important public projects due to cost
issues. Therefore, I ask for your consideration in developing a more reasonable fee that is tied
to the anticipated level of species habitat impact rather than project cost.
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 198 of 199
My concerns are as follows:
1.The proposed fees are very high. Although we recognize that more staff at CDFW must
be involved in issuance of an Incidental Take Permit than are involved in issuance of a
Streambed Alteration Agreement, the proposed fees for an Incidental Take Permit are
up to roughly eight times the cost of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. A comparison
of fees is as follows:
Project Cost Streambed Alteration
Agreement Fee*
Proposed
2081 Incidental
Take Permit Fee
< $100k $921 (or less) $7,500
$100k to <$500K $2,763 (or less) $15,000
$500k or more $4,912 $30,000
*these fees are linked to work occurring in the stream channel
2.The fee proposal comes with no clear basis for the fee rates. With the proposed fees as
high as $30,000 for an initial application, up to an additional $10,000 if CDFW staff
deems the original application fee insufficient, and up to $15,000 for a major permit
amendment, an individual County infrastructure project could cost upwards of $50,000
just to apply for a permit through CDFW. When asked by CSAC staff to provide a budget
line item to process 2081 permits, CDFW staff was unable to provide that information.
Without CDFW having the costs of the 2081 program available to applicants, the
foundation and justification for these very high fees is unclear.
3.The proposed permit fee structure does not take into account the scale of actual impacts.
Many County infrastructure projects may have high project construction costs yet have
relatively low habitat impact because they occur in road rights of way or highly
managed channels where sensitive species may sometimes occur but impacts to them
would be expected to be quite limited on a project-by-project basis. The new fee
structure is based on project cost rather than the project’s anticipated impacts; therefore,
very low impact projects may cost the maximum amount to permit.
Establishing a reasonable fee structure is not objectionable, but these fees are unreasonably
high and established without any technical basis or other rationale. Contra Costa County would
be happy to work with CDFW to develop a more reasonable fee schedule. Should you have any
questions, please contact Leigh Chavez at (925) 313-2366 or leigh.chavez@pw.cccounty.us.
Sincerely,
CANDACE K. ANDERSEN
Chair, Board of Supervisors
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
David Twa, County Administrator
Leigh Chavez, Public Works Department
Cathy Christian, Nielsen Merksamer
CSAC
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 199 of 199