Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 11102016 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE November 10, 2016 NOTE: TIME CHANGED TO **2:00 P.M.** 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee 1.Introductions 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). 3.Administrative Items, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) 4.REVIEW record of meeting for October 13, 2016, Transportation, Water and infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development). 5.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) 6.RECEIVE report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, and DIRECT staff to bring the report to the full Board of Supervisors. (John Kopchik, Department of Conservation and Development) 7.RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors AUTHORIZE the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development, or designee, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding designating Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as the local Groundwater Sustainability Agency under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act for the portion of the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin (No. 2-10) that lies within Contra Costa County. (Ryan Hernandez, Water Agency - Department of Conservation and Develolpment) 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 1 of 51 8.RECEIVE the Report on the Survey of the PG&E, Cities and County Street Light Coordination Meetings. (Jason Chen, Department of Public Works) 9.RECEIVE the Report on PG&E Coordination with Cities and County for Street Light Maintenance and MONITOR Implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa County. (Jason Chen, Department of Public Works) 10.COMMUNICATION/News Clippings. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) 11.Adjourn to next meeting date, currently scheduled for **PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT TIME SCHEDULED FOR NEXT TWIC MEETING**, Thursday, December 8, 2016, at **2:00**p.m. 12.Adjourn The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 2 of 51 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 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 3 of 51 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:11/10/2016   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. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 4 of 51 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:11/10/2016 Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for October 13, 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 October 13, 2016, Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 10-13-16 TWIC Mtg Minutes DRAFT, and Summary 10-13-16 TWIC Sign In Sheet 10-13-16 TWIC Handout-School Siting  10-13-16 TWIC Handout-email 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 5 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 6 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 7 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 8 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 9 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 10 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 11 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 12 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 13 of 51 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Meeting October 13, 2016 SIGN-IN SHEET Name Representing Phone .;' /\ -, G :\Conservat ion \TWIC\Shells \TWI Sign in Sheet Shel l.doc 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 14 of 51 Frazier – Beall Transportation Funding Package  A $7.4 billion annual funding package to repair and maintain our state and local roads, improve our trade corridors, and support public transit and active transportation.  A $706 million repayment of outstanding transportation loans for state and local roads.  Eliminates the BOE “true up” that causes funding uncertainty and is responsible for drastic cuts to regional transportation projects.  Indexes transportation taxes and fees to the California CPI to keep pace with inflation.  Reforms and accountability for state and local governments to protect taxpayers.  Streamlines transportation project delivery to help complete projects quicker and cheaper.  Protects transportation revenue from being diverted for non-transportation purposes. *  Helps local governments raise revenue at home to meet the needs of their communities.* New Annual Funding  State -- $2.9 billion annually for maintenance and rehabilitation of the state highway system.  Locals -- $2.5 billion annually for maintenance and rehabilitation of local streets and roads.  Regions -- $534 million annually to help restore the cuts to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).  Transit -- $516 million annually for transit capital projects and operations.  Freight -- $900 million annually for goods movement.  Active Transportation -- $80 million annually, with up to $150 million possible through Caltrans efficiencies, for bicycle and pedestrian projects.  Constitutional Amendment to help locals raise funding at home by lowering the voter threshold for transportation tax measures to 55 percent.* Reforms and Accountability  Restores the independence of the California Transportation Commission (CTC).  Creates the Office of Transportation Inspector General to oversee all state spending on transportation.  Increases CTC oversight and approval of the State Highway Operations and Protection (SHOPP) program.  Requires local governments to report streets and roads projects to the CTC and continue their own funding commitments to the local system. Streamlining Project Delivery  Permanently extends existing CEQA exemption for improvements in the existing roadway.  Permanently extends existing federal NEPA delegation for Caltrans.  Creates an Advance Mitigation program for transportation projects to help plan ahead for needed environmental mitigation. New Annual Funding Sources  Gasoline Excise Tax -- $2.5 billion (17 cents per gallon increase)  End the BOE ”true up” -- $1.1 billion  Diesel Excise Tax -- $900 million (30 cents per gallon increase)  Vehicle Registration Fee -- $1.3 billion ($38 per year increase)  Zero Emission Vehicle Registration Fee -- $16 million ($165 per year starting in 2nd year)  Truck Weight Fees -- $1 billion (Return to transportation over five years)  Diesel Sales Tax -- $216 million (3.5% increase)  Cap and Trade -- $300 million (from unallocated C&T funds)  Miscellaneous transportation revenues -- $149 million Keeping Promises and Protecting Revenues  One-time repayment of outstanding loans from transportation programs over two years. ($706 million)  Return of truck weight fees to transportation projects over five years. ($1 billion)  Constitutional amendment to ensure new funding cannot be diverted for non-transportation uses. *These provisions will be in companion bills. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 15 of 51 1 John Cunningham From:Kiana Valentine <kvalentine@counties.org> Sent:Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:56 PM To:Kiana Valentine Cc:Chris Lee; DeAnn Baker; Merrin Gerety Subject:Transportation Funding & Reform Update To:       Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Policy   Public Works Directors    CEAC Transportation Policy Committee    Legislative Coordinators  From:    Kiana Valentine, CSAC Legislative Representative    Chris Lee, CSAC Legislative Analyst   Re:      Transportation Funding & Reform Update  CSAC, along with our partners in the Fix Our Roads Coalition, have been working since the end of the regular legislative  session to gain consensus within the Legislature and Administration on a transportation funding and reform proposal  and to ensure action on a deal before the transportation special session expires on November 30th. As of yesterday, we  have very positive indications that both houses are working towards a deal that could be voted on in the special session  after the November election.  Many of you have inquired about what counties can do right now to help influence a successful outcome. Without a  specific consensus plan to explicitly support right now, the most effective way for counties to engage is to reach out to  their elected officials in the district and keep the pressure on in support of a bipartisan package that includes:  1)Returning all existing revenues to current projects, 2)Modest revenue increases, and 3)Important reforms to maximize efficiency and transparency. The following talking points are similar to what we’ve shared in the past with some new suggestions to reflect a sense of  urgency to get a deal done in November. Text highlighted in yellow indicates where counties should localize the  information.   The Legislature and Administration came together on a number of important policy issues in 2016 but transportation remains unresolved. Democrats and Republicans alike have stated publicly that transportation is a top priority for their party as has the Governor. The Legislature and Administration must come together before the special session expires to pass a reform and funding package and clear the deck for the year. Transportation infrastructure has been and should continue to be a place for bipartisan agreement. The Governor has his $3.6 billion transportation plan, Senator Beall and Assembly Member Frazier came together behind a compromise package (SB X1 1 and SB X1 26) to raise $7.4 billion a year, and both of these plans include important reforms and existing revenues that have been put on the table by Republicans. All the elements of the “deal” are in front of decision‐makers – we just need our leaders to engage, negotiate and get it done. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 16 of 51 2  In May the CTC cut $750 million worth of projects and delayed indefinitely another $750 million more due to a  lack of funding. Counties have faced similar cuts to revenues that are the life‐blood of the basic maintenance  and operations of the existing local street and road system.      Last month, the situation got even worse. For the first month ever, counties (and cities) received ZERO dollars in  price‐based gas tax revenues because the bond‐debt service requirements exceeded revenues generated (a  seriously dire unanticipated consequence of the 2010 transportation tax swap). As a result, the County of XXXXX,  will have to YYYY. For example, we had one county report that they are canceling their seal program as a result  of the hit to gas tax revenues this month. Feel free to add any additional local information about how your  budget will be impacted next year without a deal and any project cancelations, layoffs, and other impacts that  will occur here.      XXXXX County’s local streets and roads continue to deteriorate (our existing PCI is xxx, backlog is yyy, shortfall is  zzz). Without an influx of new statewide revenues the backlog of projects will grow and the price tag will  continue to increase – a $79 billion problem is already big enough!      Twenty self‐help counties already generate approximately $4 billion a year at the local level for investment in  the state highway system, local street and roads, transit and complete streets projects. Seven self‐help counties  are seeking extensions in November and seven new counties are pursuing measures to generate even more  revenue.      The gas tax has not been increased in over two decades. While the sustainability of the gas tax is of concern in  the long‐run, we need short‐term action now to stop the bleeding while we research and evaluate alternative  funding mechanisms. If we wait for the long term solution the problem with grow by BILLIONS of dollars.       A lack of consensus and action by November is tantamount to a tax increase on future taxpayers. The time for  action is now. The County of XXXX urges our representatives to engage with your colleagues and your legislative  leaders to make sure a transportation reform and funding package is passed before the end of November.     Please let us know if you have any questions. When new information because available we will make sure to share it  with you. As always, please share feedback with CSAC staff from your interactions with your state legislative delegation  at home.         Kiana Valentine  Legislative Representative  Housing, Land Use, and Transportation  California State Association of Counties®   1100 K Street, Suite 101  Sacramento, CA 95814  kvalentine@counties.org   Desk: 916/650.8185  Mobile: 916/266.3892    11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 17 of 51 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:11/10/2016   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): The outcome of the November 8th election was not known at the time this report was submitted. Depending on the outcome of the vote, there may be follow up items for the Committee to discuss. School Safety & Siting Liberty Union High School District (LUHSD): Staff from Conservation and Development and the Public Works Department met with the LUHSD Superintendent on Thursday, October 27th. Staff will report out the results of that meeting at the November TWIC meeting. RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any local issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 18 of 51 2) STATE Legislative Report The legislative report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, is attached (November TWIC Report). Mr. Watts will be present at the November meeting to issues of interest to the Committee. School Siting: Potential Legislation: After the October TWIC meeting where legislation was discussed, staff realized that in order for requirements (as opposed to guidelines) could be developed for school siting by the California Department of Education, new legislative authority may be necessary. That said, attached is a request to Lara Delaney for a placeholder under "Contra Costa Sponsored Bill Proposals" in the event the County needs to develop legislation. That language was discussed and approved at the October 25th Legislative Committee meeting. Iron Horse Corridor: On October 31st, a delegation from Contra Costa County met with the California Transportation Commission Executive Director Susan Bransen regarding legacy issues related to the Iron Horse Corridor. Staff and the Committee can discuss the outcome and any follow up necessary. RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any state issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate. 3) FEDERAL No written report in November. 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. Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact. Attachments November TWIC Report (Transportation - Mark Watts) 10-21-16 JC Email - 2017 County Sponsored Legislation 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 19 of 51 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: Contra Costa County Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Mark Watts DATE: November 4, 2016 SUBJECT: November TWIC Report Legislative Special Session on Transportation A coalition of transportation stakeholders continues to mount pressure for a post-election session on transportation funding and reforms in the present Special Session between November 8th and November 30th. The initial target date up to this point had been November 10th, two days after the election, when traditional party caucus meetings will be taking place in Sacramento, although the emphasis has shifted to a bit later in November. The date for the session is absolutely critical given the parliamentary requirements for moving legislation and the obvious intent of limiting the amount of time that legislators need to be present in the Capital City to complete work on a package. It appears that leadership is more inclined to use the committee structure to get the legislation to the respective floors and to an ultimate vote of both houses, which results in some additional scheduling issues as well. What appears to be emerging is confirmation that there are essentially three timeframes under consideration. First is the week of November 14th -18th, then November 21st - 23rd, the days before Thanksgiving and when members will have completed their travel plans, and finally, the last three days of the month. So process and schedule are very important to getting approval of a transportation bill, and these are matters that will be decided at the leadership level. Senator Beall has recently been discussing a reduced version of his funding package (SBX1 1) with members of the Senate. It is not yet known how this will be received or shaped. Additionally, The Senator’s Office has refined language for a constitutional amendment to provide enhanced and thorough coverage and protections for the new revenues; this measure would go to the voters following legislative approval of the funding package. Other pressing issues include incorporation of Republican reform proposals into the legislative, as well, and the stakeholder coalition has worked to develop a final package of those reforms to get them on the table and these are being drafted into bill language in preparation for their consideration. In the Assembly, Transportation Committee Chair Frazier continues to engage in discussion with the membership of the Assembly Democratic Caucus to marshal support for the package, ABX1 26. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 20 of 51 From:John Cunningham To:Lara DeLaney Cc:John Kopchik; Vana Tran; Mark Watts ; Anna Battagello Subject:2017 County Sponsored Legislation Date:Friday, October 21, 2016 11:01:48 AM Lara, Following up on our phone conversation this morning regarding the need for new county sponsored  legislation relative to school siting & safety. Here is my blurb for inclusion in your packet. I’m  planning on being at your Leg meeting next week to discuss/respond to questions on the  information below as well as any other edits from TWIC. Anna will include this email in our next  TWIC packet to ensure the Committee is kept up to date on this issue. ----------------------------------------------- Authorizing/Enabling Legislation Regarding Title 5, California Code of Regulations (School Facilities Construction) The County has been engaged in advocating for the reform of school siting policies for a number of years. Late this year the California Department of Education (CDE) announced an effort to revise Title 5 to, among other things, “align school facilities and siting policies with state sustainability goals…”. In meeting with CDE staff and our Legislative Delegation over the past 5 years it has become apparent that in order to revise Title 5 such that requirements (as opposed to guidance) can be established, a legislative solution may be necessary. Through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC), staff will work with our legislative delegation and advocate to further develop the necessary solution. This effort is consistent with our current State Legislative Platform (Ag #3, Trans #179, #182) and is reflected in the 2017 Platform revisions submitted by TWIC relative to the aforementioned Title 5 update. ----------------------------------------------- Thank you for your help with this Lara. - John ______________________________ John Cunningham Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Direct Line: 925-674-7833 Main Transportation Line: 925-674-7209 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 21 of 51 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:11/10/2016 Subject:RECEIVE report on the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan, and DIRECT staff to bring the report to the full Board of Supervisors.  Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 10 Referral Name: Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan.  Presenter: John KopchiK, DCD Contact: John Kopchik (925)674-7819 Referral History: Monitoring and reporting on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) is a standing referral for the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) but the Committee has not received a report in the recent past. Referral Update: HCP/NCCP staff will give a presentation to TWIC at their November meeting. Some background from the ECCHCP website: The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan) is intended to provide regional conservation and development guidelines to protect natural resources while improving and streamlining the permit process for endangered species and wetland regulations. The Plan is designed primarily to streamline approvals for the future growth of the cities of Clayton, Pittsburg, Brentwood and Oakley, and unincorporated communities in the County such as Bay Point and Byron. Up to 11,853 acres of new urban development projects can obtain their endangered species permits under the Plan. Development of New Homes and Businesses The Plan is designed primarily to streamline approvals for the future growth of the cities of Clayton, Pittsburg, Brentwood and Oakley, and unincorporated communities in the County such as Bay Point and Byron. Up to 11,853 acres of new urban development projects can obtain their endangered species permits under the Plan. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 22 of 51 Public Infrastructure A variety of public infrastructure projects would benefit from the Plan; these include roads, flood protection projects, schools, neighborhood parks, and recreational trails (up to 1,126 acres in total). Specific rural transportation projects would receive permits under the Plan: the Buchanan Bypass, Byron Highway widening, and Vasco Road widening. Providing streamlined endangered species approvals for these needed projects would help accelerate congestion relief and support the continued economic development of the region. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, DIRECT staff to bring the report to the full Board of Supervisors. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. Attachments No file(s) attached. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 23 of 51 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:11/10/2016 Subject:RECOMMEND Board of Supervisors AUTHORIZE Director of DCD, or designee, to execute MOU designation of Zone 7 as local Groundwater Sustainability Agency Submitted For: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 5 Referral Name: Review issues associated with the health of the San Fransico Bay and Delta...water quality, supply and reliability...as it relates to groundwater.  Presenter: Ryan Hernandez, Water Agency-DCD Contact: Ryan Hernandez (925)674-7824 Referral History: In March 2016, the Committee received a report on the formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to undertake sustainable groundwater management and consideration of County membership for the Tracy subbasin in East Contra Costa County. The report identified two other medium-priority groundwater basins within the County that requires formation of a GSA. The following report focuses on the Livermore Valley groundwater basin located in south-central portion of the County. Referral Update: The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) became effective on January 1, 2015. SGMA requires all high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), be managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). SGMA stipulates that a GSA be established for priority basins prior to July 1, 2017. As reported in March, a local public agency, or combination of local public agencies overlying a designated basin, may become a GSA if the agency(ies) has(ve) water supply, water management or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin. The Livermore Valley (LV) basin, referred to by DWR in Bulletin 118 as the "Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin, Number 2-10", is a medium-priority groundwater basin. The majority of the LV basin underlies Alameda County with a small portion of the basin extending into Contra Costa County, see Attachment 1 & 2. SGMA designates Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) as the GSA for the portion of the LV basin within Alameda County. Zone 7 currently manages the LV basin under a Groundwater Management Plan, which was adopted in 2005. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 24 of 51 The Contra Costa County portion of the LV basin underlies the jurisdictions of the County, City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County Water Agency, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). Zone 7 proposes to serve as the GSA for the portion of the LV basin within Contra Costa County; but to do so must enter into an agreement with the parties that currently have water supply/management or land use jurisdiction. To that end, Zone 7 has prepared a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), see Attachment 3, designating them as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the remaining portion of the LV basin in Contra Costa County. The MOU delegates “…all functions, powers, duties, and authority of a GSA conferred by SGMA.”  Notwithstanding the MOU, the County maintains its well permitting and land use authority and EBMUD, DSRSD and the City of San Ramon also maintain their existing authorities as it relates to providing water service and land use. The MOU does not require the County to take on any new specific responsibilities related to SGMA for the LV basin and includes a provision that allows any party to terminate the agreement at any time. To date, all parties other than the County have received their Boards approval to execute the MOU. County Counsel, Environmental Health Division of Health Services, the Department of Conservation and Development, and the Contra Costa County Water Agency were consulted prior to the preparation of this report.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors AUTHORIZE the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development, or designee, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding designating Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as the local Groundwater Sustainability Agency under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act for the portion of the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin (No. 2-10) that lies within Contra Costa County. Fiscal Impact (if any): Thus far, costs to Contra Costa County Water Agency consists of staff time to prepare materials for completion of this report, correspondence with Zone 7, and review of the MOU by County departments. Attachments 27594_LV Basin 2-10 -Attachment 1 LV Basin 2-10 -Attachment 2 27594_LV Basin 2-10 -MOU - Attachment 3 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 25 of 51 Contra Costa CountyAlamedaCountyAttachment 111-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 26 of 51 O G:\fldctl\Groundwater\CASGEM\CCC GW Basins @ CCAC Line.mxd Date: 1/14/2016 by M. Boucher 1 in = 0.197 miles Groundwater Basin Priority Priority Medium Parcels IMAGE.IMG_CCC_COLOR2008_4IN RGB Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 2-10LIVERMORE VALLEY 2-7SAN RAMON VALLEY 2-10LIVERMORE VALLEY San Ramon Danville Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community§¨¦I 6 8 0 §¨¦I 6 8 0 S a n R am o n V a l l e y S a n R am o n V a l l e y Legend DWR Groundwater Basins City Limit (outline) Parcels County Boundary Groundwater Basin Priority Priority High Medium Low Very Low Not Input Attachment 2 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 27 of 51 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG ZONE 7 OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WATER AGENCY, CITY OF SAN RAMON, EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT AND DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is made and entered among Contra Costa County (CCC), Contra Costa County Water Agency (CCCWA), the City of San Ramon (San Ramon), the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) (together, the Five Parties) and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) in consideration of the factual recitals and mutual obligations contained herein. WI TNE S S TH WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) requires the formation of Local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and the adoption of Groundwater Sustainability Plans for high-and medium-priority basins within five to seven years; and WHEREAS, while the majority of the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Groundwater Basin No. 2-10, hereinafter referred to as "Basin No. 2-10"), a medium priority basin, lies within the boundaries of Alameda County and the jurisdiction of Zone 7, portions lie within the boundaries of Contra Costa County and the jurisdictions of CCC, CCCW A, San Ramon, DSRSD, and EBMUD; and WHEREAS, SGMA identified Zone 7 as the exclusive local agency to be the GSA for managing groundwater within its statutory boundaries (Water Code, § 10723, subd . (c)(1)(A)), and those statutory boundaries include the portion of Basin No. 2-10 lying within Alameda County, which comprises the majority of the basin; and 'VHEREAS, the Five Parties agree it would be prudent for Zone 7 io aiso manage the small remaining portion of Basin No. 2-10 that lies within the jurisdictions of CCC, CCCW A, San Ramon, DSRSD, and EBMUD to achieve effective groundwater management; and WHEREAS, it is in the interests of the Five Parties and Zone 7 to maintain current levels of jurisdictional authority while striving for holistic, sustainable groundwater basin management; and WHEREAS, it is mutually beneficial to create this agreement to establish a delegation of authority to allow Zone 7 to be the GSA for the remaining portion of Basin No. 2-10 within the jurisdictions of CCC, CCCW A, San Ramon, DSRSD, and EBMUD to assure sustainable groundwater management; 1 Attachment 3 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 28 of 51 NOW, THEREFORE, the Five Parties and Zone 7 do hereby agree as follows: 1. Purposes of MOU. The purposes of this MOU are (1) for each of the Five Parties to agree to confer to Zone 7 certain Delegated Authority (as that term is defined in Paragraph 2.A below) within the Delegated Area (as that term is defined in Paragraph 3 below), and (2) for Zone 7 to agree to exercise the Delegated Authority within the Delegated Area. 2. Authority and Responsibility. A. Upon execution of this MOU, and upon final approval by California Department of Water Resources recognizing Zone 7 as the GSA responsible for the portion of Basin No. 2-10 lying within the area described in Paragraph 3 of this MOU, the Five Parties agree to delegate to Zone 7 all functions, powers, duties, and authority of a GSA conferred by SGMA. Notwithstanding any other provision of this MOU, the following authority shall not be delegated to Zone 7: (1) CCC shall continue to be the well permitting agency for all areas within its jurisdiction, (2) San Ramon and CCC shall continue to be the land use agencies for all areas within their respective jurisdictions, and (3) EBMUD and DSRSD shall continue to be the water supply agencies for all areas within their respective jurisdictions. The authority delegated by this Paragraph 2.A is referred to herein as the "Delegated Authority". B. Zone 7 agrees to assume and exercise all responsibilities required of a GSA, and to enforce all provisions and requirements contained in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan to be adopted for Basin No. 2-10 in accordance with SGMA. Zone 7 shall continue to monitor groundwater elevations within the Designated Area and to enter data into CASGEM as required in order to maintain grant eligibility. 3. Geographic Extent of Delegated Authority. The Delegated Authority shall have effect in that portion of Basin No. 2-10 which lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of each of the Five Parties, which portion is depicted in Exhibit A and is referred to herein as the "Delegated Area". 4. Records. Zone 7 shall provide each of the Five Parties copies of all documents, reports, studies and other records created in the course of its exercise of the Delegated Authority which affects or relates to groundwater management within the Delegated Area. CCC shall provide Zone 7 with copies of all well permits issued or environmental reports received (including well completion reports) and any water level measurements taken within the Delegated Area. Zone 7 and the Five Parties shall cooperate and coordinate in responding to requests made under the California Public Records Act regarding records related to groundwater management within the Delegated Area. 5. Term. This MOU becomes valid and effective immediately upon execution by each ofthe Five Parties and Zone 7 and shall remain in effect unless terminated pursuant to . Paragraph 9, below. 6. Entire Agreement. This MOU shall constitute the entire agreement among the Five Parties and Zone 7 relating to the delegation of authority provided by SGMA as relates to Basin No. 2-10. This MOU supersedes and merges all previous understandings, and all other agreements, written or oral, between the parties and sets forth the entire 2 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 29 of 51 understanding of the parties regarding the subject matter thereof. 7. Counterparts and Copies. This MOD may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which may be deemed an original and all of which collectively shall constitute a single instrument. Photocopies, facsimile copies, and PDF copies of this MOD shall have the same force and effect as a wet ink original signature on this MOD. 8. Amendment. This MOD may be amended at any time by a written agreement duly executed by each of the Five Parties and Zone 7. 9. Termination. A. This MOD may be voluntarily terminated in full at any time by a writing signed by each of the Five Parties and Zone 7. B. Any of the Five Parties may elect to terminate its participation in this MOD at any time. Termination of such party's participation in this MOD shall not become effective until after both of the following have occurred: (1) the terminating party provides written notice to all other signatories to this MOD of its intent to terminate its participation, and (2) one year has elapsed following the date of such written notice, during which time the terminating party may make efforts to assume the GSA role for the portion of the Delegated Area within the terminating party's jurisdiction. The termination of any of the Five Parties' participation in this MOD shall not affect the continuing validity of the MOD with respect to the remaining signatories. C. Zone 7 may provide written notice to each of the Five Parties of its intent to terminate the Agreement, and the MOD shall cease to be of further effect one year following delivery of Zone 7' s notice, during which time Zone 7 shall continue to exercise the Delegated Authority within the Delegated Area to allow adequate time for the Five Parties to address GSA related requirements for their respective portions of the Delegated Area. 10 . Signatures. The individuals executing this MOD represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOD as follows: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By: _____________ _ President, BOS Dated: 3 ZONE 7 OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 30 of 51 CONTRA COSTA WATER AGENCY By: ___________ _ DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT By: _________ -,-----__ 4 CITY OF SAN RAMON By: ------------ EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT By: ______________ _ Richard Sykes Dated: Director of Water and Natural Resources 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 31 of 51 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:11/10/2016 Subject:RECEIVE the Report on PG&E, Cities and County Street Light Coordination Meetings. Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: 13 Referral Name: Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa County.  Presenter: Jason Chen, Department of Public Works Contact: Jason Chen (925)313-2299 Referral History: During the December 7, 2015 TWIC meeting, staff was directed to report the result of the survey. Referral Update: Please see the attached. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE this status report on the street light coordination survey. Fiscal Impact (if any): No impact on the general fund. All costs for street lights are funded by County Service Area L-100 or Community Facilities District 2010-1. Attachments TWIC County-Cities Street Light Survey Memo Survey Questionnaire Emailed to Cities Contacts Cities Survey Contacts Survey Questions Tallied 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 32 of 51 Julia R. Bueren, Director Deputy Directors Brian M. Balbas Stephen Kowalewski Joe Yee "Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925) 313-2000 • FAX: (925) 313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org MEMO September 12, 2016 TO: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, Chair Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III, Vice Chair FROM: Jason Chen, Senior Civil Engineer, Special Districts SUBJECT: Report on PG&E, Cities and County Street Light Coordination Meetings REFERRAL HISTORY During the December 7, 2015 TWIC meeting, County Public Works staff was directed to report the result of the survey. REFERRAL UPDATE Background: The Letter of Understanding (LOU), dated February 2008, between PG&E and County, states the commitment of PG&E for open communication and responsive service levels and actions in resolving issues related to street light performance. A way to keep communication channels open was by conducting regular discussions at Street Light Coordination meetings with the County, its constituent, Cities and Towns. However, in 2015 there was a change in the frequency of these meetings at the request of PG&E due to low participation of Cities staff. Continuing the effort initiated in May 2008, the County Public Works Department, PG&E, and Cities met in January, March, and April 2015. There were no meetings held in July and October as County prepared to reach out to Cities staff for their feedback. Since reporting to TWIC on December 7, 2015 there have been no meetings in 2016. The PG&E, Cities, and County Street Light Coordination meetings allowed communication among those present to address issues related to street light maintenance, operations, increased efficiencies and LED conversions, and rates. Because of the generally low City attendance at the meetings, County Public Works assembled a survey to cities which was reviewed by PG&E. The goal of this survey was to determine if Cities and the County would like to continue to meet and discuss street light issues and if so, to determine the best way to conduct the meetings, who should attend, how 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 33 of 51 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee September 12, 2016 Page 2 of 6 often should meetings be held, identify topics to discuss that would be of value, etc. County Public Works staff developed a 10 question survey that listed choice answers and also the opportunity to add a choice statement per question, listed as “Other” (see attached). County Public Works sent the survey to identified representatives of the 19 cities in the County by email in mid-March and requested a response by the end of March. County Public Works received survey responses from 15 cities. Survey Results: A total of 15 cities responded to the survey. In almost all of the questions the participant cities could vote for one or more answers. The survey tally shows that the majority (13) preferred to continue with On-site meetings. The majority (9) also preferred PG&E Street Light Coordination meetings to be held quarterly with varied locations such as agency or PG&E offices considering non rush hours as well as the importance to have technical presentations. See Charts 1, 2 and 3. Chart 1 (Question 3) 13 8 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 On-site Webinar Audio Conferencing Type of Meeting Preference Number of Cities 9 3 2 1 012345678910 Quarterly Semi and Annually Bimonthly Monthly Frequency of Meetings Preference Number of Cities 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 34 of 51 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee September 12, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Chart 2 (Question 8) Chart 3 (Question 7) The cities representatives indicated that there would be benefits in meeting with PG&E and other city representatives to discuss customer service issues, network and problem solve regional issues, learn about LED street light conversion rebate and loans, stay current on the latest technologies, better understand of PG&E services, help upgrading of lighting quality and levels, have input on PG&E costs, help improve system inventory including asset and maintenance history and reporting, and learn and receive feedback from other cities as some may have dealt with issues previously. Other topics of interest to cities representatives include; LED conversion technology, Wire theft, Photo-cell controls technology, PG&E related maintenance plans, future projects affecting the cities, PG&E related maintenance plans, and changes in street light tariffs. See Chart 4. 12 10 6 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Technical Presentations Vary Meeting site Limit Time (1 hour) Held in PG&E Offices More Likely to Participate in Meetings If Number of Cities 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 35 of 51 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee September 12, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Chart 4 (Question 1) Cities representatives also mentioned they would benefit from learning about specific PG&E services such as; street light inventory review, fixture and pole repair (cleaning and painting), fixture and pole cleaning, single billing, status or regular and EC 90-day outages, trimming around street light poles and fixtures and upgrading non-traditional street lights to LED similar to park and parking lot lights. See Chart 5. Chart 5 (Question 2) In past years during Street Light Coordination meetings, Cities and County representatives discussed many PG&E Services topics. Based on responses to Question 5, the topics found of most interest about specific PG&E services among Cities and County staff are ranked below: • Maintenance and tracking systems (10) • Pole knockdowns (9) • Standard maintenance cycles (9) • Burn out lamps replacements (9) • Painting of street light poles (8) 13 8 7 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 LED Conversion Wire Theft Photo-cell Controls Technology PG&E Maint. Plans & Projects Changes in Light Tarrifs PG&E Topics of Interest Number of Cities 11 8 6 5 4 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Street Light Inventory Review Fixture Repair Fixture and Pole Cleaning Single Billing Regular and EC 90 day outages Trimming Around Fixture Upgrade for Decoratives and Park Lights PG&E Services of Benefit for Cities/County Number of Cities 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 36 of 51 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee September 12, 2016 Page 5 of 6 •Repair of routine outages (7) •Repair of non-routine outages (7) •Repair of non-burnout outages (7) •Replacement of deteriorated facilities (6) •New product choices - cobra heads (6) •Decorative street lights (6) •Group lamp replacements (5) •Streamlined processes (5) •Tree trimming around fixture (1) •Park lights owned and maintained by PG&E (1) Information updates from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is also a topic that many cities representatives find of interest, specifically about rates for energy usage, rebates, legislation approvals, emerging technologies and tariffs since the decisions they make affect the work that PG&E is funded to do. See Chart 6. Chart 6 (Question 4) Conclusion: PG&E and County staff agree the survey shows cities that want to continue the Street Light Coordination meetings. These meetings would be held quarterly, include presentations, and be conducted at various rotating governmental locations. Meeting locations and topics would be decided at the end of each meeting for the next meeting. Meeting participants can use the survey results as suggestions for meeting topics. County will coordinate with PG&E to resume the Street Light Coordination meetings starting in early 2017. RECOMMENDATION ACCEPT this status report on the street light coordination survey. FISCAL IMPACT 13 10 10 9 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Rates for Energy Usage Legislation Rebates Emerging Technologies Tariffs CPUC Topics of Interest Number of Cities 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 37 of 51 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee September 12, 2016 Page 6 of 6 No impact on the general fund. All costs for street lights are funded by County Service Area L-100 or Community Facilities District 2010-1. JD:JC:nt G:\spdist\CSA L-100\TWIC\2016\Survey\TWIC County-Cities Street Light Survey Memo nt.docx Enclosures: Survey Questionnaire Emailed to Cities Contacts Cities Survey Contacts Survey Questions Tallied C: Members, Board of Supervisors D. Twa, CAO B. Balbas, Deputy Public Works Director W. Lai, Assistant Public Works Director, Engineering Services J. Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development T. Guarino, Pacific Gas & Electric 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 38 of 51 City/County Street Light Survey I am writing to you because we are surveying all of the 19 cities in the County about the City/County PG&E Street Light Coordination Meetings. The goal of this survey is to determine if Cities and the County should continue to meet to discuss street light issues and if so, to determine how to best to conduct the meetings, who should attend, how often should meetings be held, identifying topics to discuss, would another format, e.g. an annual street light symposium, be of value, and more. Your input is greatly appreciated. When PG&E was recently ready to roll out the LED replacement project, a meeting held in March 2015 at Public Works was well attended by the Cities. Quarterly street light coordination meetings have been attended by City staff but at lower levels of participation. Questions have surfaced as to the need to have the meetings, the frequency and format of the meetings, and the topics discussed at the meetings. The attached survey includes questions have been designed in order to address the PG&E City/County Street Light Coordination meetings. At the end of the survey, there is space to add any thoughts or suggestions from your City. Below, please find the questions to respond to by March 24, 2016: 1) What topics would you like to learn more about via the City/County street light coordination meetings (mark as many items as you wish)? a) LED conversion technology b) Photo-cell controls technology c) Wire theft d) Other (please describe) __________________________________________________________ 2) Which of these PG&E services are of interest to you (mark as many items as you wish)? a) Regular and EC 90 day outages b) Single Billing c) Street Light Inventory Review d) Fixture Repair e) Fixture and Pole Cleaning f) Other (please describe) ___________________________________________________________ 3) What type of street light coordination meetings would you prefer? a) On-site meetings b) Webinar meetings c) Audio conferencing (phone only) 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 39 of 51 4)California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decisions affect the work that PG&E is funded to do and other issues related to street lighting. What types of CPUC updates would be of value to you (mark as many topics as you like)? a)Legislation (for example, AB 719) b)Rebates c)Tariffs d)Rates for energy usage e)Emerging technologies f)Other (please describe) _______________________________________________________ 5)PG&E street light services have been discussed at City/County Coordination meetings. Please help us know which topics are of interest to your City. (Mark as many items as you wish.) a)Burnout Lamp Replacements b)Group Lamp Replacements c)Standard Maintenance Cycles d)Replacement of Deteriorated Facilities e)Streamlined Processes f)New Product Choices – cobra heads g)Decorative Street Lights h)Maintenance and Tracking systems i)Repair of Routine Outages j)Repair of Non-Burnout Outages k)Knockdowns l)Painting of Street Light Poles m)Other (please describe) ______________________________________________________ 6)How do you envision the street light coordination meetings helping to address improvements in street lighting in your City? ____________________________________________________________ 7)Would City staff be more likely to participate in meetings if they were (mark as many responses as you wish) a)Limited to one hour in duration b)Held in various locations around the County (City offices, corporation yards) c)Held at PG&E offices (Detroit St. in Concord) d)To include technical presentations (e.g. on luminaires, control facilities, support arms, service wiring, poles or posts, foundations, underground/overhead wiring) e)Other (please describe) ______________________________________________________________ 8)How often would City staff attend City/County street light coordination meetings? a) Monthly b)Bimonthly c)Quarterly d)Semi-annually e)Annually 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 40 of 51 9)Future Meetings of City/County Street Light Personnel a)Would another format, e.g. an annual City/County street light symposium, be of value? (circle one) YES NO b)Does your City prefer to address street light issues via one on one meetings with PG&E customer service staff? (circle one) YES NO 10)Please add any suggestions or comments that will assist the Cities, PG&E and the County on street light related matters. G:\spdist\CSA L-100\TWIC\2016\Survey Questionnaire Emailed to Cities Contacts.docx 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 41 of 51 Survey Sent To Survey Returned By CITY OF ANTIOCH CITY OF ANTIOCH Public Works Director Public Works Director Ron Bernal Ron Bernal 779-6950 779-6950 CITY OF BRENTWOOD CITY OF BRENTWOOD Public Works Director Public WorksAssistant Director Chris Ehler Jagtal Dhaliwal 516-6000 516-6000 CITY OF CLAYTON CITY OF CLAYTON City Engineer City Engineer Rick Angrisani, John Johnston Rick Angrisani, John Johnston 363-7433 363-7433 CITY OF CONCORD CITY OF CONCORD Public Works Director Public Works Director Justin Ezell Justin Ezell 671-3231 671-3231 TOWN OF DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE Development Services Director Development Services Director Steve Lake Steve Lake 314-3319 314-3319 TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY Landscape and Facilities Manager Landscape and Facilities Manager Brian Miller Brian Miller CITY OF EL CERRITO CITY OF EL CERRITO Public Works Director / City Engineer Public Works Director / City Engineer Yvetteh Ortiz Yvetteh Ortiz (510) 215-4382 (510) 215-4382 CITY OF HERCULES CITY OF HERCULES City Engineer City Engineer Mike Roberts Jeff Brown (510) 799-8241 (510) 799-8241 CITY OF LAFAYETTE CITY OF LAFAYETTE Public Works Director Public Works Director Mike Moran Mike Moran 934-3908 934-3908 CITY OF MARTINEZ CITY OF MARTINEZ Public Works Director Public Works Director Tim Tucker Tim Tucker 372-3562 372-3562 TOWN OF MORAGA TOWN OF MORAGA Public Works Director Public Works Director Edric Kwan KC Bowman 888-7025 888-7025 CITY OF OAKLEY CITY OF OAKLEY City Engineer City Engineer Kevin Rohani Kevin Rohani 625-7003 625-7003 CITY OF ORINDA CITY OF ORINDA Public Works Director Public Works Director Charles Swanson Charles Swanson 253-4231 253-4231 Cities Survey Contacts 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 42 of 51 Survey Sent To Survey Returned By CITY OF PINOLE CITY OF PINOLE Public Works Director/City Engineer Public Works Director/City Engineer Tamara Miller Tamara Miller 724-9010 724-9010 CITY OF PITTSBURG CITY OF PITTSBURG City Managers Admin Officer City Managers Admin Officer Laura Wright Laura Wright 252-4114 252-4114 CITY OF PLEASANT HILL CITY OF PLEASANT HILL Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor Mike Moore Mike Moore 671-5265 671-5265 CITY OF RICHMOND CITY OF RICHMOND Environmental Manager Yader Bermudez Adam Lenz 774-6300 774-6300 CITY OF SAN PABLO CITY OF SAN PABLO Public Works Director Public Works Director Barbara Hawkins Barbara Hawkins 215-3061 215-3061 CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY OF SAN RAMON Program Manager Program Manager Patrick Gutierrez Patrick Gutierrez 973-3200 973-3200 CITY OF WALNUT CREEK CITY OF WALNUT CREEK Public Works Manager Public Works Manager Rich Payne Rich Payne 256-3586 256-3586 G:\spdist\CSA L-100\TWIC\2016\City Survey Contacts.pdf Public Works Director 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 43 of 51 City/County Street Light Survey Tally 1) What topics would you like to learn more about via the City/County street light coordination meetings (mark as many items as you wish)? a) LED conversion technology (13) b) Photo-cell controls technology (7) c) Wire theft (8) d) Other (please describe) * PG&E related maintenance plans, future projects affecting the city. (Walnut Creek) * Changes in street light tarrifs. (El Cerrito) 2) Which of these PG&E services are of interest to you (mark as many items as you wish)? a) Regular and EC 90 day outages (4) b) Single Billing (5) c) Street Light Inventory Review (11) d) Fixture Repair (8) e) Fixture and Pole Cleaning (6) f) Other (please describe) * Trimming around the fixture. (Pleasant Hill) * PG&E upgrading remaining street lights – decorative and park lights. They currently do not have an application for an approved tariff. (Richmond) 3) What type of street light coordination meetings would you prefer? a) On-site meetings (13) b) Webinar meetings (13) c) Audio conferencing (phone only) (20) 4) California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decisions affect the work that PG&E is funded to do and other issues related to street lighting. What types of CPUC updates would be of value to you (mark as many topics as you like)? a) Legislation (for example, AB 719) (10) b) Rebates (10) c) Tariffs (8) d) Rates for energy usage (13) e) Emerging technologies (9) f) Other (please describe) * A regular CPUC update is very important (El Cerrito) 5) PG&E street light services have been discussed at City/County Coordination meetings. Please help us know which topics are of interest to your City. (Mark as many items as you wish.) 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 44 of 51 a)Burnout Lamp Replacements (8) b)Group Lamp Replacements (5) c) Standard Maintenance Cycles (9) d)Replacement of Deteriorated Facilities (7) e)Streamlined Processes (5) f)New Product Choices – cobra heads (6) g)Decorative Street Lights (6) h)Maintenance and Tracking systems (10) i)Repair of Routine Outages (7) j)Repair of Non-Burnout Outages (7) k) Knockdowns (9) l)Painting of Street Light Poles (8) m) Other (please describe) * Tree trimming away from the fixture. Since these are resident’s trees, why doesn’t P.G.&E. notify the resident that it is their responsibility to trim their trees instead of telling them to contact the City? A simple door hanger would save time and numerous phone calls. (Pleasant Hill) * Park lights owned and maintained by PG&E. (Richmond) 6) How do you envision the street light coordination meetings helping to address improvements in street lighting in your City? * Ability to network and problem solve regional issues (Walnut Creek) * I think important since this is a large part of funds from L&L and the more efficient and better tracked L&L can be used elsewhere (Pittsburg) * I rarely attend. I personally don’t think they are needed. (Martinez) * Better response to our customers by knowing what PG&E is doing. Better coordination with conflicting projects that may affect outcomes. Discussion of future programs and changes at PG&E. (Danville) * LED street light conversion rebate and loans (Brentwood) * Networking to solve problems or concerns that others might have already dealt with. (Pleasant Hill) * Staying current on the latest technologies and rebate programs; Maintaining good working relationships with PG&E and neighboring agencies. (Concord) *Request improved services from PG&E & information sharing. (Richmond) * PG&E could serve as a contractor resource or bulk buyer for cities and let this be known at meetings. (Lafayette) * By providing service and information to residents. (Moraga) * Better understanding of PG&E services. (Orinda) * Major upgrade of LED projects. (Oakley) * Help upgrading lighting quality and levels, control PG&E costs, system inventory including asset and maintenance history and reporting, learn from others. (El Cerrito) *Stream line process for reporting and repairs, in addition, finding out new PG&E policies and procedures, including new upcoming projects and programs. (San Ramon) 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 45 of 51 7)Would City staff be more likely to participate in meetings if they were (mark as many responses as you wish) a)Limited to one hour in duration (6) b)Held in various locations around the County (City offices, corporation yards)(10) c) Held at PG&E offices (Detroit St. in Concord) (3) d)To include technical presentations (e.g. on luminaires, control facilities, support arms, service wiring, poles or posts, foundations, underground/overhead wiring) (12) e)Other (please describe) *May depend on how often the group meets and the topics. (Pittsburg) * Hold meetings in Martinez or during a time that doesn’t put people on the road during rush hour, because getting from West County to Central County (Concord/ Walnut Creek) during rush hour can be quite time consuming. Up to 2 hour meeting is fine. (El Cerrito) 8) How often would City staff attend City/County street light coordination meetings? a)Monthly (1) b)Bimonthly (2) c)Quarterly (9) d)Semi-annually (3) e)Annually (3) 9)Future Meetings of City/County Street Light Personnel a)Would another format, e.g. an annual City/County street light symposium, be of value? (circle one) YES (7) NO (5) OTHER (1) b)Does your City prefer to address street light issues via one on one meetings with PG&E customer service staff? (circle one) YES (7) NO (1) OTHER (4) 10)Please add any suggestions or comments that will assist the Cities, PG&E and the County on street light related matters. * Having these meetings were very helpful in that they provided a forum for City Staff to discuss issues with other Cities. They help gain perspective in learning of the challenges that other Cities experiencing related to Streetlights and PG&E. (Walnut Creek) * We need an easier way to get GIS information about our street lights. While the “BRIO” Excel Spreadsheets are OK, importing GIS information directly would be better. (Danville) * We just completed our L.E.D. Conversions so a life expectancy and maintenance topic could be helpful. (Pleasant Hill) * Meeting annually seems about reasonable for streetlight coordination for Lafayette. We just do not have that many PG&E-owned streetlights. (Lafayette) 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 46 of 51 * Can PG&E provide a GIS map or something similar to show where all streetlights are and a map of when things were given maintenance. Maybe an updated map each quarter. And maybe a base map that we can import into our system. (El Cerrito) G:\spdist\CSA L-100\TWIC\2016\Survey Questions Tallied.docx 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 47 of 51 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9. Meeting Date:11/10/2016 Subject:RECEIVE the Report on PG&E Coordination with Cities and County for Street Light Maintenance and MONITOR Implementation of the Letter of Understanding. Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: 13 Referral Name: Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa County.  Presenter: Jason Chen, Department of Public Works Contact: Jason Chen (925)313-2299 Referral History: The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) committee accepted the 2015 status report on street light maintenance by PG&E in coordination with Cities (Countywide) on December 7, 2015. Referral Update: The TWIC committee requested Public Works staff to report annually on the status of street light maintenance coordination efforts with PG&E. Staff reported at the December 7, 2015 meeting regarding this item. Background: The Letter of Understanding (LOU), dated February 2008, between PG&E and County, states the commitment of PG&E for open communication and responsive service levels and actions in resolving issues related to street light performance. A way to keep communication channels open was by conducting regular discussions at Street Light Coordination meetings with the County, its constituent, Cities and Towns. However, in 2015 there was a change in the frequency of these meetings at the request of PG&E due to low participation of Cities’ staff. Continuing the effort initiated in May 2008, the County Public Works Department, PG&E and Cities met in January, March, and April 2015. There were no meetings held in July and October as County prepared to reach out to Cities staff for their feedback. Since reporting to TWIC on December 7, 2015 there have been no meetings in 2016. The PG&E, Cities, and County Street Light Coordination meetings allowed communication 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 48 of 51 The PG&E, Cities, and County Street Light Coordination meetings allowed communication among those present to address issues related to street light maintenance, operations, increased efficiencies and LED conversions, and rates. As Public Works staff prepares an update to the LOU with more current and relevant topics, the priority focus was to assemble a survey to cities, reviewed by PG&E. The goal of this survey was to determine if Cities and the County would like to continue to meet and discuss street light issues. The survey was distributed to the 19 cities in the County and 15 Cities responded. PG&E and County Public Works staff agree that the survey results indicate that the cities want to continue the Street Light Coordination meetings. County will coordinate with PG&E to resume the Street Light Coordination meetings starting in early 2017. Another major effort that occurred in 2016 was the LED Street Light Conversion Projects. This project launched in spring 2015, with the majority of the street lights converted in 2016. This project converted about 5,600 PG&E street lights countywide. PG&E street light conversion project team was well organized and completed the work in a time efficient manner. PG&E’s team included public outreach team that mailed notifications letters and respond to inquiries from residents. The next steps for 2017 will be to: 1) Resume the Street Light Coordination meetings. 2) Continue the process to review the LOU and reflect the challenges of 2017 and beyond. 3) Provide update to TWIC toward the end of 2016. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE this status report on the street light coordination effort between Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the County Public Works Department (County), and Cities for street light maintenance and provide direction as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): No impact on the general fund. All costs for street lights are funded by County Service Area L-100 or Community Facilities District 2010-1. Attachments No file(s) attached. 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 49 of 51 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10. Meeting Date:11/10/2016 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: News, etc: Freakonomics Radio* In Praise of Maintenance: Has our culture’s obsession with innovation led us to neglect the fact that things also need to be taken care of? http://freakonomics.com/podcast/in-praise-of-maintenance/ * Freakonomics Radio is an award-winning weekly podcast with 7 million downloads a month; it also airs on public-radio stations across the country. Host Stephen Dubner has surprising conversations that explore the riddles of everyday life and the weird wrinkles of human nature—from cheating and crime to parenting and sports. Dubner talks with Nobel laureates and provocateurs, social scientists and entrepreneurs — and his Freakonomics co-author Steve Levitt. Freakonomics Radio is produced by Dubner Productions and WNYC Studios. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 10-20-16 Vasco Support letter 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 50 of 51 11-10-16 TWIC Packet Page 51 of 51