HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 08112016 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
August 11, 2016
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3.Administrative Items, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation
and Development)
4.REVIEW record of meeting for July 14, 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.AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit grant
applications to Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Cycle 8 funding cycle. (Angela Villar, Department of Public Works)
6.CONSIDER report summarizing the Pipeline Safety Trust Report and staff reports
in response to the recommendations, and DIRECT staff to submit the full report to
the Board of Supervisors for consideration. (Carrie Ricci, Department of Public
Works, and John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
7.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION
of specific recommendations in the report above. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development)
8.COMMUNICATION/News Clippings
9.Adjourn to next meeting date, currently scheduled for **PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 1 of 121
9.Adjourn to next meeting date, currently scheduled for **PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT
TIME SCHEDULED FOR NEXT TWIC MEETING**, Tuesday, September 6, 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
Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 2 of 121
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
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 3 of 121
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:08/11/2016
Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.
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.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 4 of 121
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:08/11/2016
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for July 14, 2016, Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Meeting.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each
County Body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must
accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting.
Referral Update:
Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this
meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web
page: http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the July 14, 2016, Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
07-14-16 TWIC Mtg Sign-In Sheet
July 2016 TWIC Minutes
HANDOUTS - CRIPP Changes
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 5 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 6 of 121
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
July 14, 2016
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Attendees: Stephen Kowalewski, CCC Public Works Department
Tanya Drlik, CCC IPM Coordinator
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).
No public comment.
3.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the June 9, 2016, Committee Meeting with any
necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously approved the June 8, 2016 Meeting Record.
5.ACCEPT Integrated Pest Management report, and take ACTION as appropriate.
The Committee received the report and directed staff to bring the report to the full Board of Supervisors and
return in December with a regular update on the program.
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.
The Committee unanimously accepted the staff recommendation.
7.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.
The Committee received the report and DIRECTED staff to report back on the status of: 1) AB
1697(Bonilla): Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology, and 2) CCTA Transportation
Expenditure Plan polling.
8.RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 7 of 121
The Committee received the communication, 6/16/16 letter from Supervisor Andersen to Contra Costa
County's State Legislative Delegation re: AB 1611/SB 839 (California Endangered Species Act Permit
Application Fees), and DIRECTED staff to report back on the status of the legislation and fees.
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.
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 8 of 121
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 40 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 and be consistent with County
policies, design guidelines, regional planning documents, whenever feasible, and other policies as
may be adopted by the County from time to time. These considerations include an assessment of
opportunities for Green Infrastructure and Complete Streets elements. Some projects may have
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.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 9 of 121
Introduction 1
07-14-16 TWIC Packet Page 60 of 199
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 and whenever feasible, be
consistent with County policies, design guidelines, and regional planning documents and other
policies as may be adopted by the County. This includes an assessment of opportunities for Green
Infrastructure and Complete Streets elements. Some projects may have cost increases and/or
project scope changes after these elements are evaluated in more detail. All these things are
considered 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.
Format
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 10 of 121
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:08/11/2016
Subject:Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) Cycle 8 grant applications
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 2
Referral Name: REVIEW applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be
prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development
Departments.
Presenter: Angela Villar, Department of Public
Works
Contact: Angela Villar
(925)313-2016
Referral History:
The TWIC typically reviews and authorizes State and Federal Grant submittals.
Referral Update:
The Public Works Department has historically submitted grant applications for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). On May 9, 2016, Caltrans announced the Call for Projects
for Cycle 8 of HSIP. HSIP is a core federal-aid program to the States for the purpose of achieving
a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. HSIP focuses on
infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs) and must be
identified on the basis of crash history.
Examples of eligible type of projects may include, but are not limited to, the following list:
• Intersection safety improvement
• Pavement and shoulder widening
• Installation of rumble strips or another warning devices
• Installation of a skid-resistant surface
• Improvement for bicycle or pedestrian safety
• Elimination of hazards at a railway-highway crossing
• Traffic calming feature
• Elimination of a roadside obstacle
• Highway signage and pavement markings
• Traffic control or other warning device
• Installation of guardrails, barriers, and crash attenuators
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 11 of 121
HSIP emphasizes identifying low cost safety projects that can be designed and constructed
expeditiously. Projects should not require the acquisition of significant rights of way, nor should
they require extensive environmental review and mitigation.
Also, typical road projects, such as shoulder widening and curve realignment projects, are
required to show an incremental approach of lower cost improvements that have been installed
and have not proved to be effective before higher cost improvements will be considered for
funding. The minimum request for federal funds is $100,000 per application, with a maximum
total request amount from any one agency set at $10 million.
Project selection is awarded solely on the benefit/cost (B/C) ratio calculated for each project based
on the value of benefits calculated from the volume and severity of injuries that have occurred
within a project’s limits and the cost of the proposed project improvements. The minimum B/C
ratio to be considered in the selection process for Cycle 8 is 3.5.
Public Works Staff utilized the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) maintained by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to identify the list of roadway
segments and intersections within unincorporated Contra Costa County with the highest number
of collisions.
The County roadways with the highest volume of collisions within the most recent five years data
available, from 1/1/2010-12/31/2014 are identified below:
1. Kirker Pass Road
2. Vasco Road
3. Marsh Creek Road
4. San Pablo Dam Road
5. Highland Road
6. Byron Highway
7. Hess Road
8. Camino Tassajara
9. Deer Valley Road
The County intersections with the highest volume of collisions within the most recent five years
data available, from 1/1/2010-12/31/2014 are identified below:
1. Bailey Road/Canal Road
2. San Pablo Dam Road/Appian Way
3. Treat Boulevard/Oak Road
4. Treat Boulevard/Jones Road
5. Vasco Road/Camino Diablo
6. Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road
7. Treat Boulevard/Cherry Lane
8. Willow Pass Road/Port Chicago Highway
9. Byron Highway/Camino Diablo
10. Evora Road/Willow Pass Road
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 12 of 121
The CHP collision reports were reviewed to determine the typical cause of collisions and
potential countermeasures. Many of the roadways and intersections listed already have funding
identified for projects to address safety improvements. Staff utilized the collision data, requests
from the community, and discussions with the County Traffic Engineer to evaluate potential
safety improvement projects that would compete well for funding.
Funding Set-asides:
In Cycle 8, Caltrans has set aside funds for two new funding set-asides. Applications for funding
set-asides do not require collision data or a benefit/cost ratio calculation. The two new funding
set-aside categories are:
1. Guardrail Upgrades Set-aside ($600,000 maximum per agency)
2. Crosswalk Enhancements at unsignalized locations and/or pedestrian countdown heads at
signalized intersections ($250,000 maximum per agency)
Project Recommendations:
The Public Works Department recommends the following five projects (in no particular priority
order) as candidates for Cycle 8 of HSIP funding, based upon collision history and initial project
scoping:
1.Crosswalk Enhancements (Funding Set-aside)
The purpose of this project is to construct pedestrian crosswalk enhancements to improve
pedestrian safety and increase driver awareness at existing uncontrolled crosswalks. Without a
stop sign or traffic signal, drivers tend to travel at higher speeds and pose a safety concern for
pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks. Improvements include installation of Rectangular Rapid
Flash Beacons (RRFBs) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps, where feasible.
Two locations were selected based on crosswalk location, traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes,
community requests, and discussions with the County Traffic Engineer:
• Olympic Boulevard crossing near Bridgefield Road, unincorporated Walnut Creek
(Supervisorial District 2)
• Walden Road crossing near Westcliffe Lane, unincorporated Walnut Creek (Supervisorial
District 4)
2.Marsh Creek Road Guardrail Upgrades (Funding Set-aside) (Supervisorial District 3 & 4)
This project is located along Marsh Creek Road from the Clayton City Limits to Camino Diablo.
The project proposes to replace the end treatments of existing guardrail to improve safety by
reducing injury severity of drivers who veer off the roadway. Guardrail is typically installed in
locations where the terrain is steep and where running off the roadway is likely to lead to serious
injury.
The new Flared Energy Absorbing Terminal (FLEAT) end treatments are designed to absorb the
impact and direct errant vehicles back towards the traveled way, reducing the injury severity of
vehicles hitting the guardrail. Marsh Creek Road was selected based on the high traffic volume,
speed, collision history, and number of existing guardrail.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 13 of 121
3.Danville Blvd/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements (Supervisorial District 2)
Through an extensive community outreach effort with the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council,
this project aims at improving safety and mobility for all users through the downtown corridor
along Danville Blvd between Jackson Way and Stone Valley Road. The project proposes to install
a roundabout at the Danville Blvd/Orchard Court intersection. The project also includes curb &
sidewalk reconstruction, striping reconfiguration, drainage improvements and community
enhancements. Consistent with complete streets policies, this project would assure that the
transportation corridor is accessible for all modes and all users with an emphasis on a pedestrian
and bicycle friendly environment and ADA access.
4.San Pablo Dam Road Traffic Safety Improvements (Supervisorial District 1)
The purpose of this project is to improve safety along San Pablo Dam Road between Richmond
City Limits and Bear Creek Road. Four fatal collisions occurred in 2015 along this segment of
San Pablo Dam Road. The project proposes to install centerline rumble strips to reduce collisions
caused by crossing over the centerline of the roadway. The project will also look at replacing
existing regulatory and warning signs with high reflectivity signs to increase visibility at night and
upgrading existing guardrail end treatments to reduce injury severity.
5.Byron Highway/Byer Road Intersection Improvements (Supervisorial District 3)
This project is located along Byron Highway near Byer Road, adjacent to Excelsior Middle
School, Byron Area (Supervisorial District 3). The project proposes to widen the roadway to
provide a left-turn pocket from southbound Byron Highway onto eastbound Byer Road and make
access improvements along Byron Highway to facilitate school traffic entering/exiting Excelsior
Middle School on Byron Highway. Roadway widening is expected along the east side of Byron
Highway along the school frontage. County staff has met with the Byron Union School District
and they are supportive of the project.
Next Steps:
If authorized to proceed, staff will prepare the grant application packages. If during project
research prior to the application deadline, staff discovers a critical constraint that would result in
the project being cost prohibitive or will not meet the eligibility requirements of the funding
program, staff will hold the application for further study to increase project readiness for the
following grant cycle.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit grant applications to
Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 8 funding cycle.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The applications for HSIP funds require up to a 10% local match, as well as funds to cover
federally ineligible project costs. Any funding received from an HSIP grant would be combined
with other funds, such as Measure J, Area of Benefit funds, other grants, or local road funds. The
projects recommended for submittal are in the cost range of $250,000 to $4,000,000. For each of
these projects, Public Works will apply for the unfunded project costs, up to $10,000,000, which
is the maximum amount HSIP will award to any single agency.
Attachments
HSIP Map
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 14 of 121
^^^^}þ24}þ242}þ4§¨¦680§¨¦680}þ4}þ4}þ4}þ160§¨¦580§¨¦80§¨¦80RichmondAntiochConcordAlamoOakleyDanvilleHerculesPittsburgOrindaLafayetteMartinezRodeoPinoleWalnut CreekSan RamonBrentwoodMoragaBay PointDiscovery BayCrockettPleasant HillVine HillClaytonKnightsenByronBethel IslandBlackhawk/TassajaraEl CerritoSan PabloEl SobranteDiabloKensingtonWaldenPachecoTara HillsPort CostaE. Richmond HeightsClydeMountain ViewBay Point0 2 4 6MilesISan Pablo Dam Rd Traffic Safety ImprovementsDanville Blvd/Orchard CtComplete Streets ImprovementsCrosswalk Enhancements:Olympic Blvd/Bridgefield RdCrosswalk Enhancements:Walden Rd/Westcliffe LnMarsh Creek Rd Guardrail UpgradesByron Hwy/Byer Rd Intersection Improvements 8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 15 of 121
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:08/11/2016
Subject:CONSIDER report summarizing the Pipeline Safety Trust Report and
DIRECT staff to submit the full report to the Board of Supervisors for
consideration
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 15
Referral Name: Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Program
Presenter: Carrie Ricci, PWD and John
Cunningham, DCD
Contact: Carrie Ricci (925)313-2235 and
John Cunningham (925)674-7833
Referral History:
The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) was awarded a Technical Assistance Grant by the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. The grant included pipeline safety public outreach and education, and training for
local first responders, and outreach regarding the 811 Call Before You Dig Program. The grant
period was from October 2014 through September 2015.
AIA contracted with the Pipeline Safety Trust in 2015 to provide services intended to educate and
inform the community about hazardous liquid pipelines and pipeline safety. The contract included
presentation at two community workshops in June 2015 and the production of a report. The
report, Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
(the Report) is attached as Appendix A and includes a summary of the work completed and
recommendations.
The Hazardous Materials Commission reviewed the Report at their January 2016 and April 2016
meetings. The Planning and Policy Development Committee of the Hazardous Materials
Commission reviewed the Report and recommendations at their October 2015, December 2015,
January 2016 and February 2016 meetings.
At the January 2016 meeting, the Commission agreed that 7 of the recommendations contained in
the report merit further consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Michael Kent, Executive
Assistant to the Hazardous Materials Commission summarized the Hazardous Materials
Commission’s discussion and the recommendations at the Transportation, Water and
Infrastructure (TWIC) Committee Meeting on April 14, 2016. The April 14, 2016 TWIC report is
attached as Appendix B.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 16 of 121
At the April 14, 2016 TWIC meeting, staff from the Departments of Conservation and
Development and Public Works were directed to review the recommendations and report on how
they could be implemented within the County. On May 23, 2016 staff from Conservation and
Development, Public Works, the Office of Emergency Services, Health Services, Contra Costa
County Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire District met to discuss the
recommendations, what is currently being performed and any additional steps that can be taken to
improve in these areas.
Staff reported back to TWIC on June 9, 2016. The June 9, 2016 TWIC report is attached as
Appendix C. At that meeting staff were directed to bring a comprehensive report back to TWIC
with an update on how we are implementing the recommendations of the Pipeline Safety Report,
what we’re currently doing or have planned for each of the recommendations, and what other
Counties with hazardous materials pipelines are doing regarding land use restrictions for pipelines
located near congregate facilities.
Referral Update:
Below are the recommendations from the Report’s Executive Summary, what the County
currently does and what additional steps can be taken.
The Federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Could:
Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence Area designation easily available to
the public.
Adopt regulations to implement the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendations regarding needed improvements to the Integrity Management
requirements for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
Adopt stronger regulations requiring automated valves consistent with the NTSB
recommendations.
Adopt stronger regulations that require better leak detection systems in hazardous liquid
pipelines that could affect high consequence areas, and provide a clear performance standard
for computational pipeline monitoring systems.
Response: When the County has an opportunity to provide input on state and federal legislation,
the County may take a position and provide comments to the appropriate agency. The Public
Works Department sent the report to PHMSA on August 2, 2016 for their review and
consideration.
The State of California Could:
Enforce excavation damage prevention laws. Currently authority is held with the Attorney
General’s office, but there is not adequate staffing or resources to respond to notifications of
alleged violations or to investigate. Other agencies respond on a fragmented basis depending
on the damaged utility involved.
Work with the California Department of Education (CDE) on ways to implement CDE’s
suggestions for reducing the probability of a pipeline product release on schools, and
reducing the severity and consequences of pipeline releases on schools.
Response: When the County has an opportunity to provide input on state and federal legislation,
the County may take a position and provide comments to the appropriate agency. The Public
Works Department sent the report to the State Attorney General and Department of Education
on August 2, 2016, for their review and consideration.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 17 of 121
The California Office of the State Fire Marshal Could:
Make their maps, incident and inspection information accessible to the public by posting it
online.
Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence Area designation easily available to
the public.
Adopt regulations to implement the NTSB recommendations regarding needed
improvements to the Integrity Management requirements that apply to intrastate hazardous
liquid pipelines.
Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines requiring automated valves that apply to
hazardous liquid pipelines along the lines of the NTSB recommendations.
Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines that require better leak detection systems
in high consequence areas, and that provide a clear performance standard for computational
pipeline monitoring systems.
Response: The Public Works Department sent the report to the Office of the State Fire Marshal on
August 2, 2016 for their review and consideration.
The California Department of Education Could:
Expand School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis and the Potential Pipeline Hazard
Mitigation/Management guidance in coordination with emergency response agencies to
offer help for schools that already exist in close proximity to pipelines. Lead coordination
efforts among the myriad of agencies that offer crisis planning assistance to schools, and
suggest minimum information that should be included in these plans regarding pipelines.
Response: The Public Works Department sent the report to the California Department of
Education on August 2, 2016 for their review and consideration.
The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Could:
Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens with concerns about multiple utility
issues and right of way questions has technical training on safety concerns, adequate
resources to conduct regular and broad community outreach (especially along the Iron Horse
Trail Corridor), and resources to work in close coordination with other related departments
and advisory groups.
Response: The Public Works Department has a single staff contact [1] for the corridor who is the
Iron Horse Corridor Manager. The Corridor Manager works with the utilities, County Survey
staff and property owners to address right of way questions. The Corridor Manager interacts
with other departments to address corridor concerns and attends advisory committee meetings,
as needed to share information with the community. The Department has contacts with all of the
utilities and the State Fire Marshal so they can provide expertise, as needed. The Iron Horse
Corridor utility contacts are posted on the Iron Horse Corridor website.
[1] http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/413/Iron-Horse-Corridor
Request appropriate staff conduct an analysis of all congregate facilities located in close
proximity to transmission pipelines. Work with other emergency response agencies to
develop a list of resources for emergency and evacuation planning expertise for congregate
facilities near pipelines that include potential hazards from a pipeline incident, and
mitigation strategies for those hazard based on site-specific consideration.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 18 of 121
Response: The Fire District and Health Services will work with Community Awareness and
Emergency Response (CAER) to develop a fact sheet to send to the congregate facilities that
describes what to consider regarding pipelines when they’re developing their emergency plans.
The term congregate will need to be further defined to determine what facilities would receive
this information. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District has an evacuation video developed
for this type of scenario that has been promoted to surrounding jurisdictions.
Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and amending
Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82.2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid
transmission pipelines would be subject to land use regulations. Consider additional
ordinances pertaining to zoning and land use that are proposed for construction,
replacement, modification, or abandonment.
Response: The Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, Open Space, and Safety elements of
the County General Plan contain references to pipelines that transport hazardous materials. The
Land Use and Safety elements also contain policies, though they are few and their nature is more
suggestive than directive. Because the County does not always have jurisdiction over pipeline
projects, amending the General Plan to add goals and policies pertaining directly to pipeline
development may have limited value. However, adding policies addressing the relationship of
other land uses to pipelines could be useful. Examples of such policies could include, but not be
limited to:
Discouraging placement of uses and facilities which primarily house or serve vulnerable or
sensitive populations (elderly, ill, children, etc.) within X feet of a hazardous materials
pipeline right-of-way.
Requiring deed notifications for all newly subdivided lots within X feet of a hazardous
materials pipeline right-of-way.
Encouraging new buildings to be located away from hazardous materials pipeline
rights-of-way when such design flexibility exists on the project site.
Ordinance Code Section 82-2.010 currently states that pipelines are exempt from the County’s
zoning regulations. However, on May 24, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment
to Section 82-2.010 clarifying that pipelines are subject to Ordinance Code Chapter 84-63, Land
Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials. The
amendment becomes effective 30 days after adoption. Staff believes the Ordinance Code provides
for proper review of pipelines and sees no compelling need for additional regulation of pipeline
construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. Statutory exemptions exist for
replacement/modification of pipelines and often these activities take place under order from a
federal or state agency. Pursuant to Chapter 84-63, pipeline projects located more than 300 feet
from residential or commercial properties are not “development projects” and therefore do not
require a land use permit. If a pipeline is located within 300 feet of such properties and has a
hazard score [2]f 80 or higher, then a land use permit is required and an environmental review
will be performed. The Transportation Risk component of the hazard scoring rates pipelines as
the preferred method for transporting hazardous materials relative to truck, rail, and marine
vessel. Discouraging pipeline development through unnecessary regulation could have the
unintended consequence of incentivizing the use of less safe transportation methods, especially
since increasing the frequency of truck, rail or vessel deliveries typical would not require a County review.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 19 of 121
[2] The hazard score is calculated pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1004 and represents a project-specific
risk assessment based on the following factors (possible points for each factor are indicated in parentheses):
Transportation Risk (0-10); Community Risk – Distance from Receptor (1-30); Community Risk – Type of
Receptor (4-7); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Total Amount Change in Tons; 0-30); Facility Risk – Size of Project
(Percentage Change; 0-6); and Hazard Category of Material or Waste (1-3).
Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing encroachments including review of
setback variances by municipal advisory councils or committees and department staff, so
that properties and vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines.
Response: The County has clear policies that prevent encroachments. Property owners and
contractors are required to apply for a permit to access and/or perform work in the Iron Horse
Corridor. The Public Works Department is looking into different methods to communicate this
information to property owners adjacent to the Iron Horse Corridor, such as informational letters
that remind residents of the corridor property lines, utilities in the corridor and the requirement to
call Underground Service Alert when digging. Other possibilities include Board of Supervisors
email communication and markers in the corridor designating the property line in various
locations. The County and cities along the corridor have setback requirements in place. Utilities
companies, specifically Kinder Morgan routinely clears vegetation over their easement. When
property owners apply for a setback variance the application may go to the appropriate municipal
advisory committee for review and a recommendation.
Work in coordination with pipeline operators to develop a technical advisory body that can
review the integrity management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety
Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipelines in order to
cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and awareness.
Response: The Hazardous Materials Commission discussed this recommendation and did not
support it.
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Could:
Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and amending
Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid
transmission pipelines would be subject to (and not exempt from) the General and Land Use
District regulations (divisions 82 and 84). Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining to
zoning and land use permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines and possibly also intrastate
gas transmission pipelines that are proposed for construction, replacement, modification, or
abandonment.
Response: See response to the same recommendation under Board of Supervisors
recommendations.
Review all development applications for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress
where currently limited, and where possible, include conditions on approvals to improve
connectivity and avoid exacerbation of access problems.
Response: The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire District
review development applications to determine based on the size of the development whether a
second access is required. Access requirements are determined by the Contra Costa County Fire Code.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 20 of 121
The Contra Costa County Health Services Department Could:
Expand the scope of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman and the Hazardous Materials
Commission regarding pipelines to provide an ongoing review of pipeline operators’
emergency plans and an active role in possible county efforts regarding additional
coordinated technical review of pipeline integrity management planning.
Response: The Hazardous Materials Commission discussed this recommendation and did not
support it.
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department Could:
Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard
and the Iron Horse Corridor where a single east-west pipeline crossing road is the only
access for numerous homes and facilities (e.g., Hemme Road, Camille Road) with the goal
of creating public accessibility across these ‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate
crossing the pipeline to access any services.
Response: The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is in the preliminary phase of
developing evacuation maps for neighborhoods on the west side of the trail in the Danville area.
They have requested feedback from the Danville Police Department and will look at the Alamo
area next. The information will be incorporated into a mailer and is anticipated to be sent to
residents in fiscal year 2016-17. In some emergency situations, Shelter in Place may be the most
appropriate option.
Ensure the county has complete and accurate records of corridor and right of way locations
and widths. Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of
encroachments into pipeline rights of way.
Response: The County has current maps that show property lines and utility easements. Staff
continues to work with the utilities and property owners to address encroachments.
The Contra Costa County Office of Public Education and Local School Districts Could:
Expand emergency preparedness resources to include information about pipelines and
pipeline-specific risks. Assist individual schools in developing crisis plans and emergency
preparedness plans that include pipelines on the emergency maps and assess how
ingress/egress may be affected by a pipeline incident.
Response: As stated in the previous response, CAER will include pipeline information in the next
update to the Model Emergency Plan for Schools which can be used to prepare school site
specific emergency preparedness plans.
The Contra Costa County Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) Group
Could:
Include specific reference to oil and gas pipeline in the list of potential hazards listed in the
hazard assessment in the next update to the Model Emergency Plan for Schools.
Response: CAER will address this in the next update to the Model Emergency Plan for Schools.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 21 of 121
Pipeline Operators Could:
Reach out to the schools along pipeline easements and offer to provide technical assistance
assessing pipeline risks and evacuation strategies given possible incidents that could occur
in close proximity to the schools.
Consistently undertake assessments of existing Right of Way encroachments to determine
whether there are safety implications. Coordinate with Contra Costa County to resolve
encroachments with neighboring property owners.
Become members of the Contra Costa County Community Awareness and Emergency
Response Group, and participate consistently in quarterly meetings and responses.
Contract for an independent technical seismic vulnerability study on HCA pipelines affected
by potentially active faults to feed into the pipeline risk analysis, and make the study
available to the public.
Work in coordination with the Board of Supervisors to develop a technical advisory body
that can review the integrity management plan (similar to the Santa Barbara County System
Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipelines in
order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and
awareness. As stated in the TWIC report dated April 14, 2016, the Hazardous Materials
Commission did not support this recommendation.
Response: The Public Works Department sent the report on August 2, 2016 to all of the pipeline
operators that have franchise agreements with Contra Costa County for their review and
consideration.
Local Fire Districts Could:
Designate a single point-of-contact to coordinate with pipeline operators, familiarize
themselves with the operators’ emergency response and spill response plans, know the
facilities where people congregate (schools, churches, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) in
close proximity to the pipeline, and be involved with any emergency planning done by those
facilities.
Response: The local Fire Districts will coordinate pipeline operators as determined by each
local agency, to exchange information regarding emergency response plans. Local Fire Districts
will support facilities located in close proximity to the pipeline with emergency planning
resources when requested by the facility administrator.
At the June TWIC meeting the Committee directed staff to research how other Counties are
restricting or managing pipelines. Below is a sample of policies from Sonoma, Solano, San
Joaquin, Kern, and Sacramento Counties:
Sonoma County:
County Zoning Ordinance section 29-7– requires a consolidated permit to store or handle
hazardous materials. Consolidated permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall be valid for 3
years. Facilities must submit updated information and fees annually.
1.
General Plan Public Facilities and services element, Policy PF-2T – Review proposals for
new transmission lines or acquisition of easements for new transmission lines for
consistency with GP. Request wherever feasible that such facilities not be located within
2.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 22 of 121
designated community separators or biotic resource areas. Give priority to the use of existing
utility corridors over new ones.
General Plan Open Space and Resource Conservation Element – Review and condition
proposed natural gas wells through use permit process.
3.
Solano County:
County Zoning Ordinance Section 28.78.20 (B) (8) Pipeline… inside of R.O.W.- Public
utility, electric, gas, water, oil, and telephone transmission and distribution lines shall be
permitted in any district without the necessity of first obtaining a use permit; provided, that
maps showing proposed routes of such heights and right-of-way widths, shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission, and routes mutually acceptable to the Planning Commission
and utility agencies concerned shall be determined in writing prior to acquisition of any
rights-of-way. Each transmission line route proposal submitted in accordance herewith shall
be accompanied by a fee or fees as may be set by the Board of Supervisors by resolution
pursuant to Section 11-111 of this Code. No part of such fee shall be refundable.
1.
County Zoning Ordinance Section 28.78.20 (B) (9) Pipeline… outside of R.O.W. - All
utility accessory uses and structures for transmission or distribution of electricity, gas, water,
oil, gasoline, telephone, television or other utility services may be permitted in any district.
Utility accessory uses and structures include, but are not limited to, compression, drying,
regeneration stations, substations, or pumping stations.
2.
County General Plan Resources Element, Policy RSP-55 – Require responsible extraction,
storage and transportation of natural gas resources that minimize impacts on the
environment.
3.
San Joaquin County:
Zoning Ordinance Section 9-1155.2(b)Location for Underground Facilities - Underground
distribution facilities for public utilities shall be located in a public right-of-way or public
utility easement. No public utility distribution facilities shall be located outside a public
right-of-way or public utility easement except in providing service to the parcel on which
they are located.
1.
General Plan Vol 3, Ch. 2. Section D, pages 35-36 – Policies on oil and natural gas lines –
Concerns over the hazardous nature of the product being transported require pipeline
systems be constantly monitored and accessible. Major pipelines, particularly pumped
systems, require periodic control centers which function as monitoring stations as well as
flow regulation and service access points. Physical access to the system is assured through
dedicated R.O.W. and visual inspection of the system over difficult terrain is accomplished
by aerial patrolling….A major source of natural gas within the county is in the form of
several local gas fields. Pipes conveying gas after odorizing and dehydration at source vary
from 4”-12” in diameter. The operation of these fields is undertaken by private concerns
with PG&E contracting to buy and distribute… The design and operation guidelines of such
systems is subject to conformity with CPUC General Order #112D.
2.
Kern County:
County Ordinance Chapter 19.98 – Oil and Gas Production – Oil and gas activities in the
County are divided into 5 tier areas.
1.
Tier 1 Area is defined as all areas in which oil and gas activity is the primary land use. The
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 23 of 121
Tier 1 Area is defined as all areas in which oil and gas activity is the primary land use. The
existing well and activity densities preclude almost all other uses except for passive uses
such as grazing.
Tier 2 Area is defined as all areas that are classified exclusive agriculture (A) or limited
agriculture (A-1) districts, have agriculture as the primary surface land use, and are not
included in Tier 1.
Tier 3 Area is defined as other areas not within a Tier 1 Area that are located in one (1) of
the following zone districts: Natural resources, recreational forestry, light industrial,
medium industrial, heavy industrial, floodplain primary, drilling island, petroleum
extraction combining districts
Tier 4 Area is defined as areas not within Tier 1, 2, or 3, that include at least one (1) of the
following zone districts: estate, low/med/high density residential, commercial zoning
districts, mobile home park
Tier 5 are areas including all current and future specific plan boundaries either adopted with
a Special Planning (SP) District or which include specific provisions for oil and gas
operations. Oil or gas exploration and production activities would be allowed with a
conditional use permit or as permitted by the regulations contained within the adopted
specific plan in Tier 5 areas.
Ministerial permits for tiers 1,2,3, 5 available after applying for oil and gas conformity review or
minor activity review (applies only to first 3,647 new well permits in a calendar year, 3,648th
such permit requires conditional use permit)
Conditional use permit required for tier 4.
*Pipelines subject to Minor activity review, no conditional use permit required
Sacramento County:
County Zoning Ordinance Section 301-13 – If not otherwise authorized as a permitted or
conditional use... in this code, the project planning commission may, after public
hearings…, permit a public utility or public service use as a conditional use in any zone if
the commission determines that the use is necessary for the public health, convenience,
safety, or public welfare.
1.
County Zoning Ordinance Section 301-19 – Oil and/or gas sites proposed to be developed
on either industrial or agriculturally zoned land shall not be located within 1000 feet of the
boundary of property zoned for residential, interim residential, interim estate, or recreational
purposes. Additionally, no proposed oil and/or gas well site shall be located within 300 feet
of a structure used for human habitation.
2.
General Plan Public Facilities Element Policy PF-112 – New natural gas wells are subject to
permitting process as regulated by the State Conservation Department, Division of Oil, Gas,
and Geothermal resources, as well as Sacramento County Zoning Code 301-19
3.
General Plan Public Facilities Element Policy PF-113 – Route new gas mains within existing
railway and electric transmission corridors, along collector roads and, whenever possible,
within existing easements. If not feasible, gas mains shall be placed as close to easements as
possible.
4.
[1] http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/413/Iron-Horse-Corridor
[2] The hazard score is calculated pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1004 and represents a project-specific
risk assessment based on the following factors (possible points for each factor are indicated in parentheses):
Transportation Risk (0-10); Community Risk – Distance from Receptor (1-30); Community Risk – Type of
Receptor (4-7); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Total Amount Change in Tons; 0-30); Facility Risk – Size of
Project (Percentage Change; 0-6); and Hazard Category of Material or Waste (1-3).
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 24 of 121
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report summarizing the Pipeline Safety Trust Report and staff reports in response to
the recommendations, and DIRECT staff to submit the full report to the Board of Supervisors for
consideration.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 25 of 121
Page 1
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Pipeline Safety in Alamo,
and surrounding areas within
Contra Costa County, California
Pipeline Safety Report to the
Alamo Improvement Association
Produced by the Pipeline Safety Trust
September 2015
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 26 of 121
Page 2
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) sponsored this report through a Community Technical
Assistance Grant they received from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration. Roger Smith, AIA President, was the driving force behind this
project; and Aron DeFarrari, Board Member, offered valuable feedback.
Multiple Contra Costa County staff members were helpful in the writing of this report, and we
appreciate their input and cooperation. Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman, was
invaluable in connecting us with others in the community and providing information. Jennifer
Quallick, Field Representative to Supervisor Anderson, was also very helpful.
Together, the four people mentioned above gave countless hours as part of the AIA Technical
Assistance Grant for pipeline safety, ad-hoc working group, and we thank them all for their dedication.
Numerous county, state, and federal agency employees, and pipeline operator staff members, spent time
giving us information used in this report, and we appreciate their willingness to help.
The Pipeline Safety Trust promotes pipeline safety through education and advocacy, increased access to
information, and partnerships with residents, safety advocates, government, and industry, resulting in
safer communities and a healthier environment.
The work of the Pipeline Safety Trust would not be possible without the guidance and diligent work of
the following people:
Trust Board of Directors
Lois Epstein – President (Anchorage, Alaska)
Sara Gosman – Vice President (Fayetteville, Arkansas)
Bruce Brabec – Treasurer (Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles)
Beth Wallace – Secretary (Brighton, Michigan)
Glenn R Archambault (Phoenix, Oregon)
Paul Blackburn (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Michael Guidon (Seattle, Washington)
Jeffrey Insko (Rochester, Michigan)
Trust Staff
Carl Weimer – Executive Director
Rebecca Craven – Program Director
Samya Lutz – Outreach Coordinator
Chris Coffin – Administrative Assistant/
Webmaster/Graphic Design
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSAppendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 27 of 121
Page 3
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
LIST OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Purpose and Scope of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
PIPELINE BASICS AND TECHNICAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
What kinds of pipelines are in Contra Costa County? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Where are the pipelines in Contra Costa County? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Who regulates pipeline safety? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
How much risk is there from the pipelines in Contra Costa County?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Pipeline Construction, Operations and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Land Use Planning and Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Damage Prevention and Public Awareness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Emergency Response, Spill Response & Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A. Agency listing and resources for more information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B. Community education meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System. . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 28 of 121
Page 4
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIA – Alamo Improvement Association
ASV – Automatic Shutoff Valve
CAER – Community Awareness and Emergency Response
CalEPA – California Environmental Protection Agency
CAO – Corrective Action Order
CATS – Community Assistance and Technical Services, PHMSA Pipeline Safety outreach staff
CCC – Contra Costa County
CDE – California Department of Education
CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission
CUPA – Certified Unified Program Agency, as authorized under CalEPA
DCD – Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development
EFRD – Emergency Flow Restricting Devices, or valves
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
HCA – High Consequence Area
HL – Hazardous Liquid
HSD – Contra Costa County Health Services Department
IHC – Iron Horse Corridor
LS – Line Segment, specifying a number that identifies a specific segment of a pipeline
NTSB – National Transportation Safety Board
OSFM – California Office of the State Fire Marshal
OSPR – California Department of Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response
PHMSA – U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PST – Pipeline Safety Trust, also referred to in this report as “the Trust”
RCV – Remote Control Valve
SFPP – Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline system that is operated by Kinder Morgan
TAG – PHMSA Community Technical Assistance Grant
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 29 of 121
Page 5
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
The Pipeline Safety Trust reviewed Contra Costa County
hazardous liquid pipelines, with a particular focus on the
Alamo area and the Iron Horse Corridor. In this report, we
provide general information on pipeline regulations and
risks, as well as more detailed information on concerns of
particular interest to the Alamo community.
We make a number of recommendations interspersed
throughout the report and summarized here that in
our opinion – if adopted by the various agencies and
stakeholder groups mentioned – would make pipelines in
Contra Costa County even safer.
These recommendations are organized under the agency
or group to which they are directed. We have purposefully
not prioritized our recommendations, as implementation
may be affected by any number of factors including
budgets and workloads of the agencies involved. All our
recommendations are summarized here:
The Federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration Could:
•Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence
Area designation easily available to the public.
•Adopt regulations to implement the NTSB
recommendations regarding needed improvements to
the Integrity Management requirements for both gas
and hazardous liquid pipelines.
•Adopt stronger regulations requiring automated valves
consistent with the NTSB recommendations.
•Adopt stronger regulations that require better leak
detection systems in hazardous liquid pipelines that
could affect high consequence areas, and provide a
clear performance standard for computational pipeline
monitoring systems.
The State of California Could:
•Enforce excavation damage prevention laws. Currently
authority is held with the Attorney General’s office, but
there is not adequate staffing or resources to respond
to notifications of alleged violations or to investigate.
Other agencies respond on a fragmented basis
depending on the damaged utility involved.
•Work with the California Department of Education
(CDE) on ways to implement CDE’s suggestions
for reducing the probability of a pipeline product
release on schools, and reducing the severity and
consequences of pipeline releases on schools.
The California Office of the State Fire Marshal Could:
•Make their maps, incident and inspection information
accessible to the public by posting it online.
•Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence
Area designation easily available to the public.
•Adopt regulations to implement the NTSB
recommendations regarding needed improvements to
the Integrity Management requirements that apply to
intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines.
•Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines
requiring automated valves that apply to hazardous liquid
pipelines along the lines of the NTSB recommendations.
•Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines that
require better leak detection systems in high consequence
areas, and that provide a clear performance standard for
computational pipeline monitoring systems.
The California Department of Education Could:
•Expand School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis and the
Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management
guidance in coordination with emergency response
agencies to offer help for schools that already exist
in close proximity to pipelines. Lead coordination
efforts among the myriad of agencies that offer crisis
planning assistance to schools, and suggest minimum
information that should be included in these plans
regarding pipelines.
The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Could:
•Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens
(especially along the Iron Horse Corridor) with concerns
about multiple utility issues and right of way questions
has technical training on safety concerns, adequate
resources to conduct regular and broad community
outreach, and resources to work in close coordination
with other related departments and advisory groups.
•Request appropriate staff conduct an analysis of all
congregate facilities (i.e. schools, recreation facilities,
hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) located in close
proximity to transmission pipelines; Work with
other emergency response agencies to develop a list
of resources for emergency and evacuation planning
expertise for congregate facilities near pipelines that
can include potential hazards from a pipeline incident,
and mitigation strategies for those hazards based on
site-specific considerations.
•Consider adding goals and policies regarding
pipelines to the General Plan, and amending Contra
Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all gas
and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would
be subject to (and not exempt from) the General
and Land Use District regulations (divisions 82 and
84). Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining
to zoning and land use permitting for hazardous
liquid pipelines and possibly also intrastate gas
transmission pipelines that are proposed for
construction, replacement, modification, or
abandonment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAppendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 30 of 121
Page 6
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
•Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing
encroachment including the review of setback variances
by municipal advisory councils or committees and
department staff so that properties and vegetation along
utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines.
•Work in coordination with pipeline operators to develop
a technical advisory body that can review the integrity
management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara County
System Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other
technical assessments of the pipelines in order to cultivate
informed technical expertise in the county and increase
public trust and awareness.
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
and Development Could:
•Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines
to the General Plan, and amending Contra Costa
County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all gas and
hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would be
subject to (and not exempt from) the General and
Land Use District regulations (divisions 82 and 84).
Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining to zoning
and land use permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines
and possibly also intrastate gas transmission pipelines
that are proposed for construction, replacement,
modification, or abandonment.
•Review all development applications for opportunities
to improve existing ingress/egress where currently
limited, and where possible, include conditions
on approvals to improve connectivity and avoid
exacerbation of access problems.
The Contra Costa County Health Services Department
Could:
•Expand the scope of the Hazardous Materials
Ombudsman and the Hazardous Materials
Commission regarding pipelines to provide an
ongoing review of pipeline operators’ emergency plans
and an active role in possible county efforts regarding
additional coordinated technical review of pipeline
integrity management planning.
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department
Could:
•Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas
in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard and the Iron
Horse Corridor where a single east-west pipeline-
crossing road is the only access for numerous homes
and facilities (e.g., Hemme Road, Camille Road) with
the goal of creating public accessibility across these
‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the
pipeline to access any services.
•Ensure the county has complete and accurate records
of corridor and right of way locations and widths.
Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other
utilities on resolution of encroachments into pipeline
rights of way.
The Contra Costa County Office of Public Education &
Local School Districts Could:
•Expand emergency preparedness resources to include
information about pipelines and pipeline-specific
risks. Assist individual schools in developing crisis
plans and emergency preparedness plans that include
pipelines on the emergency maps and assess how
ingress/egress may be affected by a pipeline incident.
The Contra Costa County Community Awareness and
Emergency Response (CAER) Group Could:
•Include specific reference to oil and gas pipelines
in the list of potential hazards listed in the hazard
assessment in the next update to the Model Emergency
Plan for Schools.
Pipeline Operators Could:
•Reach out to the schools along pipeline easements and
offer to provide technical assistance assessing pipeline
risks and evacuation strategies given possible incidents
that could occur in close proximity to the schools.
•Consistently undertake assessments of existing Right
of Way encroachments to determine whether there
are safety implications. Coordinate with Contra Costa
County to resolve encroachments with neighboring
property owners.
•Become members of the Contra Costa County
Community Awareness and Emergency Response
Group, and participate consistently in quarterly
meetings and responses.
•Contract for an independent technical seismic
vulnerability study on HCA pipelines affected by
potentially active faults to feed into the pipeline risk
analysis, and make the study available to the public.
•Work in coordination with the Board of Supervisors
to develop a technical advisory body that can review
the integrity management plan (similar to the Santa
Barbara County System Safety Reliability Review
Committee) and other technical assessments of the
pipelines in order to cultivate informed technical
expertise in the county and increase public trust
and awareness.
Local Fire Districts Could:
•Designate a single point-of-contact to coordinate
with pipeline operators, familiarize themselves with
the operators’ emergency response and spill response
plans, know the facilities where people congregate
(schools, churches, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) in
close proximity to the pipeline, and be involved with
any emergency planning done by those facilities.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 31 of 121
Page 7
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
INTRODUCTION
Background
Contra Costa County has over 1 million people and covers
approximately 805 square miles. The city of Martinez is
the county seat, and one of nineteen incorporated cities
within the county. Oil refineries operate along the western
and northern coastlines: Phillips 66, Chevron, Shell
Oil, and Tesoro, with associated petroleum storage and
transportation infrastructure. Most of the hazardous liquid
pipelines in the county transport product to or from a
storage facility or refinery.
A Board of Supervisors governs the County, with
representatives elected from five districts; the Alamo area
is part of District II, and is unincorporated with about
15,000 residents. The homeowners association – the
Alamo Improvement Association – is quite active, with
an elected board and committees. In addition, the Alamo
Municipal Advisory Council serves a formalized role with
the county as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors
and the County planning agency, providing review and
recommendations for a variety of activities that impact the
Alamo area.
One of the areas of particular interest to the Alamo
community is the Iron Horse Corridor. This is an historic
rail corridor managed as a regional multiuse trail that runs
roughly north-south from Concord in northern Contra
Costa County to beyond the Alameda County line to the
south, cutting Contra Costa County roughly in half and
traversing the county for about 20 miles. Utilities and private
infrastructure also run along the corridor, including a refined
oil pipeline referred to as the San Jose line that is part of the
Kinder Morgan Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline (SFPP) system.
Conversations in the Alamo community precipitated a
renewed interest in this pipeline, and prompted the Alamo
Improvement Association (AIA) to seek technical assistance
and commission this report on pipeline safety.
Purpose and Scope of Report
The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) contracted
with the Pipeline Safety Trust in February 2015 to provide
services intended to educate and inform the community
about hazardous liquid pipelines and pipeline safety. That
included presentations at two community workshops in
June 2015, as well as the production of this report.
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Workshop held on June 3, 2015 in Alamo, CA
The funding for these services came from a Community
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) awarded by the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation. AIA
applied for this grant in the spring of 2014 to include
pipeline safety public outreach and education, as well as
training for local first responders, and outreach regarding
the national 811 Call Before You Dig program. The grant
period ran from October 2014 – September 2015. Roger
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 32 of 121
Page 8
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Smith, President of the Alamo Improvement Association
was the primary point of contact for the TAG award and
contract for services with the Trust.
From January through August 2015, Pipeline Safety Trust
staff participated in periodic conference calls with two
representatives of the Alamo Improvement Association,
a field representative in Contra Costa County District
II Supervisor Anderson’s office, and the Hazardous
Materials Ombudsman within the Contra Costa County
Health Services Department. This ad-hoc group was
highly engaged with planning the two hazardous liquid
pipeline safety workshops that took place in June,1 and
continued to be involved through the report process.
Pipeline Safety Trust staff also engaged in one-on-one
conversations with these same individuals as well as
others from Contra Costa County Departments of Health
Services, Public Works, Conservation and Development;
local emergency services; California State offices of
the Fire Marshal and the Office of Spill Prevention and
Response; Kinder Morgan; and from the federal Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
AIA asked the Trust to report broadly on pipeline issues
affecting the entire county as well as the role of federal
and state agencies, and to focus in on issues specific to
petroleum pipelines and particularly the pipeline concerns
of people in the Alamo area. All the data shown in charts
or graphs in this report is from PHMSA as of August 2015,
unless otherwise noted.
1 The second of these two public forums was captured on video by
CCTV, and is available to watch here: http://contra-costa.granicus.
com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=935921b6-0eea-11e5-b5ce-
00219ba2f017
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 33 of 121
Page 9
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
PIPELINE BASICS AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
What kinds of pipelines are in Contra
Costa County?
There are three main types of pipelines in Contra Costa
County, and it is important to understand what the different
types are since they have different safety considerations and
are regulated by different agencies under different rules.
The three main types are:
Hazardous Liquid Lines: These are the lines that move
crude oil to the local refineries and then move refined
products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc.) from the refineries
to other markets.
Natural Gas Transmission Lines: These are the relatively
larger, higher-pressure pipelines that move gas from
production or storage to where the gas is distributed to
our homes and businesses. They operate at pressures in the
range of 300 to over 1500 pounds per square inch.
Natural Gas Distribution Lines: A distribution line is a
relative small, lower pressure pipeline used to supply natural
gas directly to our homes and businesses. A distribution
line is located in a network of piping located downstream
of a natural gas transmission line. The “city gate” is where a
transmission system feeds into a lower pressure distribution
system. Gas distribution pipelines comprise by far the
most mileage of pipes; they carry odorized gas (with the
characteristic smell of rotten eggs) throughout urban areas.
Two other important distinctions are interstate pipelines
compared to intrastate pipelines. Interstate pipelines are
typically longer transmission pipelines that cross state
lines; intrastate pipelines are transmission pipelines that lie
wholly within a single state.2
2 State lines are not the sole determiner for the inter/intrastate
distinction. For details see 49 CFR 195, Appendix A.
Where are the pipelines in Contra
Costa County?
The US has over 2.6 million miles of pipelines. Most of these
(approximately 92%) carry gas – predominantly natural gas
– and the rest (approximately 8%) carry hazardous liquids.
Hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines are governed
by separate regulations. Whether and how pipelines are
regulated also depends on what product is carried and
where the pipeline is located.
Regulated Pipeline Mileage - U.S. and California
Miles of Pipelines U.S. California
Gas Transmission &
Gathering
319,350 11,861
Gas Distribution 2,167,270 200,262
Hazardous Liquid 198,778 7,139
Total 2,685,398 219,262
Data from PHMSA as of 8/5/2015
There are over 4,000 miles of natural gas pipelines in Contra
Costa County, 260 miles of which are transmission lines,
and the rest are distribution lines and services.3 All the
natural gas distribution pipelines are operated by Pacific
Gas & Electric under the jurisdiction of the California
Public Utility Commission.
Hazardous liquid (HL) transmission pipelines in Contra
Costa County total close to 500 miles.4 Roughly two-thirds
of the HL pipelines carry refined products, and about one-
third carry crude oil.
3 Data on gas pipeline mileage is from the California Public Utilities
Commission (July 2015).
4 Data on HL pipeline mileage in Contra Costa County from OSFM
staff, and does not include empty or abandoned lines.
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 34 of 121
Page 10
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
The map below from the National Pipeline Mapping System5 shows the general location of the hazardous liquid (red) and
the gas transmission (blue) pipelines in Contra Costa County.
Anyone can access these maps to see where hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines run through their community.
The map below shows the two main pipelines running through the Alamo area – the Kinder Morgan San Jose Line in red
and the PG&E natural gas line in blue. The “public viewer” for the maps is available online at: https://www.npms.phmsa.
dot.gov/PublicViewer/.
5 https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 35 of 121
Page 11
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
The system takes practice to navigate, but once a person
figures it out it is possible to zoom in to get an idea of where
these types of pipelines are generally located and some basic
information about the pipelines themselves. While these
types of maps can provide a general idea of where pipelines
are located they should never be used as an indication of
where it might be safe to dig. The One Call system is the
only way to identify the exact location of a pipeline, and is
discussed in more detail later in this report.
Details about the San Jose Pipeline
AIA is particularly interested in the Kinder Morgan SFPP
pipeline, especially the portion of that pipeline that runs
for nearly 20 miles along the Iron Horse Corridor in
central Contra Costa County; this segment of the SFPP
system is also called the “San Jose line” or LS-16 (line
segment 16). This line carries refined oil products and is
the focus of this report because of its location along the
Iron Horse Corridor from Concord south through Alamo
to the Contra Costa – Alameda county line and beyond
to San Jose. LS-16 is ten inches in diameter and classified
as an intrastate pipeline, meaning it is regulated by the
Office of the State Fire Marshal under a certification from
PHMSA, and it operates under a rate structure approved
by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The San Jose line is subject to federal regulations with
regard to integrity management (discussed elsewhere in
this report) as a release from the line could affect a high
consequence area.
The San Jose line delivers petroleum products from a pump
station in Concord to the Kinder Morgan San Jose terminal
– a total of 51.4 miles – and was installed in the mid-1960s,
with portions of the pipe replaced through the decades as
a result of maintenance activities. The maximum allowable
operating pressure on the San Jose line is 1310 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig), and the typical operating
pressure at the originating Concord station is 1165 psig
(operating pressure varies by elevation and distance from
pump stations). The line throughput is generally about 4483
barrels per hour.6
There are five valves along the length of this line segment
that serve to further isolate sections of the pipeline in the
event of a release, located on average every 10 miles.7 These
valves include three manual gate valves and two motor
operated remote control valves. There are no automatic
shut-off valves on this line.
The original easement for this pipeline was between
SFPP and the South Pacific Railroad, and existed at the
time the county acquired the right-of-way from the
Railroad in the 1980s.
6 Information about the San Jose line (LS-16) was gleaned from
the following sources: PHMSA accident report database; OSFM
pipeline failure investigation report; OSFM review of KM Integrity
Management Program; PHMSA 5-2005-5025H case files; and
presentation by KM Operations Manager June 2015.
7 The distance is greater than 10 miles in some places, with original
placement impacted by topography and elevation.
Who regulates pipeline safety?
Federal Oversight
Ultimately the U.S. Congress has responsibility for setting the
framework under which pipeline safety regulations operate in
the country. The U.S. Department of Transportation through
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is primarily responsible for issuing and enforcing
the minimum pipeline safety regulations. Most of these
regulations are performance-based. For example, pipeline
operators are required by the federal regulations to operate
and repair pipelines in a safe manner so as to prevent damage
to persons or property, but the way in which they do so is
generally not spelled out prescriptively. This allows pipeline
operators to prioritize pipeline inspections and repairs in areas
with higher populations or higher risk factors, but it also makes
the regulations ambiguous and challenging to enforce.
State Oversight
The federal pipeline safety laws allow for states to accept the
responsibility to regulate, inspect, and enforce safety rules
over intrastate pipelines within their borders under an annual
certification from PHMSA. If a state receives such intrastate
authority they can set regulations that are more stringent than
those PHMSA sets as long as the state rules do not conflict with
the federal regulations. PHMSA also can enter into an agreement
with the state pipeline regulator to carry out inspections on
interstate pipelines. Local governments are not allowed to create
rules to regulate the operational safety of pipelines, though they
may have involvement in spill response, routing and siting issues,
and franchise or easement agreements.
California has authority for intrastate pipelines, which is carried
out through the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) for
hazardous liquid pipelines, and through the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) for natural gas pipelines. The
OSFM also had authority to act as an interstate agent for
PHMSA on hazard liquid interstate pipelines through 2012, but
ended that agreement to focus better on the intrastate pipelines
due to an inability to retain enough qualified inspectors on staff.
The California State Legislature is currently working to address
this pay scale problem.8
California has adopted both
hazardous liquid and natural
gas pipeline regulations that
are more stringent than the
federal minimum regulations
for the intrastate pipelines.
Some of those stronger
hazardous liquid rules
include better information
sharing, incident reporting,
and planning outreach to fire
departments; more frequent
pipeline inspections or testing,
additional pressure testing
requirements in certain
situations including for
8 See SB-295 Pipeline safety: inspections (2015-2016).
NAPSR Compendium of State Pipeline Safety Requirements & Initiatives (2013). See http://www.napsr.org/compendium.
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 36 of 121
Page 12
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
pipelines that have experienced certain kinds of leaks; better
protection of pipeline easements from encroachment; and an
internal comprehensive database and mapping system.9
City and County Governmental Powers
For the most part the federal pipeline safety law precludes
local government from adopting any regulation that requires a
pipeline operator to take any action regarding the safe operation
of a pipeline. There is nothing in state or federal law that restricts
a local government’s ability to ask for increased safety measures
as part of their negotiations regarding the use of public rights-of-
way or other public property. While local government may not
be able to require or enforce such measures, cities nationwide
have been able to obtain increased safety measures through such
voluntary requests, especially when such safety measures are well
thought out, supported by the public, and do not conflict with
federal or state regulations. One area in which local government
has considerable ability to increase pipeline safety is through
their land use and zoning authority. Details of this option are
discussed in the Land Use Planning section later in this report.
How much risk is there from the pipelines
in Contra Costa County?
Risk is one of those things that one person cannot really define
for another, since each person thinks about risks in their own
personal way. While some feel that skydiving is a risk worth
taking, others won’t even go up in the airplane. In other words
it is not possible for us to say whether the pipelines in Contra
Costa County are safe enough. All we can do is to try to provide
enough information so individuals can make that decision on
their own, and then work with others in their community to set
policies based on the beliefs of as many people as possible.
Risk is made up of two different factors both of which need
to be carefully considered when deciding how risky an
activity is. Those factors are the probability that an event
will occur (chance a pipeline will rupture or leak), and the
possible consequences if it does.
Probability
First let’s take a look at some of the publicly available data to try
to get a sense of the probability of a hazardous liquid pipeline
incident occurring in Contra Costa County or along the Iron
Horse Corridor.
PHMSA maintains a publicly accessible database of reported
pipeline incidents.10 Hazardous liquid pipeline operators are
required to file an incident report when there is a release that
results in any of the following:
1.death or injury requiring hospitalization;
2.estimated property damage exceeding $50,000;
3.an unintentional explosion or fire; or
4.a release of 5 gallons or more off of company property
9 California GOV Code § 51010 et. seq.
10 See http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats for both
online pipeline incident data and downloadable files.
or the pipeline right-of-way or causing water pollution,
or a release of 5 barrels (210 gallons) or more confined
to company property or pipeline right-of-way and not
causing water pollution.11
A subset of all these reported incidents are considered
‘significant’ if they result in items 1, 2, or 3 above or result in
the release of 50 barrels (2,100 gallons) or more of hazardous
liquids. A further subset of ‘serious’ incidents are those that
result in a death or injury requiring hospitalization.12
Here are two graphs that show the numbers of significant
incidents each year both throughout the U.S. and in
California. As you can see in both cases the number of
incidents is relatively small, and the overall trend is a
decreasing number of incidents. The troubling part of these
graphs is that in both cases over the past 6-8 years this trend
seems to be turning around and the numbers of significant
incidents are increasing.
But raw numbers of incidents is a pretty rough way of looking
at probability because the number of miles of pipelines
changes, and the different types of products the pipelines carry
have different failure rates. If we take the mileage of pipelines
into consideration, and break the type of products these
hazardous liquid pipelines carry down into the two main types
– crude oil and other products – we start to get a more refined
look at probabilities. The following graph shows that crude oil
pipelines have a higher incident rate than product pipelines,
and that both types of pipelines have a higher incident rate in
California than in the rest of the country.
11 See 49 CFR § 195.50 and 195.52 for hazardous liquid accident
reporting requirements.
12 For a complete description of these categories for all pipelines,
see http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/datastatistics/
pipelineincidenttrends
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 37 of 121
Page 13
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Incident rate alone does not really portray the consequence of an incident very well, so we also compare the amount spilled per
incident per mile of pipe (see bar graph on upper right), which makes California’s higher rate of incidents look quite different. As
you can see what this shows us is that while California may have more incidents per mile of pipeline than the national average, the
amount spilled is considerably less than the national average.
It is also possible to use these same rates to look at how individual pipeline companies compare to national averages. For
instance, in the following graphs we compare the incident rate per mile of similar pipeline and gallons spilled nationally and in
California with the rate of failures and gallons spilled that have occurred on the entire Kinder Morgan SFPP system, a portion
of which runs along the Iron Horse Corridor.
As can be seen from these graphs over the past five years the Kinder Morgan SFPP pipeline system has had fewer incidents
and spilled far fewer gallons of product than other comparable pipelines throughout the U.S. and in California. SFPP is
one of a number of pipeline systems in Contra Costa County, so trying to determine the probability of an incident within
the county requires looking beyond the SFPP numbers. If we take the SFPP 5-year average incident rate as one bound
(0.00028), and the California 5-year average incident rate as another bound (0.00070), we can use those together with the
roughly 350 miles of non-crude hazardous pipelines in the county to estimate the likely frequency of incidents on these
pipelines. Currently it could be expected that a significant incident would occur somewhere between once every 4 years
(CA average) to once every 10 years (SFPP average).
In Appendix D we have provided a list of all reported incidents in Contra Costa County, and from a look at that list it
is clear that the frequency of significant incidents occurring in the county is higher than should be expected from these
statistics. In the past five years alone there have been five significant incidents on these types of non-crude liquid pipelines
in the County. One possible explanation for this higher rate is the high number of facilities processing fuel in the county.
Such facilities are associated with pipelines, and therefore incidents related to the facilities also are incorporated with the
pipeline incident statistics. These facilities have very high numbers of fittings, valves, and other appurtenances that tend
to have higher failure rates, and often these failures are more contained on company owned property and do not affect the
public and private rights-of-way through which longer pipelines travel.13
One other data set that provides some information about probability of failures is the cause of such failures. Following is a chart that
shows the causes of significant incidents both nationally and in California. California hazardous liquid pipeline incidents appear
13 OSFM also maintains PHMSA incident data that they further separate for certain public presentations. For example, they may present only
incidents occurring on the pipeline right-of-way and leave out those that occur within associated facilities; or they may remove data that includes
idled or abandoned pipelines. OSFM does not provide these internal statistics to the public.
25
20
15
10
5
0 United States California
Gallons Spilled / Year / Mile of Pipeline 2010 - 2014
Non-Crude Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Crude Oil Pipelines
15.15
23.27
3.81
7.93
20
15
10
5
0
Gallons spilled per year per mile of
non-crude oil pipeline 2010 - 2014
U.S.
15.52
California
3.81
SFPP
0.2573
0.00080
0.00070
0.00060
0.00040
0.00050
0.00030
0.00020
0.00010
0.00000
Significant incidents per year per mile of
non-crude oil pipelines 2010 - 2014
U.S.
0.00061
California
0.00070
SFPP
0.00028
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0Non-Crude Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Crude Oil Pipelines
United States California
Significant Incidents/Year/Mile of Pipeline 2010-2014
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 38 of 121
Page 14
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
to be more frequently caused by corrosion when compared to
those across the US as a whole. Corrosion is the dominant cause
of pipeline incidents in California, followed by Material/Weld/
Equipment failure. Both of these causes together lead to nearly
two-thirds of all hazardous liquid pipeline incidents in both
California (67%) and the U.S. as a whole (63%).
These charts and graphs should provide some measure of
the probability of a pipeline incident happening and some of
the consequences
if it does. It is fairly
clear from the data
that the chance of
a pipeline failing in
any particular spot
is very, very small,
but of course if you
ask the families of
any of the 360 people
who were killed by
pipeline incidents
over the past twenty
years in United
States they would
tell you that the consequences are huge. So what are the
possible consequences of pipeline failures, and how can they
be quantified?
Consequences
For natural gas pipelines it is fairly easy to predict the impact
zone around a pipeline failure that explodes. There is a
formula used in the federal regulations, based on the size and
pressure of the pipeline that predicts the “potential impact
radius,” and that radius is then used to define some elements
of the regulations. The picture in the previous column shows
how that radius might appear on a particular pipeline.
For hazardous liquid pipelines predicting the consequence
area is much more difficult because of the different products
involved and because the products may flow long distances
based on the terrain
and whether they
reach water. While
each pipeline
operator is required
to do an analysis
of whether a leak
along any section
of the pipeline
could affect a high
consequence area,
that information
is not shared
with the public.
The best that the
public can do is to
look at their own
area and compare
that with the
consequences of
past liquid failures.
The National
Transportation
Safety Board
investigates
many of the
most significant
incidents and the
reports of their
investigations
can be found
at: http://
www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/pipeline.aspx.
We can also look at pictures like the ones above to see what
can happen in the unlikely event that a hazardous liquid
pipeline fails in a particular area.
Past Incidents on the San Jose Line
An incident occurred on the SFPP, San Jose line (LS-16)
in Walnut Creek on November 9, 2004, in which five
workers were killed and four others significantly injured
from a pipeline rupture and explosion. Property damage
was sustained nearby including a two-story structure
that burned. The pipeline ruptured when it was struck by
excavation equipment operating as part of a water supply
Example of a Potential Impact Radius of a pipeline incident shown on an aerial map (assumes the pipeline rupture occurs at the center of the circle)
PHMSA Data – 8-15-15
California
Onshore Pipelines
4.6%
41.4%
11.5%
10.3%
25.3%
2.3%4.6%
U.S. Onshore Pipelines
6.2%3.2%5.3%
24.9%
10.7%
11.2%
38.3%
All Other Causes
Corrosion
Excavation Damage
Incorrect Operation
Material/weld/equipFailure
Natural Force Damage
Other Outside Force Damage
Causes of Significant Incidents on
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines –
2005 - 2014
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 39 of 121
Page 15
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
expansion project. The gasoline released from the pipeline
was soon after ignited by welders also working on the new
water supply pipeline. According to the OSFM Pipeline
Failure Investigation Report, several contributing factors led
up to the excavator bucket striking the pipeline, including
“inadequate line locating, inadequate project safety
oversight and communication, and failure to follow the
one-call law” (page 14).14 OSFM made recommendations
to Kinder Morgan that included improvements to the
way in which employees observe and respond to one-
call excavation notifications, and modifications to the
company’s Operator Qualification Program related to line
locating and excavation notifications.
PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order (CAO) for
Kinder Morgan in 2005 with respect to its entire Pacific
Operations unit of hazardous liquid pipeline systems,
covering 3,900 miles across six states, and including
the SFPP pipeline system and the San Jose line. The
CAO was in response to eight accidents within the
previous 16 months that released petroleum products
into or near high consequence areas. Seven of the eight
occurred in California, and two within Contra Costa
County: the November 9, 2004 incident mentioned
above on LS-16, and a November 7, 2004 incident in
Martinez that occurred on LS-47. PHMSA called out
“a widespread failure of Kinder Morgan to adequately
detect and address the effects of outside force damage
and corrosion” (page 2), and ordered the operator to take
immediate corrective actions with respect to all Pacific
Operations unit hazardous liquid pipeline systems.15
PHMSA subsequently replaced the CAO with a 14-page
Consent Agreement entered into on April 4, 2006 by
both parties. The Consent Agreement also delineated
specific actions to be taken by Kinder Morgan to improve
its pipeline operations and integrity management and
to be completed within ten years. On May 11, 2015,
PHMSA issued a closure letter to Kinder Morgan,
stating that all the required action had been completed
and the terms of the Agreement were satisfied, thereby
closing the case.16 In the next column is a graph that
shows all reportable incidents on the Kinder Morgan
SFPP system including the San Jose Pipeline that runs
through Contra Costa County during the period that this
corrective action order covered. This graph appears to
support that the actions that Kinder Morgan took as part
14 California Office of the State Fire Marshal. Pipeline Failure
Investigation Report, Form-11. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LS-
16 rupture in Walnut Creek, 9 November 2004.
15 U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA Office of Pipeline
Safety. Corrective Action Order re: case No. 5-2005-5025H, August
24, 2005.
16 Multiple technical documents were required to be submitted to
PHMSA in accordance with the Consent Agreement, however these
are not publicly available. Requests for information through Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/
about/foia) take many months for PHMSA to respond, and even
when documents are received they often contain many redactions.
Therefore the public is left with having little to go on to verify how
PHMSA has followed through and been given adequate assurances
that each item in the Consent Agreement has been completed.
of the consent decree have helped reduce the number of
incidents on this line.
Pipeline Construction, Operations and
Maintenance
Many of the pipelines in place today were constructed
before regulations existed for pipelines. Some of the
current regulations have to do with ongoing operations
and maintenance, and apply to both existing and new lines.
Existing ‘grandfathered’ pipelines built prior to 1979 for
hazardous liquid lines, or prior to 1968 for gas pipelines,
may not have been constructed according to the current
regulations. What are pipeline operators required to do to
maintain safe pipelines? In this section, we go through basic
information, and dive more deeply into some technical
issues about which the Alamo community expressed
particular concern.
Construction
The construction phase of pipeline installation is a critically
important time to ensure the long-term integrity of the
pipeline. Transmission pipelines are most commonly made
of steel, and the pipes are fabricated and inspected to meet
industry and government safety standards. Differing soil
conditions and geographic or population characteristics
of the pipeline route will dictate different requirements for
pipe size, strength, wall thickness and coating material.
Hazardous liquid pipelines must be buried between 18 and
48 inches below the surface, depending on location and
soil properties. The prescribed depth must be adhered to
at the time of burial, but regulations do not require it to be
maintained over time. Operators must use qualified welders,
and most welds on the pipe are evaluated and inspected in
the field; a proper weld is stronger than the pipe itself.
Corrosion Protection
Corrosion is a serious issue for all steel pipelines. Without
corrosion protection every steel pipe will eventually
deteriorate, weaken, and become unsafe. With proper
corrosion protection, steel pipelines can remain safely
operating for many decades. Pipeline operators use three
common methods to control corrosion:
2020
18
16
14
12
8
10
6
4
2
0
2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
All Reportable Incidents on Kinder Margan’s SFPP System
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 40 of 121
Page 16
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
•Pipeline coatings
and linings defend
against corrosion by
protecting the bare
steel from coming
in direct contact
with corrosive
conditions.
•Corrosion inhibitors
are substances that
may be added to the
commodity running
through the pipe to
decrease the rate of
attack of internal
corrosion.
•Cathodic protection
(CP) systems use
direct electrical
current to counteract the normal external corrosion
that occurs due to soil and moisture conditions. On
new pipelines, CP can help prevent corrosion from
starting; on existing pipelines, CP can stop existing
corrosion from getting worse.
These corrosion control methods may all be used at the
same time; pipeline engineers must carefully consider the
specific operating conditions, and pipeline and commodity
characteristics to maintain the necessary corrosion
protection for each particular pipeline segment.
High Consequence Areas and Integrity Management
Hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect High
Consequence Areas (HCAs), which include high
population areas, certain drinking water sources, or
some ecologically sensitive areas, must prepare integrity
management plans and adhere to stricter rules than
pipelines outside of such HCAs.17 For example, pipelines
that could affect an HCA have to be physically inspected
by the pipeline company on a regular basis, whereas
pipelines that could not affect an HCA never are required
to be inspected. Currently about 43% of all hazardous
liquid pipelines in the U.S. and 68% in California could
affect HCAs and fall under these requirements.
Operators subject to integrity management must do a
risk analysis of the segments of the pipeline that could
affect HCAs, and then implement a plan to inspect
and maintain that pipeline segment using methods
appropriate to the specific risk factors impacting the
pipeline. The minimum re-inspection interval for
hazardous liquid pipelines is every five years; the
integrity management plan and risk analysis may
indicate certain pipelines or pipeline segments need to
be re-inspected more frequently. The most commonly
performed inspections are done with internal in-line
17 See 49 CFR § 195.450 and references therein for the definition of a
high consequence area, and 49 CFR § 195.452 for the regulations
concerning pipeline integrity management in high consequence
areas.
inspection devices referred to as ‘smart pigs’ that record
problems such as corrosion, dents, and gouges as they
move through the pipeline. The inspections are typically
performed by a third party contractor that also interprets
the inspection results, and submits both the results and
their interpretation to the pipeline operator in the form
of a report. Federal and OSFM regulators may review
these internal inspection reports during their own
regulatory inspections of a pipeline operator.
Information about which pipeline segments are and are
not within HCAs is not easily publicly available. However,
it does appear that the vast majority of hazardous liquid
pipelines in Contra Costa County are covered under
the stricter integrity management rules that apply to the
hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect an HCA. The
portion of the San Jose line within the county is operating
under these rules.
The development and implementation of the Integrity
Management Program in the last decade represented a
major improvement in risk analysis and ongoing testing and
maintenance of pipelines that fall under those requirements.
However, with nearly a decade of performance data under
the new rules numerous shortcomings in the current
Integrity Management Program have been identified by a
variety of groups including both PHMSA and the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB recently
released a report18 that made numerous recommendations
for improving Gas Transmission Integrity Management to
make it clearer exactly what pipeline operators are required
to do. PHMSA appears to be working on some of these
improvements for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines
through various inquiries and rule makings, but as of this
report no new or proposed rules have been released for
public review.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt
regulations to implement NTSB recommendations
regarding needed improvements to the Integrity
Management requirements.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Make
information about a pipeline’s HCA designation easily
available to the public.
Valves
Valves must be installed along the pipeline to control
the flow “at locations along the pipeline system that will
minimize damage or pollution from accidental discharge,
as appropriate for the terrain in open country, for offshore
18 Safety Study: Integrity Management of Gas Transmission Pipelines
in High Consequence Areas, NTSB, 1/27/2015 http://www.ntsb.gov/
safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1501.pdf
Cathodic protection test point along the Iron Horse Corridor
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 41 of 121
Page 17
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
areas, or for populated areas” (49 CFR § 195.260(c)).19
Valves must also be “installed in a location that is accessible
to authorized employees and that is protected from damage
or tampering” (49 CFR § 195.258(a)). Valves must be
maintained in good working order at all times, and fully
inspected and tested at least twice each year to ensure they
are functioning properly.20
Some valves have to be operated manually by pipeline
personnel, some valves can be operated remotely from a
control room, and some valves are designed to operate
automatically if certain conditions occur on the pipeline.
If a pipeline should fail, how quickly the valves can be
closed and the distance between the valves are two of the
main determinants for how much fuel is released. PHMSA
has concluded that whether an operator should install
automatic shutoff valves or remote control valves (operated
from a far-away control room) in newly constructed or
fully replaced pipelines needs to be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.21 Existing pipeline operators subject to integrity
management rules must evaluate the type and location of
valves as part of their risk assessment.22
Pipelines that operate according to integrity management
(due to their location affecting an HCA) have an
additional requirement to take measures to prevent and
mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure. Actions
to enhance public safety or environmental protection
may be warranted based on a risk analysis of the pipeline
segment, and could include installing Emergency Flow
Restricting Devices (EFRDs) – additional valves – on the
pipeline. In determining whether an EFRD is needed, “…
an operator must, at least, consider the following factors
– the swiftness of leak detection and pipeline shutdown
capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate
of potential leakage, the volume that can be released,
topography or pipeline profile, the potential for ignition,
proximity to power sources, location of nearest response
personnel, specific terrain between the pipeline segment
and the high consequence area, and benefits expected
by reducing the spill size” (49 CFR § 195.452(i)(4)).
Beyond the specific requirements for valves at certain
water crossings and pump stations, etc., noted above, the
regulations give the operator wide latitude in determining
the necessity and location of additional valves.
Nineteen years ago an Edison, New Jersey accident occurred
and it took two and a half hours to shut off the flow of gas
19 Valves must also be installed in proximity to pipeline facilities and
appurtenances, and on both sides of certain water crossings and
drinking water reservoirs. See 49 CFR § 195.260 for details.
20 See 49 CFR § 195.420. This section also contains language about the
need for operators to protect valves from unauthorized operation and
vandalism, which PHMSA views as doing more than simply chaining
and locking the valves.
21 U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (2012). Studies for the Requirements of Automatic
and Remotely Controlled Shutoff Valves on Hazardous Liquids and
Natural Gas Pipelines with Respect to Public and Environmental
Safety (ORNL/TM-2012/411). Prepared by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Dept of Energy.
22 See 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) and (4).
that fed the fireball due to the lack of a remotely controlled
shut off valve. After the 2010 San Bruno tragedy where it
took the pipeline operator over an hour and a half to drive
to and close a manual valve the NTSB recommended that
PHMSA “Amend Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
192.935(c) to directly require that automatic shutoff valves
or remote control valves in high consequence areas and in
class 3 and 4 locations be installed and spaced at intervals
that consider the factors listed in that regulation.” Most
recently the spill of at least 20,000 gallons of crude oil into
the ocean near Santa Barbara has again reiterated the need
for new rules regarding these types of valves to help limit
the damage from pipeline failures. PHMSA conducted
a study23 that in 2012 found “installing ASVs and RCVs
in pipelines can be an effective strategy for mitigating
potential consequences of unintended releases because
decreasing the total volume of the release reduces overall
impacts on the public and to the environment.” PHMSA is
working on rule makings that may address this issue, but as
of this report no new or proposed rules have been released
for public review.
San Jose Pipeline Valves
Alamo community members have expressed concerns about
the type, spacing, vulnerability and maintenance of the San Jose
pipeline valves (or EFRDs) along the Iron Horse Corridor. Until
recently, a manual valve was exposed above ground with no
protection except a chain; that valve was enclosed within a fence
following a vandalism incident in June 2015, but the example
serves to justify the community concerns about vulnerability and
safety. The community
also has concerns about
the potential volume
released if a hazardous
liquid spill were to occur,
and the degree to which
the valves will minimize
the spill volume.
The OSFM inspection
report discussed earlier
describes the Kinder
Morgan integrity
management and risk
assessment process, some of which focuses on this type of
detailed analysis. A key piece of the risk assessment that
analyzes EFRDs is the operator’s Preventive and Mitigative
Measures analysis performed in order to determine what
threats exist on a pipeline, and if additional measures
should be implemented to manage those threats. The
Preventive and Mitigative Measures analysis may or may
not determine the need for an additional Engineering
Analysis focused on valves, depending on many factors
affecting the pipeline: pipeline segment characteristics,
proximity to an HCA, time to detect and isolate a leak,
location of nearest response personnel, risk assessment
results, and desired capabilities and improvements. An
23 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 31, 2012, http://www.
phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_2C1A725B08C5F72F30568
9E943053A96232AB200/filename/Final% 20Valve_Study.pdf
Manual valve inside protective cage in Alamo along Iron Horse Corridor
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 42 of 121
Page 18
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
initial Leak Detection System Analysis is completed on
each pipeline, determining the maximum potential release
volume.24
Kinder Morgan evaluated the need for modification to
existing valves on the San Jose line in 2010, and considered
the following factors: swiftness of leak detection and pipeline
shutdown capabilities; type of commodity carried; rate of
potential leakage; volume that can be released; topography
or pipeline profile; potential for ignition; proximity to
power sources; location of nearest response personnel;
specific terrain between the pipeline segment and the high
consequence area; and benefits expected by reducing the
spill size. The San Jose line has an existing computerized
leak detection system that uses line balance, flow deviation,
volume balance, thermal monitoring, and volume in and
out to alert control room staff to potential leaks. After
consideration of these factors, Kinder Morgan determined
the existing valves and leak detection system exceeded their
requirement that a 15-minute response time and isolation of
a leak could be assured on the San Jose line.25
Kinder Morgan’s evaluation necessarily included many
assumptions. These are not spelled out in the analysis, but
would include such things as how quickly an employee could
physically arrive at and close a manual valve, how quickly an
operator could install temporary plugs or other means to stop
the flow out of the pipe, and how quickly any remote personnel
could make a correct decision based on computerized
information to shut the pipeline down in the event of a rupture;
as well as factors that determine in their eyes what the risks are
and what level of risk is acceptable. These assumptions are not
transparent to the public, but depending on what is assumed,
the outcome of the analysis could vary widely. The assumptions
are also necessary to carry out the regulation-required risk
analysis and come to conclusions; regulations that require
this type of behind-the-scenes decision-making process and
lack prescriptive requirements are called performance-based
regulations, and they often leave gray areas for the public
because we often cannot know what went into the assumptions
and decision-making.
Unfortunately, like the implementation of most risk- or
performance-based regulations, this Kinder Morgan
valve and leak detection analysis does little to eliminate
the gray area on this issue. The regulations leave the
consideration and determination to each operator in the
context of an integrity management plan the public will
never see. While the public may not be allowed to see the
information used to make risk calculations, the public can
make rough calculations of the impacts from a spill based
on available information.
24 This detailed technical analysis on leak detection that informs the
pipeline operator’s risk assessment is not available to the public.
25 See page 12 of the OSFM inspection report dated June 2014 for
detailed discussion of the San Jose line/LS-16. The report does not
clarify how long of a segment of the pipeline would be isolated in this
time - that is, it is not clear whether the operator could close the two
closest valves on either side of a failure in that time frame, or just two
valves at some unspecified distance. Given the time required to get
staff to a manual valve and get it closed, a 15 minute time to isolation
appears to be very optimistic.
For example, the size of the pipeline means that it holds
a little more than 21,000 gallons of product per mile of
pipe. If the pipeline should rupture, most all of the product
between the rupture site and the next valve that is at a higher
elevation than the rupture would drain out between the
valves regardless of how quickly the pipeline was shut down
or valves were closed, unless the operator is able to install
emergency plugs or hot taps very quickly. If the valves are 10
miles apart that could mean that more than 200,000 gallons
could be released if the rupture is at the lowest point in that
stretch. This figure does not include any additional product
continuing to be pushed through the line if valve closing or
shut-off is delayed. So Kinder Morgan as part of their risk
analysis must have concluded that with the small chance
that the pipeline will actually rupture, and their response
capabilities, this is an acceptable risk. If they had not come
to that conclusion they would have been required to install
more valves to decrease the distance and potential spill
volume. If informed people in the community were given the
same information would they come to the same acceptable
risk conclusion? Currently there is no opportunity for the
public to review these risk analyses, or to comment on the
level of risk to which they are being exposed.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Work in
coordination with pipeline operators to develop a
technical advisory body that can review the integrity
management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara
County System Safety Reliability Review Committee)
and other technical assessments of the pipelines in
order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the
county and increase public trust and awareness.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt
stronger regulations requiring automated valves along
the lines of the NTSB recommendations.
Pipeline Monitoring and Leak Detection
A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system
is a pipeline computer system designed to gather information
such as flow rate through the pipeline, operational status,
pressure, and temperature readings. This information allows
operators to know what is happening along the pipeline
during normal operations, and allows for quicker reactions
to equipment malfunctions, failures and releases. Some
SCADA systems also incorporate the ability to remotely
operate certain equipment, including compressors, pump
stations, and valves; allowing operators in a control center to
adjust flow rates in the pipeline as well as to isolate certain
sections of a pipeline. Many SCADA systems also include
leak detection systems – called computational pipeline
monitoring (CPM) programs – based on the pressure
and mass balance in the pipelines. Unfortunately, remote
computerized systems are not yet capable of identifying most
leaks; PHMSA data from 2010-present show that only about
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 43 of 121
Page 19
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
11% of U.S. hazardous liquid pipeline significant incidents
were initially detected by SCADA or CPM; and that number
drops to 2% when looking only at California hazardous liquid
pipeline significant incidents in the same timeframe. On-
the-ground personnel working for the pipeline operator (as
employees or contractors) are the ones most likely to initially
identify an incident, but the public and first responders from
the local communities are also likely to be the first to identify
a significant incident (18% of the time in the U.S.; 25% of the
time in California).26
In the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011, Congress asked the Secretary of
Transportation to provide a report within one year on the
technical limitations of current leak detection systems, the
practicability of developing standards for the capabilities of
leak detection systems, and the costs and benefits of requiring
pipeline operators to use such systems. PHMSA completed
an in-depth study27 of leak detection systems in December of
2013. That study found that for hazardous liquid pipelines:
•Emergency responders or a member of the public
were currently the most likely means of discovering a
pipeline release.
•“There is no technical reason why several different leak
detection methods cannot be implemented at the same
time. In fact, a basic engineering robustness principle
calls for at least two methods that rely on entirely
separate physical principles.”?
•“External sensors have the potential to deliver
sensitivity and time to detection far ahead of any
internal system.”
PHMSA has been working on a rule making that may
address this leak detection issue for nearly five years now,
but as of this report no new or proposed rules have been
released for public review.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt
stronger regulations that require better leak detection
systems in high consequence areas, and that provide a
clear performance standard for computational pipeline
monitoring systems.
Alamo Technical Pipeline Safety Concerns
Community members raised concerns about a number
of specific issues related to pipeline safety on the San Jose
pipeline. Pipeline Safety Trust staff also noticed some issues
during their visit. This section details technical issues that
warrant particular attention.
26 See PHMSA Incident Reports. Percentages based on PST analysis of
PHMSA HL 2002-2009 and 2010-present incident data files (as of
Aug 3. 2015).
27 Kiefner & Associates, Inc., Leak Detection Study, December 10,
2012, http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_4A77C
7A89CAA18E285898295888E3DB9C5924400/filename/Leak%20
Detection%20Study.pdf
Earthquakes – In 2007, the United States Geological
Survey collaborated with William Lettis & Associates on a
technical report analyzing Northern Calaveras Fault data.28
This fault bisects Contra Costa County, and is not the only
fault impacting ground movement in the area. Residents
are concerned that hazardous liquid pipelines are properly
protected in the event of an earthquake.
Hazardous Liquid pipeline operators subject to integrity
management are required to consider many threats in the
risk assessment that is part of their integrity management
plan. A number of these pertain to earthquakes and
ground movement, though earthquake risk is not
mentioned in the regulations as something that requires its
own analysis and mitigation. Earthquakes are listed as one
factor for an operator to consider in determining whether
a pipeline is likely to affect a high consequence area (and
therefor be subject to integrity management at all);29 but
for pipelines already clearly affecting a high consequence
area (as is the pipeline through Alamo), earthquakes
are only included in the context of the broader risk
assessment required. For example, in determining the
schedule to use in regularly assessing a pipeline segment,
geotechnical hazards must be considered;30 and PHMSA
offers further guidance on risk factors that should be
considered in the frequency of assessment, including
“location related to potential ground movement…”31 but
the regulations do not specify how they are considered,
any technical specifications to use when considering their
risk, or specific ways to mitigate that risk. When PHMSA
inspectors review a California operator’s risk assessment,
28 Kelson, Keith I. and Sundermann, Sean T. Digital compilation of
Northen Calaveras Fault Data for the Northern California Map
Database: Collaborative Research with William Lettis & Associates,
Inc., and the U.S. Geological Survey. October 2007.
29 See 49 CFR § 195 Appendix C I.B.(12)
30 See 49 CFR § 195.452(e).
31 See 49 CFR § 195, Appendix C. II.A.(11)
The San Jose line inside protective sleeve traveling above ground across a seasonal stream along the Iron Horse Corridor.
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 44 of 121
Page 20
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
they would expect to see seismic-related activity (ground
movement, unstable soils, landslides, etc.) listed as a
threat, and if not, they would dig deeper.32 In the 2011
updates to the federal pipeline safety laws, Congress
specifically included “seismicity of the area” as one threat
that a pipeline operator must consider when evaluating
threats to a pipeline segment under Parts 192 and 195 of Title 49.33
We saw no evidence in our review of the OSFM report
on Kinder Morgan’s integrity management program that
earthquakes factored in to their risk assessment. They did
list one action item for most of the intrastate pipelines in the
county including the San Jose line that relates to earthquake
activity (“monitor wash outs and unstable slopes”), and
there may be more listed in the integrity management plan
of the operator that is not available for the public to view.
Pipelines worldwide have generally performed relatively well
in past earthquakes,34 and ‘natural force damage’ (the cause
category under which earthquake-related pipeline failures
would fall) is the cause of relatively few pipeline failures
nationwide (7%) and in California (2%).35 However both
old and new pipelines can sustain damage from earthquakes
that is “typically concentrated in areas of unstable soils with
permanent ground deformation (PGD) and/or liquefaction,
including at river crossings and landslides,” according
to an Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy
Infrastructure Hub submitted in 2012.36 A technical handbook
on seismic risk analysis stresses the importance of estimating
the extent of permanent ground deformation in assessment
of pipeline system vulnerability: “In particular, adequate
knowledge of site-specific soil and groundwater conditions
is critical to the success of the design and installation of
pipelines, as well as in predicting its anticipated performance
under field conditions” (page 692).37
Both the technical handbook and the Oregon report list
options for mitigation measures to improve the performance
of a pipeline. The categories of mitigation measures as
summarized by the handbook are: “(a) avoid the hazard
by relocation; (b) isolate the pipeline from the hazard; (c)
accommodate the hazard by strengthening the pipeline or
increasing the flexibility; and (d) mitigate the hazard using
ground improvement” (page 702). The Oregon study states
mitigation options as: “soil improvement, increasing the load
32 Correspondence with PHMSA Pipeline Safety Western Region Office
CATS staff, August 2015.
33 Section 29, Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation
Act of 2011.
34 Wang, Yumei, Bartlett, Steven F., and Miles, Scott B. Earthquake
Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub (Final
Report to Oregon Department of Energy & Oregon Public Utility
Commission). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries, August 2012.
35 See PHMSA data shown in graphs earlier in report entitled “Causes
of HL Significant Incidents.”
36 Wang, et. al. IBID (Page 82).
37 Honegger, D.G. and Wijewickreme, D. (2013). Seismic risk
assessment for oil and gas pipelines. In Tesfamariam, S., Goda, K.
(Eds.), Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil
Infrastructure Systems (pages 682-715). Cambridge: Woodhead
Publishing Limited, 2013.
carrying capacity of the pipe system, reducing the friction
between the pipe and soil, relocating the pipe, anchors to
prevent uplift from buoyant forces, or special pipe joints
or fittings that allow greater joint deflection, extension, or
compression” (Page 84).
Seismic vulnerability studies can be conducted on pipelines
or pipeline segments to assess pipeline performance and
suggest mitigation measures appropriate to the specific
situation. We found no evidence that Kinder Morgan or any
other operator has conducted such a study related to the
pipelines in Contra Costa County.
RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS:
Contract for an independent technical seismic
vulnerability study on HCA pipelines affected by
potentially active faults to feed into the pipeline risk
analysis, and make the study available to the public.
Iron Horse Corridor Above-Ground Stream Crossings – In
two places along the Iron Horse Corridor in Alamo, the San
Jose line spans seasonal streams above-ground. (see photo on
page 19) Community members have raised concerns about
the adequacy of the span supports, potential vulnerability of
these spans and the overall safety of these crossings.
Both the above-ground pipeline spans contain a metal sleeve
over the pipeline itself, and it is this sleeve that is secured to
the supporting infrastructure. These types of above-ground
pipeline spans are fairly common, though there are many
different types of supportive infrastructure that can secure
the pipeline in these situations. One additional concern with
supported above-ground spans is the erosion that can occur on
either side, potentially increasing the length of the unsupported
portion of the span. Some different types of above-ground
supports are depicted in the accompanying photos.
Examples of other pipelines crossing steam areas in California and Washington States.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 45 of 121
Page 21
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Land Use Planning and Pipelines
For the siting of nearly all new pipelines, the pipeline
company decides on a general route they prefer for their
pipeline, and possibly some alternative routes. Once they
feel fairly confident with the feasibility of their chosen route,
the more formal process with various government agencies
begins. That process is not consistent for various types of
pipelines, but varies greatly based on the type of pipeline
and where it is to run.
Interstate natural gas pipeline companies must apply to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for
construction and route approval.
There is no comprehensive federal permitting process for the
routing of hazardous liquid pipelines or of intrastate natural
gas pipelines. Assuming the pipeline is wholly within the U.S.,
the responsibility for approval of the pipeline route falls on the
individual states. Since California does not have a statute at the
time of this writing that addresses pipeline routing and siting,
the responsibility falls to the regular land use authority of local
governments along the pipeline route, some of which exercise
this authority, and others do not.
Local governments can also coordinate and regulate new
development near existing pipelines with their land use
authority. Many pipelines existed prior to development, and
housing density has increased in many areas near pipelines
that once were predominantly undeveloped rural areas.
Local governments can enact regulations governing the type
of buildings and construction that can occur near existing
pipelines, requiring consultation with the pipeline operator,
establishing setbacks or enacting a variety of other land use
permit requirements.
In 2010, PHMSA published the final report of the Pipelines
and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA), a three-year effort
to provide information
and recommendations
on the types of tools
local governments can
use to regulate new
development near existing
pipelines. Forty-three
recommended practices
are contained in the
report, and twenty-nine
of them speak specifically
to local governments
about things they can
do to encourage safety
near transmission
pipelines. Recommendations stress: the need to have a
relationship with local pipeline operators that includes open
communication, incorporating the existence of pipelines
into planning processes and infrastructure projects, and
the importance of safe excavation practices. One example
of a specific recommendation is the use of consultation
areas or zones that require early consultation among
stakeholders when any development is proposed within
a specified distance from a transmission pipeline. All
recommendations and associated documents can be found
through the PIPA link at: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/
comm/pipa/LandUsePlanning.htm.
Contra Costa County
local government agencies
also have a role to play
in pipeline safety and
oversight. Federal and
state regulations generally
preclude local governments
from adopting any
regulations that require a
pipeline operator to take
any actions regarding
the safe operation of a
pipeline. That said, pipeline
operators might willingly
enter into development
agreements or mitigation agreements that include
additional safety aspects in certain situations, in response
to local conditions. There are things that local governments
do that are not precluded, such as negotiated rights-of-way
agreements, spill and emergency preparations and response,
or land use and zoning provisions. Contra Costa County
agencies are actively involved in some of these areas, and
minimally involved in others.
Example of California local authority for new and
replaced pipelines: Santa Barbara County
Santa Barbara County requires pipeline operators
to submit a Development Plan permit for new and
replaced pipelines, often in conjunction with a
Conditional Use Permit (if located in the Coastal
Zone and impacting environmentally sensitive
areas).1 The permit review process includes analysis of
submitted information (maps, mitigation measures,
emergency response plan, etc.) against standards, and
requires specific findings as well as an Environmental
Impact Review in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).2 Pipeline operators
with existing lines may need to obtain a grading permit
prior to digs that expose pipe,3 and operators with
a development permit on file submit results of any
anomaly digs to the county. Santa Barbara County is
unique in their use of a System Safety Reliability Review
Committee4 made up primarily of technical staff who
work in collaboration with pipeline operators (and
other oil and gas facility operators) to review project
information and operations.
1 See Santa Barbara County Land Use & Development Code,
Article 35.5.
2 See CA Public Resource Code § 21000 et. seq.
3 See Santa Barbara Grading Code (Chapter 14).
4 For more information on the System Safety Reliability
Review Committee, including committee makeup, minutes,
and agendas, see http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/energy/
permits/ssrrc.asp.
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 46 of 121
Page 22
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Right-of-way Franchise and Easement Agreements
Easements and franchise agreements specify information
about the access the pipeline operator has to land that is
owned by private parties or government entities. They are
typically negotiated agreements in exchange for payment,
and lay out allowed and disallowed activities for the pipeline
operator and the landowner within the area covered by
the agreement. The area covered may be narrow or wide,
depending on the pipeline and the context at the time the
agreement was signed.
When a pipeline goes through county-owned public
property or public rights-of-way, Contra Costa
County Public Works Department has authority over
the granting of franchise or easement agreements.
Agreements between the county and pipeline operator
must proceed in accordance with the Pipeline Franchise
Ordinance.38 Ordinances that establish regulations
for granting these franchise agreements have been in
place since 1964, with amendments in 1992 and 2013.
As of this writing, the public works department staff is
working to get all existing franchise agreements updated
to be consistent with the most recent ordinance. The
pipeline franchise ordinance covers the unincorporated
portions of the county, and individual cities negotiate
easements and franchise agreements according to their
own ordinances or policies.
There are examples from around the country where local
governments through these franchise agreements have been
able to obtain safety improvements and greater liability
insurance and indemnification than is required by state or
federal rules.39
The Iron Horse Corridor – Multiple Uses
Some pipelines were in place prior to the first county
franchise ordinance and operate according to easements
that were already in place. This is the situation with most
of the Kinder Morgan SFPP- San Jose line along the Iron
Horse Corridor, which was constructed in the mid-1960s
during the time that the Southern Pacific Railroad owned
and operated rail lines.
The entire Iron Horse
Corridor right-of-way varies
from about 30 to 100 feet
in width along the route,
and contains numerous
utilities and facilities
through easements, license
agreements, and leases,
including the easement
for the SFPP - San Jose
pipeline, which only covers
a portion of the corridor
right of way. Because of the history of the San Jose line
and the Iron Horse Corridor, much of the land through
38 Governed by Contra Costa County Code, Title 10, Chapter 1004-2.
39 See examples of these franchise agreements at: http://pstrust.org/
about-pipelines1/local-governments/franchise-agreements/
which the pipeline travels is public and not private land,
so the predominance of the easement area is covered by
a single agreement between the pipeline operator and the
county, rather than many individual easements between
the pipeline operator and private property owners. That
easement agreement specifies the property involved
(generally a strip of land 10 feet wide, specifically described
in the easement documents), and the right of the operator
to construct, reconstruct, renew, maintain and operate the
pipeline and appurtenances on the easement.40
Landowners have in the past encroached onto the Iron
Horse Corridor with fence lines, landscaping, and other
property improvements. This type of activity presents a
potential safety threat to the pipeline and is against the law.
The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 specifies in
§ 51014.6:
“(a) Effective January 1, 1987, no person, other than
the pipeline operator, shall do any of the following with
respect to any pipeline easement:
(1) Build, erect, or create a structure or improvement
within the pipeline easement or permit the building,
erection, or creation thereof.
(2) Build, erect, or create a structure, fence, wall, or
obstruction adjacent to any pipeline easement which
would prevent complete and unimpaired surface
access to the easement, or permit the building,
erection, or creation thereof.
(b) No shrubbery or shielding shall be installed on the
pipeline easement. This subdivision does not prevent the
revegetation of any landscape disturbed within a pipeline
easement as a result of constructing the pipeline and
does not prevent the holder of the underlying fee interest
or the holder’s tenant from planning and harvesting
seasonal agricultural crops on a pipeline easement.
(c) This section does not prohibit a pipeline operator
from performing any necessary activities within a
pipeline easement, including, but not limited to,
the construction, replacement, relocation, repair, or
operation of the pipeline.”
Numerous other utilities share the right-of-way with the
hazardous liquid pipeline. Operators install utility lines
according to specific standards that specify vertical and
horizontal separation distances that vary depending on the
type of utility.41 Colocation of energy transmission systems
within designated energy ROWs is common, but may result
in some interference between the systems or other hazards
that would not exist except for the physical proximity of the
two transmission systems.
40 There are gaps in the easement and memoranda documentation the
Trust was able to acquire from the county and Kinder Morgan. We
don’t know if this reflects missing documentation or uncertainty
about the pipeline right-of-way, but recommend there be a complete
set of documentation describing the right-of-way and property
affected that is available to the public.
41 See 49 CFR § 195.250; also see operator guidelines for additional
specifics on horizontal and vertical separation distances.
Multiple utilities exist in the Iron Horse Corridor
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 47 of 121
Page 23
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Encroachments into the Iron Horse Corridor may or
may not encroach into the portion of the corridor over
which Kinder Morgan or other utilities hold an easement.
Assessing and remedying these encroachments will require
coordination among all parties with ownership interests in
the corridor.
The community is involved in the management of
the corridor, and has numerous public participation
opportunities with regard to planning its use.42 Keeping the
pipeline and pipeline safety in mind during these public
discussions can serve to remind nearby residents that the
Iron Horse Corridor needs to be respected as a protective
buffer for the utilities within it, as well as enjoyed for its
recreational offerings.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Adopt
clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing
encroachment including the review of setback
variances by municipal advisory councils or
committees and department staff, so that properties
and vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach
on pipelines. Ensure the single staff point-of-contact
for citizens with concerns about multiple utility issues
and right of way questions has technical training
on safety concerns, adequate resources to conduct
regular and broad community outreach (especially
along the Iron Horse Corridor), and resources to work
in close coordination with other related departments
and advisory groups.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS: Ensure county has
complete and accurate records of corridor and
right of way locations. Continue to coordinate with
Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of
encroachments into pipeline Rights of Way.
RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS:
Consistently undertake assessments of existing Right
of Way encroachments to determine whether there
are safety implications. Coordinate with Contra Costa
County Public Works to resolve encroachments with
neighboring property owners.
Land Use and Zoning Provisions
Land use and zoning authority in the unincorporated
portions of the county lies within Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development (DCD)
42 The East Bay Regional Park District covering Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties manages the Iron Horse Trail (with an elected
board of directors and an appointed advisory committee), and
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors appoints an IHC
Advisory Committee with representation from communities along
the corridor. The IHC Advisory Committee has embarked on various
projects that have involved additional public input opportunities,
including the creation of the Management Program and its
Landscape Element in 2000.
jurisdiction. The county does not address pipelines in
the General Plan goals or policies. Apart from limited
involvement with certain high-hazard proposals (as rated
by Hazardous Materials Program staff), the county does not
review pipelines under their land use authority. They have a
specific exemption for pipelines and other utilities stating:
The use of land for rights-of-way for the construction,
maintenance and repair of public utilities and publicly
owned utilities and for privately owned pipelines
for the transportation of oil, gas, water, and other
substances transportable by pipelines, is not regulated
or restricted by Divisions 82 and 84. Accessory and
appurtenant structures forming a part of public
utilities, publicly owned utilities and pipelines are not
regulated or restricted by Divisions 82 and 84, except
for setback regulations. (Contra Costa County Zoning
Code § 82-2.010)
Divisions 82 and 84 referred to in the above citation
are, respectively, the General Regulations and Land Use
Districts divisions of the County Zoning Code.43
There are examples in California of other counties
that do not exempt privately owned transmission
pipelines from land use regulations (see sidebar
on Santa Barbara County on page 21). Using land
use and zoning authority to require permits for HL
pipeline construction, replacement, modification, or
abandonment may allow a local government to conduct
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
if warranted, and negotiate conditions and mitigation
requirements with certain permits.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT: Consider adding goals and
policies to the General Plan,44 and amending
Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so
that all privately owned pipelines and appurtenant
structures are not exempt, but rather only privately
owned gas distribution pipelines under 12” in
diameter are exempt from the General and Land Use
District regulations (divisions 82 and 84).45 Consider
additional ordinance(s) pertaining to zoning and land
use permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines and
possibly also intrastate gas transmission pipelines
that are proposed for construction, replacement,
modification, or abandonment.
43 See https://www.municode.com/library/ca/contra_costa_county/
codes/ordinance_code?nodeId=TIT8ZO
44 See the Trust’s Local Government Guide to Pipelines for specific
suggestions about what kind of General Plan (also called
Comprehensive Plan) language may be used relating to pipelines and
pipeline safety.
45 Language can be written specifically to exempt most distribution
pipelines. For example, “only gas distribution pipelines under 12” in
diameter or under an operating pressure of 80 psig are exempt from
the zoning code provisions.”
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 48 of 121
Page 24
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Damage Prevention and Public
Awareness Programs
A nationwide utility locator system is available for free
in every state, to anyone planning hand or machine
excavation, in order to prevent damage to pipelines and
other utilities. By calling 811 at least two working days
before digging, a utility locator will come identify and
mark buried utilities, including cables and pipelines
for fuel, water and sewer. This is a requirement by law
in California (see GOV Code § 4216 et. seq.) with civil
penalties associated with noncompliance, yet California
lacks enforcement for this law.46 Pipeline operators must
participate in this program. In communities that do
not have other types of consultation zones or setback
regulations, the “One-Call ticket” (as operators refer
to the resulting notification from someone calling 811)
is likely to be the first notice the pipeline operator has
that someone is intending to dig close to their pipeline.
Kinder Morgan has a robust damage prevention program,
with membership in the Common Ground Alliance, staff
training, and staff encouraged to actively follow up on any
observed violations.
Pipeline operators also are required by federal law to have
a Public Awareness Program.47 This program must describe
what the operator does to inform the public of the presence
of the pipeline and potential hazards, and how they do it.
For instance, the operator must identify and communicate
with local emergency personnel, government officials,
school districts, businesses, and the public, and tell them
specific things such as how to recognize pipeline location
markers, what kind of precautions they should take, what
kind of properties the commodity being transported in
the pipeline has, and how to recognize and respond to a
pipeline emergency.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA: Enforce excavation damage prevention
laws. Currently authority is held with the Attorney
General’s office, but there is not adequate staffing
or resources to respond to notifications of alleged
violations or to investigate. Other agencies respond
on a fragmented basis depending on the damaged
utility involved.
Local Opportunities for Public Involvment, Education
and Awareness
The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials
Ombudsman is a useful single point of contact for
information regarding hazardous materials including
pipelines; part of the ombudsman’s role is to help people in
the county be good advocates for themselves by providing
information. The public can also attend Hazardous
46 California is one of a few states without enforcement for excavation
damage prevention – see PHMSA 2014 state damage prevention
program characterization.
47 For hazardous liquid pipelines, see 49 CFR § 195.440; for gas
pipelines, see 49 CFR § 192.616.
Materials Commission meetings or apply to be one of the 13
members (some of these are public seats).
All of the agencies discussed in this report also provide
additional information on their websites (those addresses
are listed in Appendix A).
The county also has a Community Awareness and
Emergency Response (CAER) group, which is a non-profit
public benefit corporation of public emergency response
agencies, local government officials and facilities and
businesses that use, store, handle, produce or transport
hazardous materials. All of these entities can be members
of CAER; membership is voluntary, and while most of the
waterfront industrial facility operators are members, Kinder
Morgan is not. CAER works to actively enhance public
health and safety, and includes public representatives on its
board of directors. CAER efforts focus on the waterfront
areas from Richmond to Antioch where industrial facilities
are concentrated but their expertise and public outreach
model also support inland areas of county affected by
hazardous materials transport through pipelines.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors raised
questions and concerns about Kinder Morgan intrastate
pipelines in a letter to OSFM dated March 11, 2014. In
response to this letter, OSFM staff inspected the Kinder
Morgan Integrity Management Program related to their
intrastate pipelines in Contra Costa County (including the
San Jose line / LS-16) in June 2014. This inspection included
a review of integrity management procedures, inspections,
and associated repairs for the eleven Kinder Morgan
intrastate pipelines operating in Contra Costa County, and
resulted in a report submitted to the county in the spring
of 2015 that details the process Kinder Morgan undergoes
to ensure the integrity of these lines. The county has this
information, but having this information is not the same
as having a clear process and expertise in place to analyze
it and make recommendations in coordination with the
operators and OSFM.
RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL: Make information – maps, incident
and inspection information – accessible to the public
by posting it online.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PIPELINE
OPERATORS: Participate as members in CAER
with consistent attendance at quarterly meetings by
appropriate management staff. Work in coordination
with the Board of Supervisors and appropriate
county departments to develop a technical advisory
body that can review the integrity management plan
(similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety
Reliability Review Committee) and other technical
assessments of the pipeline in order to cultivate
informed technical expertise in the county and
increase public trust and awareness.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 49 of 121
Page 25
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Emergency Response, Spill Response &
Prevention
Oil spill prevention and emergency response authority differs
depending on what area the spill is likely to affect (coastal or
inland), whether it is part of a larger facility (e.g., a refinery),
and what part of the process is the focus (prevention,
preparedness, environmental spill response, or emergency
assistance to communities). When a spill occurs, many state,
federal and local agencies work together under a ‘unified
command’ structure on clean-up and response.
Hazardous liquid pipeline spill response agencies in
California
The U.S. EPA has authority to direct cleanup and
rehabilitation of areas affected by spills of hazardous liquid
releases. The U.S. EPA can also bring actions for civil
penalties under the Oil Pollution Act against operators for
each barrel of oil where releases have entered navigable
waters, as defined under the Clean Water Act. Additional
recovery is available to the state and federal governments
for damages done to natural resources by a spill.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office
of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) also exercises
jurisdiction over oil spills. This authority was expanded
greatly in 2014 to cover all state surface waters at risk
of oil spills from any source, including pipelines and
production facilities.48 The development of the regulations
for this expanded statutory authority is underway as of
this writing, with OSPR coordinating with local, state
and federal government along with industry and non-
governmental organizations to do so. OSPR requires
operators to submit spill response plans for approval,
and conducts spill drills (they are authorized to conduct
both announced and unannounced drills). Operator
spill response plans for pipelines that could effect marine
waters are currently posted on the OSPR website, and
presumably similar plans will be made available to the
public in the future for those operators with pipelines
that could effect any waters of the state once the new
regulations are completed and implemented.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
regulates hazardous waste and materials through a
Unified Program that incorporates a number of local and
regional Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs)
for implementation, of which the Contra Costa County
Health Services Department is one. In general, CUPAs are
most interested in facilities handling hazardous waste and
materials, and not focused at all on the transportation of
those materials. However if an incident occurs and hazardous
materials spill, a local CUPA will be involved in the response
to that spill, whether it comes from a facility or a pipeline.
More information about the CUPA role is included in the
following section focused on Contra Costa County.
48 Senate Bill 861 authorized the expansion and provided the additional
statutory and regulatory authority, for the prevention, preparedness
and response activities in the new inland areas of responsibility. See
also Cal. GOV Code § 8670.
All pipeline operators are required to have an emergency
response plan, and to share that plan with local first
responders. The plan should contain detailed information
about what the pipelines hold, and how pipeline company
personnel and emergency response agencies such as fire and
sheriff or police departments will implement pre-planned
responses in case of an emergency. PHMSA assesses the
written procedures contained in these plans during their
inspections of interstate operators, and OSFM reviews
portions of the plans during their standard inspections (once
every five years) for intrastate pipelines, but operators are not
required to submit these plans to either PHMSA or OSFM.
Operators that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal Oil
Pollution Act, whose pipelines may significantly harm water
bodies if there were to be a release of oil or a refined product,
must also prepare a facility response plan, sometimes called a
spill response plan, to outline how a release from the facility
will be responded to and where response resources will be
stored near the pipeline and where staff and contractors will be
responding from. These plans must meet the requirements of
federal law and regulations and be approved by PHMSA.49
Pipeline accident investigations occur separately from the
spill clean-up and response. The National Transportation
Safety Board conducts accident investigations of some
of the most significant pipeline incidents. PHMSA may
conduct a pipeline failure investigation on a pipeline within
its jurisdiction, depending on the cause or failure mode,
the severity of the consequences, and the history of the
pipeline system. OSFM conducts its own investigations,
in accordance with Section 13107.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code. Other agencies may also conduct
investigations, including the California Department of
Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and
Health, or a local Certified Unified Program Agency.
Following the May 2015 spill onto Refugio Beach near Santa
Barbara, additional changes were proposed to California
laws to increase the usage of automatic shut-off systems
and improve leak detection technology on hazardous liquid
lines, as well as to improve the response times to begin clean
up efforts by allowing local fishing boats to be trained as
spill responders. At the time of this publication, it was not
yet certain whether either of these bills would pass.
Contra Costa County Spill and Emergency Preparations
and Response
Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) is
designated as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA),
and their Hazardous Materials Program has been involved in
protecting the community from hazardous materials releases
for well over two decades. The state and county rules governing
hazardous materials apply very little to pipelines, as the state
hazardous materials law specifically exempts the transportation
of hazardous materials.50 However once hazardous materials
are released from a pipeline, they are no longer considered
49 See 49 C.F.R. Part 194.
50 Specific authority given to the HSD as a CUPA is described in CA HS
Code, § 25404 and § 25531 et. seq.; the Contra Costa County Industrial
Safety Ordinance is found in CCC Code, Title 4, Chapter 450.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 50 of 121
Page 26
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
to be part of the transportation system. In concert with these
rules, the Hazardous Materials Program concerns itself with
all storage and processing of hazardous materials (including at
water treatment facilities, refineries, and the like), but pipelines
mainly draw their attention once the hazardous materials are
no longer part of the transportation system, i.e., there is an
incident where oil is spilled. All releases of hazardous materials
(including pipeline releases) are reported on by the Hazardous
Materials Program, and available on the department’s website.51
The Health Services Department has a designated staff
Hazardous Materials Ombudsman whose job is to respond
to questions and concerns from the public, as well as
independently and impartially conduct investigations,
solve problems, and make recommendations regarding the
program. The Department also supports the Hazardous
Materials Commission, a group consisting of 13 appointed
members representing a diversity of stakeholders.
The Commission is tasked with advising the Board of
Supervisors on hazardous materials planning, management,
and implementation, while obtaining broad public input
and working to build consensus.52 The Health Services
Department incorporate concerns with pipelines along
with facilities as part of a broad focus on protecting the
community from dangers of hazardous materials.
Contra Costa County is highly populated, and many people
live and work in close proximity to the pipelines in the
region. A dozen schools are located in very close proximity
to the Kinder Morgan pipeline along the section of the
Iron Horse Corridor from Concord to San Ramon. While
individual schools have emergency or crisis plans in place,
we did not see mention of the unique hazard presented
by proximity to the pipeline if a pipeline incident were to
occur. The California Department of Education (CDE) offers
useful guidance to Local Educational Agencies (i.e. school
districts and other related entities) in siting new facilities;
one piece of this guidance is their “Guidance Protocol for
School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis” which is a tool to aid
Local Educational Agencies and the CDE in evaluating
the suitability of new school sites located near pipelines as
defined in the regulations.53 CDE also offers guidance under
their “Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management”
heading, including suggestions for reducing the probability
of a pipeline product release and for reducing the severity of
consequences of pipeline releases on schools.54
These resources could be expanded to offer mitigation
and modernization recommendations for existing schools
in proximity to pipelines, looking at evacuation routes,
coordination with local first responders and pipeline operators,
and education of individual school staff using resources such as
the School Pipeline Safety Partnership offered by the Danielle
51 As of this writing, website access to the reports had been suspended
pending HSD website’s realignment with the CA Environmental
Reporting System, but will soon be available again through links here:
http://cchealth.org/hazmat/incident-response.php.
52 See http://cchealth.org/hazmat/hmc/
53 See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/protocol07.asp
54 See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/mitigation.asp
Dawn Smalley Foundation.55 In addition, the Contra Costa
County Office of Public Education maintains online resources
on emergency preparedness,56 and the Contra Costa County
CAER has a Model Emergency Plan for Schools,57 both of
which can be used as additional resources when developing a
comprehensive emergency or crisis plan. These resources do
not specifically mention the potential hazards of oil and gas
pipelines as something to learn about and pay attention to, or
as a potential risk for which to plan and develop mitigation
measures, though they do provide helpful guidance for the
important process of emergency planning.
At a minimum, those agencies who help schools develop
safety plans should coordinate with one another (E.G. school
districts, the CA Department of Education, county Office of
Public Education, and CAER) and suggest each crisis plan
include the following information about pipelines:
•Where is the pipeline? (include it in any maps, and
specify distance from school facilities)
•What pipeline markers look like.
•Name of pipeline operator, product transported,
and both emergency and non-emergency contact
information for a pipeline operator representative.
•How and where to evacuate in a pipeline emergency,
including routes that avoid pipelines and pipeline
rights-of-way.
•Overview of the indications of a pipeline emergency.
At least one of the schools adjacent to the Iron Horse Corridor
and Kinder Morgan pipeline has no access to emergency services
or evacuation except via a single road that crosses the pipeline.
Rancho Romero Elementary School is located in Alamo, and
can only be reached via Hemme Road off of Danville Boulevard
by crossing over the pipeline. In the unlikely event that a pipeline
incident occurs adjacent to the school in such a way as to block
the Hemme Road access, numerous problems could arise, as
all road access to and from the school would be blocked. All
emergency services are on the other side of the pipeline; the
current relocation site listed in the school’s crisis plan is the
Creekside Community Church, also on the other side of the
pipeline. The pipeline is not depicted on the emergency map
for the school, and is not mentioned in the safety plan where
ingress/egress is discussed, or anywhere else in the crisis plan.
There may be a timely opportunity to work with developers
to address the issue of school and neighborhood connectivity
in conjunction with current plans for development in this
area. Every effort should be made to create publicly accessible
access across these ‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate
crossing the pipeline to access any services.58
55 See http://smalleyfnd.org/services/pipeline-education/schools
56 See http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/about/resources_emergency.html
57 See http://www.cococaer.org/prepare_plans_school.html
58 The Trust has seen the “Ball Estate” development plan that is
currently under review and includes possible gated emergency
vehicle access in this area via a private Ironwood Place connector.
Contra Costa County should ensure that any emergency vehicle
access is sufficient in width and access to have unimpeded passing
emergency vehicles and whatever other needs may be requested by
the Fire Department.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 51 of 121
Page 27
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
As mentioned earlier, resources exist for school emergency
planning. In addition, assistance or funding may be
available from those same agencies or the pipeline operator
to receive specialized technical assistance to assess the
pipeline risks and offer suggested mitigation and evacuation
strategies pertinent to the specific school situation.
Two fire districts cover the central region of the county
that includes the Iron Horse Corridor: the Contra Costa
County Fire Protection District, and the San Ramon Valley
Fire Protection District. As mentioned previously, pipeline
operators are required to have both an emergency response
plan, and a public awareness plan, and to have a designated
liaison and make information available to local first
responders such as fire departments and sheriff or police
departments. Because of the workload and turnover in most
fire districts, it is difficult to have a single point-of-contact
who is familiar with the pipeline, the operator and the
emergency response plan. While pipeline operators invite
district personnel to annual training events, it is up to the
district to prioritize planning for a pipeline emergency.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Expand the
scope of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman and the
Hazardous Materials Commission to provide an ongoing
review of pipeline operators’ emergency plans and
possible county efforts regarding additional coordinated
technical review of pipeline integrity planning.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA: Work with the California Department
of Education (CDE) on ways to implement CDE’s
suggestions for reducing the probability of a pipeline
product release on schools, and reducing the
consequences of pipeline releases on schools.59
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Request
appropriate staff conduct an analysis of all congregate
facilities (i.e. schools, recreation facilities, hospitals,
nursing facilities, etc.) located in close proximity to
transmission pipelines; Work with other emergency
response agencies to develop a list of resources for
emergency and evacuation planning expertise for
congregate facilities near pipelines that can include
potential hazards from a pipeline incident, and
mitigation strategies for those hazards based on site-
specific considerations.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS: Plan emergency
evacuation ingress/egress for areas in Alamo west of
Danville Boulevard and the Iron Horse Corridor where
a single east-west pipeline-crossing road is the only
access for numerous homes and facilities (e.g. Hemme
59 See CDE’s Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management website
at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/mitigation.asp
Road, Camille Road) with the goal of creating public
accessibility across these ‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that
necessitate crossing the pipeline to access any services.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY Department of Conservation and
Development: Review all development applications
for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress
where currently limited, and where possible, include
conditions on approvals to improve connectivity and
avoid exacerbation of access problems.
RECOMMENDATION TO DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION: Expand School Site Pipeline Risk
Analysis and the Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/
Management guidance in coordination with emergency
response agencies to offer help for schools that already
exist in close proximity to pipelines. Lead coordination
efforts among the myriad of agencies that offer crisis
planning assistance to schools, and suggest minimum
information that should be included in these plans
regarding pipelines.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY OFFICE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Expand emergency
preparedness resources to include information about
pipelines and pipeline-specific risks. Assist individual
schools in developing crisis plans and emergency
preparedness plans that include pipelines on the
emergency maps and assess how ingress/egress may be
affected by a pipeline incident.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY CAER: Include specific reference to oil and
gas pipelines in the list of potential hazards listed in
the hazard assessment in the next update to the Model
Emergency Plan for Schools.
RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS:
Reach out to the schools along the pipeline easement and
offer to provide technical assistance assessing pipeline
risks and evacuation strategies given possible incidents
that could occur in close proximity to the schools.
RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE DISTRICTS:
Designate a single point-of-contact to coordinate with
pipeline operators, familiarize themselves with the
operators’ emergency response and spill response plans,
know the facilities where people congregate (schools,
churches, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) in close
proximity to the pipeline, be involved with any emergency
planning done by those facilities, and advise County
DCD and PW on sufficiency of proposed ingress/egress
for new developments in areas where there is currently
single access that crosses the San Jose line.
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 52 of 121
Page 28
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Agency listing and Resources for more information
Appendix B. Community education meetings
Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report
Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County
Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 53 of 121
Page 29
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix A. Agency listing and resources for more information
Alamo Improvement Association: www.alamoca.org
CA Dept of Education, Guidance Protocol - School Site Pipeline Risk: www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/protocol07.asp
CA Office of the State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Division: osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline.php
CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife, Office of Spill Response and Prevention: www.wildlife.ca.gov/OSPR
CA Environmental Protection Agency, Unified Program: www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: www.cccounty.us/193/Board-of-Supervisors
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development: www.cccounty.us/dcd
Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Programs: cchealth.org/hazmat/
Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division
Iron Horse Corridor Management: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/413/Iron-Horse-Corridor
Franchise Administration: www.contracosta.ca.gov/475/Franchise-Administration
Contra Costa County Office of Education, Crisis Planning & Emergency Preparedness:
www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/about/resources_emergency.html
Contra Costa County Community Awareness & Emergency Response (CAER): www.cococaer.org
Danielle Dawn Smalley Foundation, Pipeline Safety and Awareness Training for Schools:
smalleyfnd.org/services/pipeline-education/schools
Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations: www.ecfr.gov/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49CIsubchapD.tpl
National Transportation Safety Board: www.ntsb.gov
Pipeline Safety Trust website: pstrust.org
Landowner’s Guide to Pipelines: pstrust.org/log
Local Government Guide to Pipelines: pstrust.org/lgg
Online “SafePipelines” discussion group: groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/safepipelines
U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Incident and Annual Pipeline Data: phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats
National Pipeline Mapping System: www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer
Office of Pipeline Safety: phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline
Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance: primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/pipa/landuseplanning.htm
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 54 of 121
Page 30
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix B. Community education meetings
The Alamo Improvement Association and the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission jointly sponsored
two hazardous liquid pipeline safety workshops in June of 2015, with funding from the PHMSA Community Technical
Assistance Grant received by the Alamo Improvement Association. Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman,
moderated the meetings, and the following four individuals presented information and slides to the group:
•Carl Weimer, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Trust
•Bob Gorham, Division Chief of Pipeline Safety, Office of the State Fire Marshal
•Pete Murphy, Operations Manager at Kinder Morgan
•Carry Ricci, Customer Services Coordinator at Contra Costa County Public Works Department
The Pipeline Safety Trust hosts a webpage with all the presentations available for download: http://pstrust.org/trust-
initiatives-programs/work-in-other-communities/alamo/. In addition, the second workshop was captured on video by
CCTV, and is available to watch here: http://contra-costa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=935921b6-0eea-11e5-
b5ce-00219ba2f017.
The workshops were held in Alamo and Martinez, with advertising and press coverage in the preceding month. About
70 people attended the June 3rd workshop in Alamo, and about 45 attended the June 6th workshop in Martinez. Three
Pipeline Safety Trust staff worked along side the members of the Alamo Improvement Association Technical Assistance
Grant, ad-hoc working group to prepare for and carry out these workshops. Audience members submitted written
questions throughout the meeting, which were then asked by the moderator to the panelists during a question and answer
period at the end of the meeting. This report focuses on questions of concern to local citizens, including those submitted at
the workshops or by email to members of the ad-hoc working group.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 55 of 121
Page 31
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY WORKSHOP AGENDA
June 3, 2015, 6:30 – 8:30 PM in Alamo
Creekside Community Church (1350 Danville Blvd)
June 6, 2015, 10 AM – 12 PM in Martinez
County Administration Building, Board of Suervisors Chambers (651 Pine St)
Facilitated by Pipeline Safety Trust staff, and Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Ombudsman Michael Kent
Introductions (10 Minutes)
Agency, Kinder Morgan, and Pipeline Safety Trust staff
Why care about pipeline safety? Pipelines 101 (20 minutes)
Pipeline Safety Trust staff
Kinder Morgan Presentation (20 Minutes)
Pete Murphy, Operations Manager, Kinder Morgan
Fire Marshal Presentation (20 Minutes)
Bob Gorham, Division Chief, Pipeline Safety, CA Office of the State Fire Marshal
Increasing Safety - Pipeline Safety Trust Staff, Michael Kent, & Carrie Ricci (15 Minutes)
Communications
County involvement – Public Works & Hazardous Materials Advisory Board
Faciliated Question & Answer Panel – Michael Kent, facilitator (30 Minutes)
Closing (5 Minutes ) AIA - Roger Smith
MEETING SPONSORS:
Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS:
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 56 of 121
Page 32
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report
City of Richmond, Pipeline Franchise Ordinance 27-10 (2010). Online: www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/
Item/3143.
Contra Costa County Code (including Industrial Safety Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance). Online: www.municode.com/
library/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code.
Contra Costa County, Flood Control & Water Conservation District – PG&E 1994 Easement for 24 inch gas pipeline.
Contra Costa County General Plan (2014). Online: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/4732/General-Plan.
Contra Costa County Health Services, Hazardous Materials Program – Incident report ConocoPhillips pipeline
(vandalism) in Byron 2011 Aug 27 – includes Environmental Site Assessment Report.
Contra Costa County Health Services, Hazardous Materials Program – Incident report ConocoPhillips pipeline (corrosion)
at MOTC (Marine Ocean Terminal Concord, formerly Naval Weapons Station) 2011 Nov 7.
Contra Costa County Health Services memo (Randy Sawyer) to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors re: Nov 7, 2014
ConocoPhillips pipeline leak in Concord (crude).
Contra Costa County Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Landscape Element (2000). Online: www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/2579/Landscape-Element.
Contra Costa County Pipeline Franchise Ordinance 2013-19 & Fee Resolution (2013). Online: http://pstrust.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/Pipeline-Franchise-FINALweb-09172013.pdf.
Contra Costa County Public Works memo to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recommending requesting the
Office of the State Fire Marshal report of Kinder Morgan Integrity Management program review. Approved by Board of
Supervisors (2015 Jan 6).
Honegger, D.G. and Wijewickreme, D. (2013). Seismic risk assessment for oil and gas pipelines. In Tesfamariam, S., Goda,
K. (Eds.), Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems (pages 682-715).
Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2013.
Kelson, Keith I. and Sundermann, Sean T (2007). Digital compilation of Northern Calaveras Fault Data for the Northern
California Map Database: Collaborative Research with William Lettis & Associates, Inc., and the U.S. Geological
Survey. Online: earthquake.usgs.gov/research/external/reports/05HQGR0023.pdf
National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (2013). Compendium of State Pipeline Safety Requirements and
Initiatives Providing Increased Public Safety Levels compared to Code of Federal Regulations – second edition. Online:
www.napsr.org/Pages/Comp2013.aspx.
Office of the State Fire Marshal Pipeline Failure Investigation Report, 2004 Nov 9 Walnut Creek Kinder Morgan incident.
Office of the State Fire Marshal report on review of Kinder Morgan Integrity Management Program for pipelines in Contra
Costa County (2014 June 2).
Office of the State Fire Marshal PowerPoint presentation re: Kinder Morgan Integrity Management Program (2014 Dec 4).
Online: 64.166.146.155/docs/2015/BOS/20150106_514/20327_ContraCostaCounty2014.pdf.
Office of the State Fire Marshal letter (Bob Gorham) to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors re: Kinder Morgan
inspection/audit (2014 May 8).
PHMSA corrective action order 2005 Aug 24 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CAO 5-2005-5025H).
PHMSA consent agreement 2006 March 29 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CPF 5-2005-5025H). Online: primis.
phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520055025H/CPF_NO_5_2005-5025H.pdf.
PHMSA closure of consent agreement 2015 May 11 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CPF 5-2005-5025H). Online:
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520055025H/520055025H_closure%20letter_05112015.pdf.
Pipeline and Informed Planning Alliance (2010). Partnering to Further Enhance Pipeline Safety in Communities through
Risk-Informed Land Use Planning Final Report of Recommended Practices. Online: primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/
publications/pipa/pipa-report-final-20101117.pdf
Southern Pacific Transportation Company – Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. 1979 Easement (for Concord-San Jose
pipeline).
Southern Pacific Railroad – Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines 1994 Amended Easement (for Concord-San Jose pipeline, references
original easement from June 5, 1970 that was not found).
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 57 of 121
Page 33
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (2012). Studies for the Requirements
of Automatic and Remotely Controlled Shutoff Valves on Hazardous Liquids and Natural Gas Pipelines with Respect
to Public and Environmental Safety (ORNL/TM-2012/411). Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by
UT-Battelle for the U.S. Dept of Energy. Online: www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_2C1A725B08C5F72F30
5689E943053A96232AB200/filename/Final%20Valve_Study.pdf
Wang, Yumei, Bartlett, Steven F., and Miles, Scott B (2012). Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy
Infrastructure Hub (Final Report to Oregon Department of Energy & Oregon Public Utility Commission). Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Online: www.oregongeology.org/sub/earthquakes/cei-hub-report.pdf
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 58 of 121
Page 34
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County
All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County - 2002 to present (as of 4/1/15)
Significant Incidents are highlighted in yellow
Significant Date Name City
Commodity
spilled
Gallons
spilled Fatalities Injuries
Property
damage Cause
Yes 1/8/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 168 0 0 $183,180 Other
Yes 3/31/2002 Sfpp, lp Richmond Diesel fuel 3,360 0 0 $230,290
Material and/or
weld failures
No 4/21/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord Diesel fuel 546 0 0 $9,639
Incorrect
operation
Yes 6/21/2002 Pacific gas &
electric co Concord Natural gas N/a 0 0 $151,000
Damage by
outside forces
No 7/4/2002
Equilon pipeline
co Concord Crude oil 10 0 0 $7,508
Material and/or
weld failures
No 8/14/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord
Gasoline/diesel
fuel 126 0 0 $9,119 Equipment
Yes 9/7/2002 Sfpp, lp Richmond Gasoline 1,260 0 0 $262,750
Material and/or
weld failures
No 10/15/02 Venoco, inc Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $24,000
Excavation
damage
No 3/29/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Turbine fuel 20 0 0 $10,859 Equipment
Yes 4/1/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 22,260 0 0 $162,287
Material and/or
weld failures
Yes 4/14/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Transmix 30,450 0 0 $1,390,073 Corrosion
No 5/30/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 60 0 0 $230
Incorrect
operation
No 9/8/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Turbine fuel 20 0 0 $667
Incorrect
operation
Yes 11/11/2003 Pacific gas &
electric co Walnut creek Natural gas N/a 0 0 $750,000 Other
No 9/28/2004 Sfpp, lp Concord
Gasoline/
distillate mixture 126 0 0 $54,202
Material and/or
weld failures
Yes 11/7/2004 Sfpp l.P. Martinez Jet fuel 12,558 0 0 $139,130
Excavation
damage
Yes 11/9/2004 Sfpp l.P. Walnut creek Gasoline 23,688 5 3 $734,449
Excavation
damage
Yes 4/30/2006 Sfpp l.P. Concord Gasoline 3,234 0 0 $499,493
Material and/or
weld failures
No 6/5/06 Venoco inc. Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $70,000 Corrosion
No 6/19/06
Pacific gas &
electric co Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $65,200
Excavation
damage
Yes 9/8/2007 Pacific atlantic
terminals llc Martinez Gasoline/
reformate 7,056 0 0 $547,084
Incorrect
operation
No 3/5/2008
Pacific atlantic
terminals llc Martinez Gasoline 10 0 0 $3,908 Other
Yes 5/23/2008 Sfpp, lp Richmond Gasoline 168 0 0 $114,815 Corrosion
No 6/24/2008
Pacific atlantic
terminals llc Martinez
Hydrotest
water/oil
mixture
21 0 0 $64,712
Material and/or
weld failures
No 11/5/2009
Plains
marketing, l.P.Martinez Diesel fuel 168 0 0 $34,800 Corrosion
Yes 8/23/2011 Sfpp, lp Brentwood Refined product 1,596 0 0 $410,000
Equipment
failure
Yes 8/27/2011 Conocophillips Byron Crude oil 2,352 0 0 $1,275,040
Excavation
damage
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 59 of 121
Page 35
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Yes 11/7/2011 Conocophillips Concord Crude oil 1,890 0 0 $1,839,410
Corrosion
failure
Yes 7/3/2012 Shell pipeline
co., L.P.Martinez Refined product 546 0 0 $176,000
Equipment
failure
No 10/17/2012
Chevron pipe
line co Byron Refined product 10 0 0 $26,200
Equipment
failure
Yes 8/8/2013 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 57 0 0 $427,913
Material failure
of pipe or weld
No 6/20/14
Pacific gas &
electric co Antioch Natural gas N/a 0 0 $70,021
Excavation
damage
No 6/21/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 302 0 0 $34,453
Incorrect
operation
No 6/21/2014
Nustar
terminals Crockett Refined product 1,554 0 0 $52,000
Incorrect
operation
No 9/14/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 536 0 0 $80,967
Incorrect
operation
Yes 9/15/14 Pacific gas &
electric co Lafayette Natural gas N/a 0 0 $115,315
Excavation
damage
No 9/17/2014
Phillips 66
pipeline llc Richmond Refined product 89 0 0 $5,000
Equipment
failure
Yes 12/9/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 0.42 0 0 $150,501
Equipment
failure
Yes 1/12/2015 Sfpp, lp Richmond Refined product 2,474 0 0 $550,497
Equipment
failure
Totals 116,716 5 3 $10,732,712
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 60 of 121
Page 36
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System
All incidents, 2006 - present. Significant Incidents are highlighted in yellow.
Date City State County Cause Fatalities Injuries
Property
Damage
Gallons
Spilled
5/23/2015 Rocklin Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $5,578 0
2/23/2015 Long beach Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $178,131 0
1/12/2015 Richmond Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $550,497 2,436
12/9/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $150,501 0
10/6/2014 Brisbane Ca San mateo Incorrect operation 0 0 $16,169 0
9/14/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa Incorrect operation 0 0 $80,967 504
6/21/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa Incorrect operation 0 0 $34,453 294
8/8/2013 Concord Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $427,913 42
1/8/2013 West sacramento Ca Yolo
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $2,429 0
10/16/2012 Long beach Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $16,012 252
8/23/2011 Brentwood Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $410,000 1,596
8/10/2011 Colfax Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $2,046 0
4/25/2011 Live oak Ca Sutter
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $27,301 336
11/4/2010 Pomona Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $64,964 84
7/19/2010 Rocklin Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $49,500 0
3/16/2010 Sacramento Ca Sacramento Corrosion 0 0 $480,000 2,016
5/18/2009 Bloomington Ca San bernardino Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $72,147 462
5/1/2009 Phoenix Az Maricopa All other causes 0 0 $33,684 714
9/18/2008 Deming Nm Luna
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $2,431 0
6/4/2008 Indio Ca Riverside Excavation damage 0 0 $222,245 31,542
5/23/2008 Richmond Ca Contra costa Corrosion 0 0 $114,815 168
3/29/2008 Phoenix Az Maricopa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $5,212 42
2/15/2008 Phoenix Az Maricopa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $7,172 84
10/2/2007 Reno Nv Washoe
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $4,055,353 35,742
4/8/2007 Long beach Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $8,209 84
2/26/2007 El paso Tx El paso
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $47,066 0
2/26/2007 Long beach Ca Los angeles All other causes 0 0 $144,063 126
1/12/2007 Rocklin Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $249 0
11/28/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles Incorrect operation 0 0 $5,030 0
10/23/2006 El paso Tx El paso Incorrect operation 0 0 $0 0
9/27/2006 Rocklin Ca Placer
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $6,421 126
9/27/2006 El paso Tx El paso Corrosion 0 0 $177,110 84
9/11/2006 Carson Ca Los angeles All other causes 0 0 $11,158 0
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 61 of 121
Page 37
Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California
Date City State County Cause Fatalities Injuries
Property
Damage
Gallons
Spilled
8/24/2006 Soda springs Ca Nevada Corrosion 0 0 $1,608,202 4,074
8/23/2006 West sacramento Ca Yolo
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $52,488 0
7/24/2006 Stockton Ca San joaquin
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $223,391 504
6/22/2006 Dublin Ca Alameda
Other outside force
damage 0 0 $1,845,651 672
6/10/2006 El paso Tx El paso
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $557 84
6/9/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $520 0
5/26/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles Incorrect operation 0 0 $32,937 1,134
5/21/2006 Rocklin Ca Placer All other causes 0 0 $50,512 168
5/16/2006 Deming Nm Luna
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $5,142 84
4/30/2006 Concord Ca Contra costa
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $499,493 3,234
3/17/2006 El paso Tx El paso
Material/weld/equip
failure 0 0 $25,093 42
3/13/2006 Tucson Az Pima Incorrect operation 0 0 $173 0
1/27/2006 Portland Or Multnomah Corrosion 0 0 $30,145 84
Totals 0 0 $11,783,130 86,814
Appendix A
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 62 of 121
Appendix B
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 63 of 121
Appendix B
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 64 of 121
Appendix B
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 65 of 121
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date: 06/09/2016
Subject: CONSIDER Department responses to the Pipeline Safety Report and DIRECT staff on next
steps.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department: Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 15
Referral Name: Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Program
Presenter: Carrie Ricci, Department of Public
Works, and John Cunningham,
Department of Conservation and
Development
Contact: Carrie Ricci (925)313-2235
Referral History:
At the April meeting of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC), Michael Kent, Executive
Assistant to the Hazardous Materials Commission presented the Pipeline Safety Report that was developed by the
Pipeline Safety Trust.
The Hazardous Materials Commission supported seven of the nine recommendations moving forward. TWIC
directed staff from the Departments of Conservation and Development and Public Works to review the
recommendations and report on how they could be implemented within the County.
Referral Update:
On May 23, 2016 staff from the Departments of Conservation and Development and Public Works met with staff
from the Office of Emergency Services, Health Services, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and San
Ramon Valley Fire District to discuss the following recommendations, what is currently being performed and any
additional steps that can be taken to improve in these areas.
Recommendation: Review all development applications for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress where
currently limited, and where possible, include conditions on approvals to improve connectivity and avoid
exacerbation of access problems.
Response: The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire District
review development applications to determine based on the size of the development whether a
second access is required. Access requirements are determined by the Contra Costa County Fire
Code.
Recommendation: Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard and
Page 1 of 4Print Agenda Item
8/2/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=25885&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=
Appendix C
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 66 of 121
the Iron Horse Corridor where a single pipeline crossing road is the only access for numerous homes and facilities
with the goal of creating public accessibility across these “dead-end” neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the
pipeline to access any services.
Response: The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is in the preliminary phase of
developing evacuation maps for neighborhoods on the west side of the trail in the Danville area.
They have requested feedback from the Danville Police Department and will look at the Alamo
area next. The information will be incorporated into a mailer and is anticipated to be sent to
residents in fiscal year 2016-17. In some emergency situations, Shelter in Place may be the most
appropriate option.
Recommendation: Ensure the County has complete and accurate records of corridor and right of way locations.
Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of encroachments into pipeline rights
of way.
Response: The County has current maps that show property lines and utility easements. Staff
continues to work with the utilities and property owners to address encroachments.
Recommendation: Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens with concerns about multiple utility issues
and right of way questions has technical training on safety concerns, adequate resources to conduct regular and
broad community outreach (especially along the Iron Horse Trail Corridor), and resources to work in close
coordination with other related departments and advisory groups.
Response: The Public Works Department has a single staff contact for the corridor who is the
Iron Horse Corridor Manager. The Corridor Manager works with the utilities, County Survey staff
and property owners to address right of way questions. The Corridor Manager interacts with
other departments to address corridor concerns and attends advisory committee meetings, as
needed to share information with the community. The Department has contacts with all of the
utilities and the State Fire Marshal so they can provide expertise, as needed.
Recommendation: Request appropriate staff conducts an analysis of all congregate facilities located in close
proximity to transmission pipelines. Work with other emergency response agencies to develop a list of resources
for emergency and evacuation planning expertise for congregate facilities near pipelines that include potential
hazards from a pipeline incident, and mitigation strategies for those hazards based on site-specific considerations.
Response: The Fire District and Health Services discussed working with Community Awareness
and Emergency Response (CAER) to develop a fact sheet to send to the congregate facilities that
describes what to consider regarding pipelines when they’re developing their emergency plans.
The term congregate will need to be further defined to determine what facilities would receive this
information. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District has an evacuation video developed for
this type of scenario that has been promoted to surrounding jurisdictions.
Recommendation: Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing encroachments including review of
setback variances by municipal advisory councils or committees and department staff, so that properties and
vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines.
Response: The County has clear policies that prevent encroachments. Property owners and
contractors are required to apply for a permit to access and/or perform work in the Iron Horse
Corridor. The Public Works Department is looking into different methods to communicate this
information to property owners adjacent to the Iron Horse Corridor, such as informational letters
Page 2 of 4Print Agenda Item
8/2/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=25885&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=
Appendix C
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 67 of 121
that remind residents of the corridor property lines, utilities in the corridor and the requirement to
call Underground Service Alert when digging. Other possibilities include Board of Supervisors
email communication and markers in the corridor designating the property line in various
locations. The County and cities along the corridor have setback requirements in place. Utilities
companies, specifically Kinder Morgan routinely clears vegetation over their easement. When
property owners apply for a setback variance the application may go to the appropriate municipal
advisory committee for review and a recommendation.
Recommendation: Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and amending
Contra Costa County Zoning code 82.2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would be
subject to land use regulations. Consider additional ordinances pertaining to zoning and land use that are proposed
for construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment.
Response: The Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, Open Space, and Safety elements of the
County General Plan contain references to pipelines that transport hazardous materials. The Land
Use and Safety elements also contain policies, though they are few and their nature is more
suggestive than directive. Because the County does not always have jurisdiction over pipeline
projects, amending the General Plan to add goals and policies pertaining directly to pipeline
development may have limited value. However, adding policies addressing the relationship of
other land uses to pipelines could be useful. Examples of such policies could include, but not be
limited to:
•Discouraging placement of uses and facilities which primarily house or serve vulnerable or
sensitive populations (elderly, ill, children, etc.) within X feet of a hazardous materials
pipeline right-of-way.
•Requiring deed notifications for all newly subdivided lots within X feet of a hazardous
materials pipeline right-of-way.
•Encouraging new buildings to be located away from hazardous materials pipeline rights-of-
way when such design flexibility exists on the project site.
Ordinance Code Section 82-2.010 currently states that pipelines are exempt from the County’s
zoning regulations. However, on May 24, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment
to Section 82-2.010 clarifying that pipelines are subject to Ordinance Code Chapter 84-63, Land
Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials. The
amendment becomes effective 30 days after adoption.
Staff believes the Ordinance Code provides for proper review of pipelines and sees no compelling
need for additional regulation of pipeline construction, replacement, modification, or
abandonment. Statutory exemptions exist for replacement/modification of pipelines and often these
activities take place under order from a federal or state agency. Pursuant to Chapter 84-63,
pipeline projects located more than 300 feet from residential or commercial properties are not
“development projects” and therefore do not require a land use permit. If a pipeline is located
Page 3 of 4Print Agenda Item
8/2/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=25885&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=
Appendix C
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 68 of 121
within 300 feet of such properties and has a hazard score[1]of 80 or higher, then a land use
permit is required and an environmental review will be performed.
The Transportation Risk component of hazard scoring rates pipelines as the preferred method for
transporting hazardous materials, relative to truck, rail, and marine vessels. Discouraging
pipeline development through unnecessary regulation could have the unintended consequence of
incentivizing the use of less safe transportation methods, especially since increasing the frequency
of truck, rail or vessel deliveries typical would not require a County review.
[1]The hazard score is calculated pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1004 and represents a project-specific
risk assessment based on the following factors (possible points for each factor are indicated in parentheses):
Transportation Risk (0-10); Community Risk – Distance from Receptor (1-30); Community Risk – Type of
Receptor (4-7); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Total Amount Change in Tons; 0-30); Facility Risk – Size of
Project (Percentage Change; 0-6); and Hazard Category of Material or Waste (1-3).
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Department responses to the Pipeline Safety Report and DIRECT staff on next steps.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Page 4 of 4Print Agenda Item
8/2/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=25885&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=
Appendix C
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 69 of 121
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:08/11/2016
Subject:CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7883
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 three sections, 1) LOCAL, 2) STATE, and 3) FEDERAL.
1) LOCAL
Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
Background: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) is in the process of 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
The Authority approved the TEP in May and circulated the document to all Cities/Towns and the County for
approval. As of July 12 all Cities/Towns and the County had approved the TEP. The Board of Supervisors
introduced the ordinance to place the TEP on the November 8, 2016 ballot and will take final action at the
second reading of the ordinance on August 9, 2016.
At the July TWIC meeting the Committee requested that the most recent polling information on the TEP be
provided to the Committee. That information is attached to this report.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 70 of 121
Accessible Transit Service Strategic Plan/Transportation Expenditure Plan: In response
to advocates and the County CCTA included in the TEP that required 1) an "Accessible Transit Service
(ATS) Strategic Plan" be conducted and, 2) transit providers must participate in the planning effort in order to
be eligible for any transit funding in the TEP. In later TEP versions that requirement removed for eligibility
for conventional, fixed route funding but the requirement remains for the Transportation for Seniors and
Disabled funding category.
During one TEP discussion at the CCTA Board there was a comment (paraphrased) "...there was no need to
wait for the TEP to conduct the ATS Plan, we all know it needs to be done..." In response to that comment,
CCTA and County staff have initiated a dialog on the ATS Plan with a coalition of transit operators and
accessible transit advocates. Funding is being sought and a small working group of staff has been meeting to
discuss. A draft of potential scope of work concepts has been distributed at that working group. A draft list of
study components has been developed and is provided below for the Committees review:
Framework for an ATS Strategic Plan Scope of Work
A detailed scope of work will be finalized after a consultant has been selected. The following are
issues the coalition expects to be addressed in the final scope of work.
The study should review recent breakdowns in accessible transit institutions (San Bernardino,
Santa Clara County, and ???) and make recommendations to avoid the conditions which led to
these setbacks.
Identification of senior and disabled demographics and unmet needs based on existing trip
making characteristics, and any potential latent demand.
Documentation of inter and intra county transfer trips (number of trips, providers).
Analysis of the need for, and implications of seamless travel between service areas, and different
service types (demand response, fixed route, and rail service).
Interviews with randomly selected individuals or organizations that use (or could potentially use)
or interface with AT in the county including existing patrons, program managers (dialysis,
regional center, adult day health care, etc), healthcare & other care providers, homeless shelters,
Veterans Affairs/Veterans Health Administration, etc. to document service needs.
Address ADA and non-ADA services and consider/recommend funding allocations based on
service type need.
Consideration of any coordination requirements anticipated from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), Caltrans, or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
To the extent possible, recommendations regarding software/hardware needs and costs will be
provided. The study will document data compatibility needs within the county/adjoining
counties/region, current and emerging data interoperability standards, support for robust
reporting (including NTD) and analysis functions, advanced/automated scheduling functionality
including web/mobile based and interactive voice response.
Institutional arrangements: The study should address any service model and best practice,
regardless of the existing arrangements in the county. Applicable models should increase
efficiencies, improve service, attract additional funding, and be appropriate for county trip
making characteristics.
The service model should facilitate the comingling of different funding sources and riders of
different trip and funding eligibility.
All functions should be addressed including, dispatch, maintenance, eligibility, contracting
methods, service quality surveying/reporting, etc. to the extent possible.
The recommendations will be detailed, documenting any phasing or transitional steps necessary
and any specific institutional arrangements or intergovernmental agreements necessary.
Document any potential issues with study recommendations relative to FTA and ADA service
obligations and initiate any necessary consultation/resolution.
The study should identify benefits to service provision through a model that accommodates or
encourages:
• Competition between transportation service providers to help control costs and improve service
• donations from private individuals or foundations
• Efficient implementation of emerging technologies/service taking in to account the sensitive
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 71 of 121
• Efficient implementation of emerging technologies/service taking in to account the sensitive
population, complex funding arrangements, driver training requirements/vetting, etc.
• A reasonable balance between the beneficial consistency of governance and operations with the
ability to take advantage of the benefits of competitive, private sector bidding.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any local issues of note and take ACTION as
appropriate.
2) STATE
Legislative Report
The August legislative report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, is attached (June TWIC
Report).
Mr. Watts will be present at the August meeting to discuss state legislation, the status of the state
budget/transportation revenues, Iron Horse corridor status and other items of interest to the Committee.
School Siting and Safety
The County has been engaged in advocating for improved school siting and safety for a number of years. That
advocacy resulted in some specific activities. A brief update on each activity is below.
Department of Education Revisions to School Siting Policies: After a two reports (in 2011 and
2012) from the State Superintendent of Public Instruction on broad school policy reform including school
siting issues, the state held a "Policy Symposium" in December 20121 to discuss, among other things,
bringing school siting policies in to line with other state policies such as active transportation, safe routes to
school, and greenhouse gas reduction initiatives.
It would appear that any momentum that was present with these initiatives has been lost. The Department of
Education recently released a white paper, "Sustainable Communities and School Planning" (attached) the
title of which self-describes the contents of the document. The document lists existing guidelines and statutes
and describes how these policies could be used to develop sustainable communities.
Senate Bill 313 (Monning): Zoning Ordinances: School Districts/Farmland: The bill
proposed modest requirements placed on school districts that sought to construct faculties on agricultural
land. The California Farm Bureau Federal (CFBF) was working on the bill and consulting with County staff
on the various revisions. CFBF staff determined that they would not be able to secure approval of a bill that
had any meaningful reform and abandoned the effort for this year.
Senate Bill 632 (Cannella): School Zone Expansion/"When Children Are Present"
Reforms: The Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing referred the bill to the California Traffic
Control Device Committee (CTCDC) due to the technical nature of the bill. The CTCDC formed a school
zone subcommittee to address the issues. The subcommittee and the CTCDC met several times to discuss the
changes to the code found in the bill.
In summary, neither Caltrans staff or Committee leadership appeared receptive to meaningful changes to
current policies. Final input to the Senate T&H Committee from the CTCDC is not yet available but staff
anticipates little to progress on this particular initiative.
Staff will discuss options for the Committee to consider at the August TWIC meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any state issues of note and take ACTION as
appropriate.
3) FEDERAL
No written report in August.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 72 of 121
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any federal issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and
take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of any specific recommendations in
the report above.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
TWIC State Legislative Report August 2016
CCTA TEP June Polling Results
CDE Best Practices
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 73 of 121
Smith, Watts &Hartmann, LLC.
Consulting and Governmental Relations
925 L Street, Suite 220 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 446-5508 Fax: (916) 266-4580
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Cunningham
FROM: Mark Watts
DATE: August 2, 2016
SUBJECT: August TWIC Report
Key Bills ‐ Update
Presented below are brief summaries of remaining bills of interest to the County, including AB 1592
(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 Appropriations Committee moved the bill out on August 1, 2016, based on very minor
cost implications to the state. Amendments taken earlier at the suggestion of the Senate
Transportation Committee imposed a new requirement for insurance and limits on the use of vehicle
data.
The Tech industry objected to the amendments that related to limits on vehicle data. Through the
month of July, CCTA management and TechNet worked to develop alternative language added to the
bill on August 2. The new language would (1) allow the DMV to require the submission of information
and data regarding the testing of autonomous vehicles, and (2) would require the operator of the
autonomous vehicle technology to disclose what personal information concerning a pilot project
participant is collected by an autonomous vehicle.
The bill is on the Senate floor and when passed, will return to the Assembly for concurrence.
AB 1746 (Stone)
This bill would have extended the present limited authority for a pilot program to operate transit
buses on highway shoulders to additional transit operators, including Livermore Amador Valley
Transit Authority (LAVTA) and Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA).
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 74 of 121
2
Late opposition from public safety organizations led to the bill failing to be considered in the Senate
Transportation & Housing committee on June 28th, as the author withdrew it from consideration.
Having thus failed a critical deadline, it is no longer viable.
State Transportation Funding
The final week of July was busy getting ready for the return of the Legislature on Monday, August 1.
Negotiations between Sen. Beall and Assembly Member Frazier on a combined transportation reform
and revenue package have gone well, and a consensus bill is expected to be ready for introduction
early next week. There are still a few outstanding issues that will require the direct engagement of
the authors, but it appears that language for most of the proposal has already been drafted. If
enacted, the bill would produce roughly $6.5 billion per year when fully implemented.
Efforts to engage the legislature in considering a transportation bill are beginning to pay off with a
focus on engaging Assembly Republicans in discussions at the staff level on convening meetings to
see “what might be possible.” Assembly Republican Leader Mayes has expressed a willingness to sit
down with the Democratic leaders. Finally, staff in the Governor’s Office has had conversations with
Assembly Republican staff about a transportation package and Transportation Secretary Kelly is
involved in direct talks with Sen. Beall and Assembly Member Frazier as well.
Iron Horse Trail
I revisited with the new CTC executive director on the Commission’s response to the letter that they
had suggested the County send to them. She is confirming that the letter comports with the advice
given and coordinating an additional review with Caltrans, who have been the grant mangers for the
grants in question.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 75 of 121
Contra Costa County Voter Telephone Survey
Summary Report
Presented to the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
July 6, 2016July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 76 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 2
Please note that due to rounding, some
percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.
Telephone survey of Likely voters in Contra Costa County
Interviewing conducted June 15 -23, 2016
800 total interviews countywide; Margin of Error = +3.50 points
Interviewing conducted by trained, professional interviewers
Where applicable, results compared with past research conducted for the CCTA
Split sample methodology employed to test potential order effects of presentation of CCTA
and BART measures. Half of respondents heard the CCTA measure first, the other half heard
the BART measure first. 400 total interviews per split; Margin of Error = +4.9 points
Interviews were distributed at the following proportions to allow for regional analysis , and
weighted to the appropriate likely voter population distribution
Methodology
Region Number of Interviews
(Unweighted n)
Margin of Error
(+/-)Weighted %
Central 226 6.5 percentage pts 31%
East 187 7.2 percentage pts 24%
Lamorinda 96 10.0 percentage pts 9%
South 126 8.7 percentage pts 15%
West 165 7.6 percentage pts 21%
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 77 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 3
Voters are optimistic about the direction of the County, and three quarters
see a need for additional transportation funding for Contra Costa County’s
transportation network.
Support for a transportation sales tax is supported by 65% of likely voters,
within the margin of error of the two-thirds needed for passage.
–The ballot question as it was tested may have obscured the fact that this
measure augments an existing tax for an existing agency; refinements are
recommended to ensure clarity on that point.
The plan includes a number of elements that are strongly supported by
voters, such as pothole and road repairs, traffic congestion reduction, and
transparency and accountability components.
The survey’s presentation of the CCTA and BART measures only, without the
additional context that will be present in the election, may have artificially
pitted the measures against each other in a way that does not represent
the true voter experience.
Key Findings
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 78 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 4
Region Subgroups
21%
24%
31%
15%
9%
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.18-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 79 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 5
Demographics by Region
Overall Central East Lamorinda South West
Male 46%45%44%48%50%46%
Female 54%55%56%52%50%54%
18-49 35%30%38%38%37%37%
50-64 34%34%36%33%35%31%
65+31%36%26%29%28%32%
White 66%80%55%70%68%53%
Non-white 34%20%45%30%32%47%
Democrat 51%50%53%43%37%63%
Republican 25%27%24%34%38%9%
NPP/Other 24%23%22%23%25%27%
Voted 0-3/6 49%41%62%43%52%47%
Voted 4-5/6 26%26%25%29%27%25%
Voted 6/6 25%33%14%28%21%27%
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.18-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 80 of 121
General Environment
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.18-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 81 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 7
Right Direction/Wrong Track
Optimism in Contra Costa County has steadily increased in the past six years.
57%
45%47%
36%
54%56%60%63%
23%
43%
38%
43%
29%25%
23%22%
2001 2003 2004 2010 Jan. 2014 Mar. 2014 2015 June 2016
Right Direction Wrong Track
Q5. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going in the right
direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 82 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 8
Need for Transportation Funding
The perceived need for funding has remained relatively consistent.
76%72%76%75%
4%7%5%5%
20%21%20%20%
2010 Jan. 2014 Mar. 2014 June 2016
Great/Some Need (Don't know)Little/No Need
Q6: Thinking about the roads, highways, BART, buses, bike paths, and sidewalks in Contra Costa County,
that is, the entire county transportation network, would you say that there is a great need for additional
funding, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funding?
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 83 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 9
Need for Transportation Funding
Three-quarters of county voters believe there is a need for more transportation funding, with
awareness of need high in all parts of the county.
Q6: Thinking about the roads, highways, BART, buses, bike paths, and sidewalks in Contra Costa County,
that is, the entire county transportation network, would you say that there is a great need for additional
funding, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funding?
36%
35%
38%
37%
35%
36%
39%
44%
37%
37%
39%
33%
75%
79%
76%
75%
74%
69%
Overall
Central (31%)
Lamorinda (9%)
West (21%)
South (15%)
East (24%)
Great need Some need Total Need for Funding
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 84 of 121
Support for
Transportation
Revenue MeasuresJuly 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.18-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 85 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 11
To implement a Transportation Expenditure Plan to continue:
•Improving BART capacity, frequency, and reliability;
•Repairing potholes and fixing roads;
•Improving Highways 680, 80, 24, and 4;
•Enhancing bus and other transit for seniors and people with disabilities;
•Increasing bicycle and pedestrian safety;
•Reducing traffic, and;
•Improving air quality;
shall the ordinance enacting a half percent sales tax be adopted, raising $97,000,000 annually for 30 years, with independent
oversight, audits, and all money benefitting local residents?
CCTA Measure Initial Vote
Initial support is within the margin of error of a two thirds threshold.
Q7. If this measure were on the ballot today, would you be likely to vote yes to approve it,
or no to reject it?
Solid
63%
Solid
32%
Lean 2%
Lean 1%
Yes
65%
No
33%
(Undecided)
2%
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 86 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 12
CCTA Measure Initial Vote
The CCTA measure fared modestly better when it is heard first, but the two results are within the
margin of error of each other.
Q7. If this measure were on the ballot today, would you be likely to vote yes to approve it,
or no to reject it?
CCTA measure vote:
heard after BART
measure
Solid
64%
Solid
30%
Solid
61%
Solid
34%
Solid
63%
Solid
32%
Lean 2%
Lean 2%
Lean 2%Lean 2%
Lean 1%
Yes
66%
No
32%
(Und.)
2%
Yes
63%
No
34%
(Und.)
3%
Yes
65%
No
33%
(Und.)
2%
CCTA measure
vote: combined
CCTA measure vote:
heard before BART
measure
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 87 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 13
CCTA Measure over Time
68%68%65%70%72%65%
3%6%7%3%1%
2%
29%26%29%28%27%33%
Feb. '14 Increase
and Extend ½
Cent tax
Mar. '14
Increase and
Extend ½ Cent
tax
Mar. '14
Authorize a ½
Cent tax
Sept. '15
Increase and
Extend ¼ Cent
Tax
Sept. '15
Increase and
Extend ½ Cent
Tax
June '16 Enact
½ % Tax
Total Yes (Undecided)Total No
Support for a transportation tax hovers around the required two-thirds.
Q7/Q8: If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes to approve it, or
no to reject it?
67%
passage
threshold
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 88 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 14
Initial Vote by Vote History
Less frequent voters are more supportive of a transportation measure.
Q7. If this measure were on the ballot today, would you be likely to vote
yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
65%
68%
63%
60%
Overall
Voted 0-3/6 (49%)
Voted 4-5/6 (26%)
Voted 6/6 (25%)
% Yes/ Lean Yes
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 89 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 15
To keep BART safe;prevent accidents/breakdowns/delays; relieve BART crowding and traffic congestion; reduce
pollution; and improve earthquake safety and access for seniors/people with disabilities by replacing and
upgrading 90 miles of severely worn tracks; tunnels damaged by water intrusion; 44-year-old control system
infrastructure; and other deteriorating/aging infrastructure shall the Bay Area Rapid Transit District issue $3.5
billion dollars of bonds subject to independent oversight and annual audits?
BART Measure Initial Vote
Initial support for a BART bond is just below two-thirds in Contra Costa. In order to pass, the measure
needs to be supported by two-thirds of the voters in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco
counties combined.
Q8. If this measure were on the ballot today, would you be likely to vote yes to approve it,
or no to reject it?
Solid
62%
Solid
31%
Lean 3%
Lean 1%
Yes
65%
No
32%
(Undecided)
3%
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 90 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 16
Solid
63%
Solid
28%
Solid
62%
Solid
33%
Solid
62%
Solid
31%
Yes 5%
No 1%
Yes 1%
No 1%
Yes 3%
No 1%
Yes
67%
No
29%
(Und.)
3%
Yes
63%
No
34%
(Und.)
3%
Yes
65%
No
32%
(Und.)
3%
BART Measure Initial Vote
As with the CCTA measure, the BART measure fares modestly better when it is heard first, but the
two results are within the margin of error of each other.
Q8. If this measure were on the ballot today, would you be likely to vote yes to approve it,
or no to reject it?
BART measure vote:
heard after CCTA
measure
BART measure
vote: combined
BART measure vote:
heard before CCTA
measure
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 91 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 17
Combined Initial Vote
65%65%
2%3%
33%32%
CCTA Measure BART Measure
Total Yes (Undecided)Total No
Support is nearly equal for both measures.
Q7/Q8: If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes to approve it, or
no to reject it?
67%
passage
threshold
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 92 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 18
CCTA/BART Voter Segmentation
When votes for the CCTA & BART measure are crossed, 76% support at least one of the
transportation measures.
CCTA and BART
54%
CCTA/ Not BART
11%
BART/ Not CCTA
11%
Not CCTA/ BART
24%
Segmentation:
CCTA and BART= Voted yes on CCTA AND yes on BART
CCTA/Not BART= Voted yes on CCTA; voted no or undecided on BART
BART/Not CCTA=Voted yes on BART; voted no or undecided on CCTA
Not CCTA/BART = Voted no or undecided on both CCTA and BART
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.18-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 93 of 121
CCTA Plan Elements
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.18-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 94 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 20
Elements of the CCTA Plan Measure: Top Five
Transparency and accountability, repairing potholes and fixing roads, and reduced traffic are the
most supported projects among elements.
Q9-29. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the Contra Costa Transportation
Expenditure Plan measure. After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
*Green box denotes elements pulled directly from the ballot text
76%
69%
67%
64%
63%
12%
19%
19%
18%
21%
2%
3%
4%
4%
4%
9%
9%
9%
11%
9%
8.4
7.5
7.0
5.4
6.6
Include a detailed plan that
shows exactly how all of the
money will be spent
Repair potholes and fix roads
Require independent
oversight and audits
Reduce traffic
Require that all money
benefits local residents
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
(Don't Know)Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
Support/
Oppose Ratio
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 95 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 21
Elements of the CCTA Plan Measure, cont.
Open space, air quality, and transit for seniors and people with disabilities are also strongly
supported.
Q9-29. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the Contra Costa Transportation
Expenditure Plan measure. After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
*Green box denotes elements pulled directly from the ballot text
62%
60%
60%
59%
59%
21%
21%
24%
24%
24%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
10%
12%
10%
9%
11%
5.6
4.6
5.5
6.0
5.1
Protect open space, parks,
and farmland
Improve air quality
Enhance bus and other
transit services for seniors
and people with disabilities
Require cities to have a plan
to manage growth
Improve Highways 680, 80,
24, and 4
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
(Don't Know)Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
Support/
Oppose Ratio
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 96 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 22
Elements of the CCTA Plan Measure, cont.
BART reliability and capacity are strongly supported by half of voters.
Q9-29. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the Contra Costa Transportation
Expenditure Plan measure. After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
*Green box denotes elements pulled directly from the ballot text
56%
52%
50%
49%
47%
26%
27%
27%
26%
32%
5%
7%
5%
7%
6%
10%
11%
16%
15%
13%
5.5
4.3
3.7
3.5
4.1
Smooth traffic on major
roads and highways
Increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety
Improve BART reliability
Improve BART capacity
Fund transportation
improvements in all parts
of Contra Costa County
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
(Don't Know)Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
Support/
Oppose Ratio
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 97 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 23
Elements of the CCTA Plan Measure, cont.
Improving BART frequency is not as highly supported as other BART improvements.
Q9-29. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the Contra Costa Transportation
Expenditure Plan measure. After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
*Green box denotes elements pulled directly from the ballot text
41%
41%
40%
33%
33%
28%
27%
32%
31%
29%
32%
30%
12%
8%
9%
9%
10%
10%
15%
13%
18%
21%
22%
29%
2.5
3.4
2.6
2.1
2.0
1.5
Improve BART frequency
Implement a Transportation
Expenditure Plan
Purchase new BART train
cars
Raise $97 million annually
Last for 30 years
Enact a half percent
transportation sales tax
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
(Don't Know)Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
Support/
Oppose Ratio
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 98 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 24
35%
35%
30%
27%
25%
26%
28%
32%
29%
3%
3%
3%
8%
6%
12%
This measure will bring badly-needed transportation
improvements to our area, including pothole and road
repair, reduced traffic, major BART improvements, and
improved transit for youth, seniors and people with
disabilities.
This measure builds on the success of earlier voter-
approved transportation measures...Approving this
measure means continuing to make these types of major
improvements that smooth traffic flow and help people get
around more easily.
This measure, along with the BART bond, will fund essential
improvements...that will directly benefit Contra Costa
County residents, including new train cars, parking and
station improvements, and a new control system that
allows BART to expand capacity.
Much more likely
to support
Somewhat more likely
to support
No difference/
Don't know
Somewhat more
likely to oppose
Much more likely
to oppose
Measure Information
Talking about what the measure will do, along with past successes, are good ways to encourage
voters to support the CCTA measure.
Q30-35. Now I’d like to read you some statements people have made about the Contra Costa County sales
tax measure for transportation. After each one, please tell me if that statement makes you more likely to
support the measure, more likely to oppose the measure, or if it does not make a difference to you.
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 99 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 25
4%
12%
7%
7%
7%
7%
32%
34%
39%
19%
15%
18%
37%
31%
28%
This measure would double the transportation sales tax to a
whole cent, raising the sales tax rate in some parts of the
county to 10%, among the highest in the state.
BART is mismanaging the money they currently have,
wasting billions of dollars on bloated union contracts and
pension obligations and allowing its system to fall into
terrible disrepair. Why should the taxpayers bail them out
of the mess they created?
This November’s ballot will be loaded with measures that
would increase our taxes, including a state school bond
measure, a BART bond measure, and plenty of local city and
school taxes. This is just too many tax measures.
Much more likely
to support
Somewhat more likely
to support
No difference/
Don't know
Somewhat more
likely to oppose
Much more likely
to oppose
Measure Information
Discussion of the tax rate raises questions.
Q30-35. Now I’d like to read you some statements people have made about the Contra Costa County sales
tax measure for transportation. After each one, please tell me if that statement makes you more likely to
support the measure, more likely to oppose the measure, or if it does not make a difference to you.
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 100 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 26
CCTA and BART Vote Progression
65%63%65%63%
2%1%3%1%
33%36%32%36%
CCTA Initial CCTA After
Information
BART Initial BART After
Information
Total Yes (Undecided)Total No
After additional information, support remains essentially unchanged and identical for the two
measures.
Q7/Q8; Q36/37: If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes to
approve it, or no to reject it?
67%
passage
threshold
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 101 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 27
Contacts
Alex Evans
alex@EMCresearch.com
510.550.8920
Sara LaBatt
sara@EMCresearch.com
510.550.8924
Jenny Regas
jenny@EMCresearch.com
510.550.8929
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.18-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 102 of 121
Appendix: Additional
Slides
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.18-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 103 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 29
Contra Costa: Right Direction/Wrong Track
Optimism is highest in Central and Lamorinda, those in the East are feeling less optimistic.
63%
69%
53%
69%
63%
63%
15%
14%
12%
16%
21%
16%
22%
16%
36%
15%
16%
21%
+ 41%
+ 53%
+ 17%
+ 54%
+ 47%
+ 42%
Overall
Central (31%)
East (24%)
Lamorinda (9%)
South (15%)
West (21%)
Right Direction (Don't know)Wrong Track Net R/D
Q5. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going in the right
direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 104 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 30
Contra Costa: Right Direction/Wrong Track: Tracked
Optimism has stayed constant or increased across the county.
56%
57%
46%
65%
65%
53%
60%
69%
44%
70%
65%
56%
63%
69%
53%
69%
63%
63%
Overall
Central (31%)
East (24%)
Lamorinda (9%)
South (15%)
West (21%)
2014
2015
2016
% Rating Right Direction
Q5. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going in the right
direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 105 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 31
Previous Measure Language
Feb. ‘14 and March ‘14: Increase and Extend (68%, 68%)
Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa County 25
year Transportation Expenditure Plan to:
•Expand BART in Contra Costa County;
•Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;
•Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety;
•Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;
•Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities?
Approval increases by half a cent and extends the existing County
sales tax, with independent oversight and audits. All money
spent will benefit Contra Costa County residents.
March ‘14: Authorize a Half Cent Tax (65%)
Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa County 25
year Transportation Expenditure Plan to:
•Expand BART in Contra Costa County;
•Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;
•Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety;
•Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;
•Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities?
Approval authorizes a half cent sales tax, with independent
oversight and audits. All money spent will benefit Contra Costa
County residents.
Sept. ’15: Half and Quarter Cent Tax (72%, 70%)
Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa County 25
year Transportation Expenditure Plan to:
•Expand BART in Contra Costa County;
•Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;
•Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety;
•Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;
•Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities?
Approval increases by a half/quarter cent and extends the existing
County sales tax, with independent oversight and audits. All
money spent will benefit Contra Costa County residents.
June ‘16: Enact a Half Percent Sales Tax (65%)
To implement a Transportation Expenditure Plan to continue:
•Improving BART capacity, frequency, and reliability;
•Repairing potholes and fixing roads;
•Improving Highways 680, 80, 24, and 4;
•Enhancing bus and other transit for seniors and people
with disabilities;
•Increasing bicycle and pedestrian safety;
•Reducing traffic, and;
•Improving air quality;
Shall the ordinance enacting a half percent sales tax be adopted,
raising $97,000,000 annually for 30 years, with independent
oversight, audits, and all money benefitting local residents?
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 106 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 32
Central (31%)
1.Repair potholes and fix roads (92% rating support)
2.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of
the money will be spent (91%)
3.Require independent oversight and audits (90%)
4.Require cities to have a plan to manage growth
(90%)
5.Protect open space, parks, and farmland (89%)
Top Measure Components by Region
[TOTAL SUPPORT]
East (24%)
1.Require independent oversight and audits (86%)
2.Repair potholes and fix roads (86%)
3.Require cities to have a plan to manage growth (85%)
4.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of
the money will be spent (84%)
5.Enhance bus and other transit for seniors and people
with disabilities (83%)
Lamorinda (9%)
1.Require independent oversight and audits (88%)
2.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of
the money will be spent (85%)
3.Repair potholes and fix roads (81%)
4.Require that all money benefits local residents
(80%)
5.Reduce traffic (79%)
South (15%)
1.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of
the money will be spent (89%)
2.Repair potholes and fix roads (85%)
3.Require that all money benefits local residents (85%)
4.Enhance bus and other transit for seniors and people
with disabilities (84%)
5.Require independent oversight and audits (83%)
West (21%)
1.Repair potholes and fix roads (88%)
2.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of the money will be spent (88%)
3.Enhance bus and other transit for seniors and people with disabilities (86%)
4.Protect open space, parks, and farmland (85%)
5.Require that all money benefits local residents (84%)
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 107 of 121
CCTA|EMC # 16-5941 | 33
Central (31%)
1.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all
of the money will be spent (77% Strongly support)
2.Require independent oversight and audits (72%)
3.Repair potholes and fix roads (69%)
4.Protect open space, parks, and farmland (65%)
5.Require cities to have a plan to manage growth
(65%)
Top Measure Components by Region
[STRONGLY SUPPORT]
East (24%)
1.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of
the money will be spent (75%)
2.Repair potholes and fix roads (70%)
3.Require that all money benefits local residents (68%)
4.Require independent oversight and audits (67%)
5.Enhance bus and other transit for seniors and people
with disabilities (64%)
Lamorinda (9%)
1.Require independent oversight and audits (72%)
2.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of
the money will be spent (71%)
3.Repair potholes and fix roads (64%)
4.Reduce traffic (61%)
5.Protect open space, parks, and farmland (59%)
South (15%)
1.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of
the money will be spent (78%)
2.Repair potholes and fix roads (68%)
3.Reduce traffic (67%)
4.Require independent oversight and audits (67%)
5.Require that all money benefits local residents (66%)
West (21%)
1.Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of the money will be spent (74%)
2.Repair potholes and fix roads (69%)
3.Require that all money benefits local residents (66%)
4.Enhance bus and other transit for seniors and people with disabilities (65%)
5.Improve air quality (64%)
July 6, 2016
Authority Special Meeting Handout
Agenda Item 1.1
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 108 of 121
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOL PLANNING
Although safety and educational appropriate-
ness are the highest priorities for school
facilities, the California Department of
Education (CDE) also supports school district
advancement of community sustainability via local
engagement and collaborative planning.
What Sustainable Communities Are
Sustainability reflects an understanding that the
needs of the present must be met without compro-
mising the ability of meeting future needs.1
Generally defined in the California Public Resources
Code,2 “sustainable communities” are those that
promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect
the environment, and promote public health and
safety. They often utilize planning concepts such
as smart growth, complete streets, mixed use, infill,
brownfields, and transit-oriented development—all
intended to encourage more walking and biking,
efficient use of land, infrastructure, and multimodal
transit, and a better jobs–housing balance.
Statewide, Regional, and City/County
Sustainable Communities Planning
California’s Strategic Growth Council brings togeth-
er numerous state agencies with the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research to coordinate
activities that support sustainable communities
consistent with the State’s Planning Priorities.3
Also with a goal of more sustainable communities,
recent legislation4 supports the State’s climate
action efforts through coordinated transportation
and land use planning. For example, the Air
Resources Board is required to set regional targets
for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organi-
zations (MPOs) for reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions from cars. Each MPO must prepare a
“sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) as part
of its regional transportation plan. Within the SCS,
land use, housing, and transportation plans are
primarily aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled
by making more efficient use of land and infrastruc-
ture. Through their own general and specific plans,
cities and counties are encouraged to implement
the SCS. Local governments and developers are
offered incentives, such as relief from certain
environmental review requirements, for projects
that are consistent with the SCS.
Schools’ Role in Sustainable Communities
The location, accessibility, quality, maintenance,
safety, and use of a school can have a significant
impact on the health and well-being of a
community. A school district can help advance its
community’s sustainability goals by including:
Partnerships, Co-location, and Joint Use/
Development: Sharing resources and facilities
are excellent ways to leverage public and private
funding, reduce costs, and increase the amount
and quality of community and education assets
provided. A common example is joint use with
parks, where schools can be built on smaller
sites and have access to adjacent parkland and
facilities for physical activity. It also can include
opening up use of facilities on school sites during
both school and nonschool hours for a variety
of uses and services: pools, theaters, libraries,
fitness centers, parking, health clinics, senior
centers, and career-technical educational part-
nerships. Strategically co-located and offering a
variety of uses, a school can become the center
of a community and help reduce the number
and length of vehicle trips otherwise required.
Promoting Active Transportation: Safe routes
to school promote active forms of transportation
(e.g., walking and biking) with associated health
benefits and reduced pollution and traffic near
schools. Creating safe routes by removing exist-
ing barriers or mitigating safety issues is much
more difficult and expensive to accomplish after
construction than if the school is originally sited
For more information, contact the California Department of Education, School Facilities and Transportation Services Division,
at 916-322-2470.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 109 of 121
and designed correctly. Working with local traffic
planners is critical, and help is available in the
form of technical resources, training, and funding
from a variety of sources.5
District efforts may involve walkability audits,
surveys on modes of transportation, safety
curriculum, and program development such as
the “walking school bus” and bicycle “train ”
(students accompanied by adults walking or bicy-
cling on a safe route) and infrastructure or safety
projects such as bike and skateboard racks, side-
walks, bike lanes, and lighting improvements.
Communication and Collaborative Planning:
Although some local planning agency notification
or meeting is required by code,6 continual two-
way communication should be established to
share plans and development and demographic
data. Collaboration will help determine and
plan for impacts from new development and
coordination of schools with public facilities and
services (such as parks and recreation, transit,
and libraries) to maximize sustainable school and
community benefits.
For example, proposed high-density infill projects
may generate enrollment beyond existing
schools’ capacities, or the location of magnet and
charter schools or changes in school attendance
boundaries may have impacts on busing, safe
routes to school, and use of transit.
Districts should also request to be involved in
city and county general plan updates and prepa-
ration and review of specific plans to help ensure
the number and size of schools are adequate and
in locations that are consistent with school siting
standards.7 In addition to staff contacts, a more
formal and transparent collaboration with
leadership, such as joint city council/board of
supervisors, and school board meetings or
subcommittees can be explored in which the city
manager and mayor meet with the school board
president and superintendent. These high-level
meetings help build trust and enable the decision
makers to understand and coordinate issues with
a larger and more comprehensive perspective.
School Facilities Master Plan: A school facilities
master plan (SFMP) is an excellent starting place
for collaboration and for setting and sharing
with the city, county, and community the vision,
goals, policies, and priorities for districtwide
sustainable school planning. The SFMP provides
comprehensive data on the district’s facilities
needs and is a necessary tool in discussing how
the city, county, and district can work together in
locating, designing, and improving schools that
will advance sustainability efforts. For example,
modernizing older schools can contribute to
the stability or revitalization of neighborhoods.
The SFMP can also address closing and reuse of
schools and thus should include local govern-
ment and community input and involvement.
Sustainable School Facility Design and Oper-
ation: In addition to helping meet sustainability
goals of the larger community, schools them-
selves can also be designed and operated to
conserve resources, provide open space, promote
physical activity, protect the environment, and
create healthy, quality learning spaces that sup-
port student achievement and lower life-cycle
costs. They typically incorporate concepts such
as “green,” “high performance,” and “zero net
energy.” Designs can also be adaptable to
accommodate increases in enrollment and
evolving trends in education, technology, and
community needs, thus supporting long-term
sustainability.
Each new school or major addition or renovation
project should be designed with an understand-
ing of how the facilities will be used to support
the staff, students, and community. Stakeholder
input and school board adoption of an educa-
tional specification can contribute to this
understanding. The education specification
document will link the facility design to educa-
tional programs and community functions and
can include requirements for sustainability
features and operations.
By applying principles of sustainability in school
facilities planning, school districts can have a
significant, enduring, and positive impact on the
communities they serve.
1. Brundtland Commission, 1987.
2.California Public Resources Code Section 75125.
3.California Government Code Section 65041.
4.Senate Bill 375 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection
Act of 2008.
5.National Center for Safe Routes to Schools; Caltrans’ Active
Transportation Program and California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, Part 7; and Strategic Growth Council—Sustain-
able Communities Planning Grants.
6.California Public Resources Code Section 21151.2, Government
Code sections 65352, 65352.2, and 65402; and Education Code
Section 35275.
7.California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 14010.
15-005 12/15
For more information, contact the California Department of Education, School Facilities and Transportation Services Division,
at 916-322-2470.
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 110 of 121
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:08/11/2016
Subject:COMMUNICATION/News Clippings
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:
Communication Received:
Roger Smith submitted information regarding the Pipeline Safety Report currently under
consideration by the Committee:
• July 28, 2016 Letter from Roger Smith, President of the Alamo Improvement Assocation
• 5 photographs of exposed pipelines along the Iron Horse Corridor in the vicinity of Hemme and
Wayne Avenue in Alamo.
Leigh Chavez, Public Works - Environmental Services Division Manager, sent the attached email
to TWIC staff regarding new regulations from the State Water Resources Control Board. Final
comments on the new regulations will be copied to the Committee when available.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
SWRCB New Regs on Discharges
AIA - RS - Pipeline Safety
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 111 of 121
1
John Cunningham
From:Leigh Chavez <leigh.chavez@pw.cccounty.us>
Sent:Monday, July 18, 2016 2:57 PM
To:Lara DeLaney
Cc:Steve Kowalewski; Mike Carlson; Jerry Fahy; John Cunningham
Subject:State Board's New Regs: Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materials to
Waters of the State
Hi Lara,
You may be aware that the State Water Resources Control Board is in the process of formalizing new regulatory
procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materials to Waters of the State (formerly known as the “State Wetlands
Policy”). While these are not new legislation, they are regulatory policy and they will affect how we apply for and obtain
Water Quality Certification from the Regional Boards. According to staff at the State Board, the new procedures
essentially make regulatory the currently non‐regulatory process that the State and Regional Boards have been following
for the last several years. Further, the State Board notes that their jurisdiction stems from the existing Porter Cologne
Water Quality Control Act and Water Code and these new procedures do not have any relation to the question of their
jurisdiction.
I have participated in public workshops, conference calls, and meetings with State Board staff as well as CEAC members
and CSAC staff about these new regs. In my opinion, the procedures go a little farther than the State Board suggests,
including instituting a formal Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternatives analysis (or LEDPA analysis)
requirement for many projects. However, I have verified with State Board staff that our infrastructure projects which
are location‐specific (i.e., targeted at specific safety hazard locations: bridge replacements, streambank repairs, road
safety projects, etc.) will qualify for an exemption from this very onerous LEDPA analysis requirement.
Although there is some general industry angst about the regs, based on State Board staff’s ability to speak to my initial
questions and concerns, I don’t have significant reservations/concerns about the regs. Nevertheless, I do want to
provide at least some formal comments, as follows:
It is critical that the LEDPA exemption apply to the majority of the types of projects we do (as I indicate above,
I’ve already confirmed this at meetings with the State Board, but I’d like to actually put it in writing)
The regs should allow for creative and non‐comparable mitigation for impacts to Waters of the State
Routine maintenance of existing facilities should be exempt from compensatory mitigation (this is a general
statement that goes well beyond these procedures, but this seems like a good, formal opportunity to make that
statement). Similarly, temporal impacts should not trigger compensatory mitigation
The regs force an application process that will be much more back‐and‐forth between the applicant and their
Regional Board. While this collaborative approach seems reasonable (or even good), we currently have a hard
time getting attention on actual applications. I am concerned about the Regional Board’s ability to participate in
this very fluid and time‐consuming way. Further, it could take what is an already lengthy application process
and make it even longer
This entire process should consider scale. In other words, low impact projects should take less time, detail and
effort on both sides (both our application and their review)
The regs suggest that many aspects of the application and approval process will be analyzed on a case‐by‐case
or situation‐by‐situation basis. Although the State Board considers this beneficial to the applicant (and in some
cases it may be), this creates a distinct lack of certainty for those who are regulated
Current wetland delineation procedures allow dry season delineations. The new procedures suggest that the
State and Regional Boards can require wet weather delineations if they believe there is a reason to do so. This
could add considerable time to a project’s schedule and I believe it is unwarranted. The science of delineating
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 112 of 121
2
wetlands relies on indicators and triggers that are present regardless of season. A quality wetland delineation
provides accurate results even in late summer.
Formal written comments on the procedures are due by August 4. Please let me know if you have questions about my
comments, are interested in reviewing my comment letter before I send it, or if you think it needs to be vetted through
the Leg Committee or TWIC (if there is time to do so….).
Thank you!
Leigh Chavez
Environmental Services Division Manager
(925) 313‐2366
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 113 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 114 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 115 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 116 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 117 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 118 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 119 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 120 of 121
8-11-16 TWIC Packet Page 121 of 121