Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 08142023 - TWIC Agenda Pkt       TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE August 14, 2023 9:30 a.m. Join in person: District III Office 3361 Walnut Boulevard, Suite 140 Brentwood, CA. 94513 OR 1516 Kamole Street Honolulu, HI. 96821 Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://cccounty-us.zoom.us/j/82954223101 Join by telephone, dial: USA 214 765 0478 US Toll USA 888 278 0254 US Toll-free Conference code: 841892 Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor Diane Burgis, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Public comments generally will be limited to two minutes per speaker. In the interest of facilitating the business of the Board Committee, the total amount of time that a member of the public may use in addressing the Board Committee on all agenda items is 10 minutes. Your patience is appreciated.         1.Introductions   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (Public comments generally will be limited to two minutes per speaker).   3. REVIEW record of meeting for the May 8, 2023 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)   4. RECOMMEND the reappointment of Nazanin Shakerin and Kathy Chang to the Regional Measure 3 Independent Oversight Commtitee for a term from August 2023 through June 2027 to the Board of Supervisors. (Robert Sarmiento, Conservation and Development)   5. RECEIVE update on East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (ECCHCP), DIRECT staff as appropriate. (Joanne Chiu, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy)   6. ACCEPT the Infrastructure Report for Calendar Years 2020 through 2022 dated August 2023, and DIRECT staff of the Public Works Director to submit the report to the Board of Supervisors. (Craig Standafer, Public Works)   7. CONSIDER report on Local, State, Regional, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative and Planning Activities and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for September 11, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.     9.Adjourn   The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 655-2915 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 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 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:08/14/2023   Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for May 8, 2023 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Meeting. Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)655-2915 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 May 8, 2023 Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments May2023-TWIC Meeting Record D R A F T TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE RECORD OF ACTION FOR May 8, 2023   Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor Diane Burgis, Vice Chair   Present: Candace Andersen, Chair      Diane Burgis, Vice Chair    Staff Present:John Cunningham, TWIC Staff  Attendees:Joe Smithonic, Mark Watts, Michael Kent, Nancy Wein, Maureen Toms, Roger Smith             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).    Call-In User 1: Comments related to the move to electric vehicles and the need to offset the gas tax loss.   3.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the April 10, 2023 Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.       The Committee unanimously APPROVED the meeting record with a reminder that future TWIC meetings will start at 9:30 a.m.   4.REVIEW the recommended list of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Senate Bill 1 (SB1) funded road projects, RECEIVE public comment and DIRECT staff to perform any changes or revisions to the recommended project list. RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors approve the project list, and DIRECT staff to proceed with submitting the Fiscal Year 2023/2024 list of projects to the California Transportation Commission for approval prior to the July 1, 2023, submittal deadline.       The Committee unanimously approved the staff recommendation. In response to questions from the Committee staff clarified that storm damage funding is handled in a separate process.   5.CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative and Planning Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.       The Committee RECEIVED the report.     6.RECEIVE staff report and RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors approve the submission of the grant application to the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program.       The Committe unanimously APPROVED the recommendation.    7.CONSIDER the Pipeline Information Center website offer from the Alamo Improvement Association, and DIRECT District 2 and CCHS staff to assist the Alamo Improvement Association in identifying a County Department that is positioned to host and maintain the website.       The Committee CONSIDERED the request from the Alamo Improvement Association and DIRECTED Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) staff to work with District 2 staff to identify the Pipeline Information Center website, with a preference to have it housed within CCHS, and emphasizing a need for consistency in the event other communities wish to leverage the website. The Committtee expressed appreciation to the Alamo Improvment Association for their work on this issue.   8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for June 12, 2023.   9.Adjourn      For Additional Information Contact:  John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:08/14/2023   Subject:Appointment of Regional Measure 3 Independent Oversight Committee Members Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1, 18   Referral Name: 1:Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure, 18: Review transportation plans and services for specific populations and locations, including but not limited to...  Presenter: Robert Sarmiento Contact: Robert Sarmiento, (925) 655-2918 Referral History: Senate Bill 595 (SB 595 - 2017) required the nine Bay Area counties to conduct a special election, known as Regional Measure 3 (RM3), on a proposed increase to toll rates on state-owned bridges in the region. The revenue from toll increases would fund transportation projects and programs, including roadway operations, transit, and goods movement, that would provide congestion relief on transportation corridors at or approaching bridges througout the Bay Area. This election took place on June 5, 2018, with voters approving a three-dollar toll increase, phased in one dollar every three years through 2025, with the first one-dollar increase effective January 1, 2019. SB 595 also required that the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) establish an independent oversight committee (IOC), comprised of two citizen representatives from each Bay Area county, within six months of the effective date of the toll increase. The RM3 IOC would convene to ensure that any toll revenues generated pursuant to the RM3 toll increase would be expended consistent with the applicable requirements of the RM3 expenditure plan, which contains a list of eligible transportation projects and programs. At its July 9, 2019 meeting, the Board of Supervisors referred the IOC citizen representative recruitment to TWIC, and subsequently, on August 6, 2019, the Board authorized TWIC to select two Contra Costa representatives. On August 12, 2019, TWIC interviewed seven applicants and selected Nazanin Shakerin and Kathy Chang to be appointed as the County citizen representatives to the IOC, with their terms ending August 12, 2023. On October 9, 2019, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) BATA Oversight Committee approved the County's appointments. Shortly after voter approval of RM3, a lawsuit was filed to halt the toll increases. Due to the legal dispute, toll revenue already collected could not be disbursed to the eligible transportation projects and programs in the RM3 expenditure plan and the RM3 IOC was never convened. The legal dispute concluded in January 2023, with the courts rulling in favor of BATA and RM3. BATA began allocating RM3 revenue to transportation projects and programs in June 2023. The RM3 IOC is expected to convene soon. Referral Update: MTC requested that the County appoint or reappoint two representatives to the RM3 IOC for a term from July 2023 through July 2027. The County's original, 2019 appointments have been unable to participate in IOC activities due to the aforementioned lawsuit. This fact, combined with the preference of both original appointees to continue in their role, resulted in a recommendation to reappoint both members.  The original recruitment was conducted consistent with the Maddy Act and included outreach through numerous channels, the process is described here:  http://64.166.146.245/docs/2019/BOS/20190806_1313/38937_TWIC_RM3%20recruitment_7_18_19.pdf http://64.166.146.245/docs/2019/BOS/20190806_1313/38937_TWIC_RM3%20recruitment_7_18_19.pdf Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors the reappointment of Nazanin Shakerin and Kathy Chang to the Regional Measure 3 Independent Oversight Commtitee for a term from August 2023 through June 2027. Fiscal Impact (if any): None to the County. RM3 IOC members are eligible for a $50.00 per meeting stipend (maximum of 4 meetings/year) and reimbursement of actual travel expenses as defined by BATA. The stipend and travel reimbursement are both paid for by BATA. Attachments No file(s) attached. TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:08/14/2023   Subject:RECEIVE 2022 Annual Report and Presentation on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (ECCHCP) Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 11   Referral Name: Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan  Presenter: Joanne Chiu, ECCCHC Contact: Joanne Chiu, (925) 655-2906 Referral History: Updates and reports on referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee are provided on an as needed/as available basis. TWIC referrals for 2023 can be found here: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/76213/2022-TWIC-Referrals Referral Update: "Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan" is a standing referral to TWIC. The 2022 Annual Report from the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) is attached. ECCCHC staff will be present at the August Committee meeting to provide a short presentation (attached) and answer questions.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE 2022 Annual Report from the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, DIRECT staff as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 2022 ECCHCP Annual Report 2022 ECCHCP Presentation East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan Annual Report 2022 2 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVANCY 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 925-655-2909 | www.cocohcp.org COVER PHOTO: Briones Valley, Stephen Joseph 3 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Contents Introduction 7 Covered Activities 10 Land Acquisition 23 Habitat Restoration and Creation 30 Preserve System Management 39 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management 41 Stay-Ahead Provision 44 Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances 53 Finances 54 Program Administration 62 4 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 1 Covered Species of the Plan 9 Table 2 Reporting Summary for Covered Activities—Reporting Year 14 Table 3 Reporting Period Summary of Natural Community and Landscape-Level Conditions 15 on Covered Activities by Project Table 4 Reporting Period Summary of Species-Level Conditions on Covered Activities by Project 16 Table 5 Summary of Impacts on Land Cover Types—Reporting Period and Cumulative (acres, unless noted) 18 Table 6 Impacts on Aquatic Land Cover Types and Streams by Watershed/Basin—Reporting Period 19 and Cumulative Table 7 Reporting Period and Cumulative Impacts on Covered Plants 22 Table 8 Summary of Natural Community Protection, Restoration, and Creation by Land Cover Type 27 Table 9 Cumulative Summary of Progress toward Preservation Requirements of Wetlands and Waters 28 Table 10 Summary of Covered Plant Preservation to Date 29 Table 11 Aquatic Land Cover and Stream Restoration and Creation by Watershed 37 Table 12 Restoration Acreage Summary 38 Table 13 Stay-Ahead Assessment—Land Cover and Streams 49 Table 14 Stay-Ahead Assessment—Plants 50 Table 15 Stay-Ahead Summary—Vernal Pool Shrimp 51 Table 16 Stay-Ahead Summary—Giant Garter Snake 52 Table 17 2022 Fee Schedule 61 Table 18 2022 Mitigation Fees 61 Tables 5 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Figures Figure 1 Covered Activities by Activity Type and Permittee—Reporting Period 11 Figure 2 Land Cover Impacts by Land Cover Type—Reporting Period 12 Figure 3 Land Cover Impacts by Land Cover Type—Cumulative 13 Figure 4 Preserve System Map 25 Figure 5 Progress toward Assembling the Preserve System 26 Figure 6 Location of Restoration and Creation Projects 36 Figure 7 Comparison of Conservation Achieved to Impacts Incurred for Terrestrial 46 Land Cover Types—Cumulative Figure 8 Comparison of Conservation Achieved to Impacts Incurred for Aquatic Land Cover Types 47 and Streams—Cumulative Figure 9 Stay-Ahead Compliance for Land Cover Types 48 Figure 10 Summary of Expenditures 57 Figure 11 Summary of Revenue 58 6 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District ESA federal Endangered Species Act Conservancy East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Plan or HCP/NCCP East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan HCP habitat conservation plan NCCP natural community conservation plan O&M operations and maintenance RGP Regional General Permit RPA riparian planting area USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abbreviations 7 7 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Introduction Prepared by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy), this annual report summarizes implementation activities undertaken during the 2022 calendar year (January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022) and cumulatively per the conditions of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan). The HCP/NCCP proactively addresses the region’s long-term conservation needs by strengthening local control over land use and providing greater flexibility in meeting other needs such as housing, transportation, and economic growth. It establishes a framework for regional conservation and development, providing for the protection of natural resources while streamlining the permitting process for take coverage of state and federally listed species and for mitigating impacts on sensitive habitats and resources. This document summarizes implementation activities undertaken in the 2022 calendar year (January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022) and since Plan inception and outlines progress toward achieving the Plan’s biological goals and objectives. Note: Hydrological restoration monitoring follows the California water year; accordingly, those activities are tracked from October 1 through September 31 the following calendar year. 8 8 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Introduction Permits issued in 2007 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) allow the Permittees to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California’s Endangered Species Act (CESA). The Plan’s Permittees are listed below: • Contra Costa County • Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • City of Brentwood • City of Clayton • City of Oakley • City of Pittsburg • East Bay Regional Park District • East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Over the 30-year permit term, impacts from urban development and rural infrastructure projects will be offset by the creation of a Preserve System managed for the benefit of 28 covered species, as well as the natural communities that they—and hundreds of other species—depend on for habitat. The Plan provides comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem conservation and contributes to the recovery of endangered species in northern California. Table 1 lists species covered by the Plan. This HCP/NCCP allows for two development scenarios that are referred to as the Initial Urban Development Area and the Maximum Urban Development Area. Once the Initial Urban Development Area impact cap is exceeded, the Conservancy will be working under the second scenario, which is Maximum Urban Development Area. These scenarios also have different levels of required protection and restoration. In this report, the Maximum Urban Development Area scenario is represented in the tables and figures when applicable, though the Conservancy currently operates under the Initial Urban Development Area scenario. 9 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Common Name a Scientific Name Status—State/CNPS b,c Status—Federal d Mammals Townsend’s western big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii CSC — San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotus mutica ST FE Birds Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CSC-1 — Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos FP BGPA Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea CSC-1 — Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni ST — Reptiles Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra CSC — Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus ST FT Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas ST FT Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata CSC — Amphibians California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense CSC FT California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii —FT Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii CSC — Invertebrates Longhorn fairy shrimp Brachinecta longiantenna —FE Vernal pool fairy shrimp Brachinecta lynchi —FT Midvalley fairy shrimp Brachinecta mesovallensis —— Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi —FE Plants Mount Diablo manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata 1B — Brittlescale Atriplex depressa 1B — San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquiniana 1B — Big tarplant Blepharizonia plumosa 1B — Mount Diablo fairy lantern Calochortus pulchellus 1B — Recurved larkspur Delphinium recurvatum 1B — Round-leaved filaree Erodium macrophyllum 1B — Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea 1B — Brewer's dwarf flax Hesperolinon breweri 1B — Showy madia Madia radiata 1B — Adobe navarretia Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis —— Table 1. Covered Species of the Plan a The Conservancy has completed a CEQA species analysis that indicates that conservation actions completed as part of the HCP/NCCP will have a beneficial (or neutral) impact on all species of concern found in the Plan area: https://www.cocohcp.org/265/Other-Documents b State Status: ST State Listed as Threatened CSC California Special Concern Species CSC-1 Bird Species of Special Concern; First Priority FP Fully Protected c California Native Plant Society (CNPS): 1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere d Federal Status: FE Federally Listed as Endangered FT Federally Listed as Threatened BGPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Notes 10 10 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Covered Activities The Plan allows incidental take coverage for the following covered activities: • Rural infrastructure projects • Rural infrastructure operations and maintenance (O&M) projects • Activities within the HCP/NCCP Preserves • Activities within the Urban Development Area Figure 1 and Tables 2–4 summarize covered activities undertaken during the reporting period and since Plan inception. Figures 2 and 3 and Tables 5–7 quantify impacts associated with these covered activities. This section describes covered activities and their impacts on land cover type and covered plants. 11 11 Covered Activities East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 0 2 4 6 8 ConservancyContra Costa CountyCity of PittsburgCity of OakleyCity of Brentwood 4 8.67 acres permanent 26.69 acres temporary 3 0 acre permanent 2.2 acres temporary 1 4 1 2 6 6 19.82 acres permanent 44.16 acres temporary 1 6 TOTAL: 14 TOTAL: 14 Rural Infrastructure Projects Rural Infrastructure O&M Activities Activities within the Urban Development Area Activities within HCP/NCCP Preserves Projects by Permittee Projects by Project Type 0 acre permanent 0.3 acre temporary A total of 14 activities were permitted during the reporting period: 6 in the Urban Development Area, 3 rural infrastructure O&M activities, 4 rural infrastructure projects, and 1 activity within the HCP/NCCP Preserves. Figure 1. Covered Activities by Activity Type and Permittee—Reporting Period 12 12 Covered Activities East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Irrigated AgricultureAquaticTerrestrial 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Stream (all categories combined) 12.33 acres 27.65 acres 15.7 acres 34.3 acres 0.26 acre 0.25 acre Figure 4—Acres of Impact by Project Type(Reporting Period) Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts 0 linear feet 577 linear feet Acres Feet The 14 projects undertaken during the reporting period resulted in 62.2 acres temporary impacts, 28.29 acres permanent impacts on land cover, 577 linear feet temporary stream impacts (14 linear feet of intermittent stream and 563 linear feet ephemeral streams). No perennial streams were impacted. Figure 2. Land Cover Impacts by Land Cover Type—Reporting Period 13 13 Covered Activities East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Irrigated AgricultureAquaticTerrestrial 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Stream (all categories combined) 1,008.4 acres 609.29 acres 284.3 acres 134.6 acres 1,104 linear feet 11,457 linear feet 4.47 acres 12.54 acres Figure 4—Acres of Impact by Project Type(Reporting Period) Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Acres Feet Cumulative permanent land cover impacts total 1,297.17 acres, and temporary impacts on land cover total 756.44 acres. Since Plan inception, the majority of permanent stream impacts have been on intermittent streams, while temporary impacts have occurred in equal measure on perennial and intermittent streams. Figure 3. Land Cover Impacts by Land Cover Type—Cumulative 14 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 2. Reporting Summary for Covered Activities—Reporting Year Project Name Jurisdiction Project Type Location Description Permanent Impacts (acres) Temporary Impacts (acres) Anton Oakley (Elm Lane)City of Oakley Activities within the Urban Development Area 5301 Elm Lane, Oakley Developing a new 170-unit, 3 story, wood frame constructed affordable workforce housing project. 5.13 1.3 The Ranchettes at Neroly City of Oakley Activities within the Urban Development Area Southeast corner of intersection of Oakley Road and Neroly Road in Oakley Subdivision of the parcel into 7 residential lots, each with a new home and ancillary services. 7.1 CCWD Canal Temporary Impacts (associated with Grand Cypress Preserve) City of Oakley Activities within the Urban Development Area East side of Jersey Island Road, north of Rock Slough, south of Dutch Slough and west of the Summer Lake Project Haul routes and stockpile areas needed during construction of Segment 5 of the Contra Costa Canal undergrounding project. 34.35 Brady Lots City of Oakley Activities within the Urban Development Area North and south of East Cypress Road, just west of Sand Mound Slough in Oakley The project is a portion of the Summer Lake North project and the site will be developed into residential lots and roads. 1.22 7.69 Pittsburg Renal Center City of Pittsburg Activities within the Urban Development Area 1600 North Park Boulevard, Pittsburg Construction of a 14,350 square foot shell building for future development of a dialysis clinic. 1.46 0.82 Byron Hot Springs Solar Project Contra Costa County Rural Infrastructure Projects Adjacent to Byron Highway, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Byron. Byron Airport is located approximately one mile southwest of the site, and Clifton Court Forebay is located approximately 1.3 miles east of the site. Development of a small-scale utility solar facility that will generate a total of 1.0 megawatts energy when complete. 5.42 Ameresco Keller Canyon Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Facility and Pipeline Project Contra Costa County Rural Infrastructure Projects 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg Installation of new gas processing equipment and an underground pipeline from the new equipment to an interconnection point on Pacific Gas and Electric's (PG&E’s) existing transmission infrastructure. 3.25 26.48 PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline (L-)114 Vintage Pipeline Replacement Project—Addendum ECCC Habitat Conservancy Rural Infrastructure Projects North of Marsh Creek Reservoir and south of Vineyards at Marsh Creek Parkway in Brentwood Approximately 2,000 feet of 22-inch pipe will be replaced with new 24-inch pipe using a horizontal directional drill to avoid the Marsh Creek waterway and sensitive habitat within Marsh Creek Historic State Park. 0.21 Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair— Winter 2022 Project ECCC Habitat Conservancy Rural Infrastructure O&M Activities SID 193,100: Lat: 37.791526, Long: -121.664340 SID 193,120: Lat: 37.791635, Long: -121.664597 SID 193,220: Lat: 37.792105, Long: -121.665625 Anomaly investigation and repairs at three dig locations to address a total of four anomalies along the existing Line 200 Mainline trunk pipeline in eastern Contra Costa County. 0.17 P66 Line 200 Vasco Road Remediation Project—Near Vasco Road, Byron, CA ECCC Habitat Conservancy Rural Infrastructure O&M Activities Near Vasco Road in Byron, CA and near Latitude 37°47’42.79”N and Longitude 121°40'21.49"W A total of 19 soil borings will be drilled and sampled to investigate if there is any remaining subsurface petroleum contamination resulting from the August 27, 2011 crude oil pipeline leak in this area. 1.6 Marsh Creek Restoration and Instream Dam Improvement Project ECCC Habitat Conservancy Rural Infrastructure Projects Marsh Creek State Historic Park 21767 Marsh Creek Road, Brentwood This project removed portions of a small, inoperative dam in Marsh Creek to restore channel form and prevent further erosion of an important archaeological site. Sciortino Ranch Center— Grocery Outlet, Commercial Phase 2 & Panda Express City of Brentwood Activities within the Urban Development Area Northeast corner of Brentwood Boulevard and Technology Way in Brentwood Construction of a multiple buildings and associated parking on a nearly 5-acre vacant lot to complete the Sciortino Ranch Commercial Center. 4.91 Hess Creek Log Jam Repair Restoration Project ECCC Habitat Conservancy Activities within HCP/NCCP Preserves Hess Property A head cut gully has been developing in the channel over the last several years which will be repaired using a staked log jam. 0.3 Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair— Summer 2021 Project 1st Amendment ECCC Habitat Conservancy Rural Infrastructure O&M Activities Near Vasco Hills Regional Preserve and Vasco Caves Regional Preserve This amendment covers a minor increase in impact in order to implement additional AMMs to limit disturbance of the eagles making use of the historic nesting tree. 0.43 Total 28.5 73.4 15 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 3. Reporting Period Summary of Natural Community and Landscape-Level Conditions on Covered Activities by Project Project Name Conservation Measures 2.11 2.12 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 Anton Oakley (Elm Lane)•• The Ranchettes at Neroly •• CCWD Canal Temporary Impacts (associated with Grand Cypress Preserve)••• Brady Lots ••• Pittsburg Renal Center •• Byron Hot Springs Solar Project •• Ameresco Keller Canyon Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Facility and Pipeline Project •• PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline (L-)114 Vintage Pipeline Replacement Project—Addendum •• Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair—Winter 2022 Project • P66 Line 200 Vasco Road Remediation Project—Near Vasco Road, Byron, CA • Marsh Creek Restoration and Instream Dam Improvement Project •• Sciortino Ranch Center—Grocery Outlet, Commercial Phase 2 & Panda Express •• Hess Creek Log Jam Repair Restoration Project •• Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair—Summer 2021 Project 1st Amendment • Conservation Measures 2.11 Enhance Cultivated Agricultural Lands to Benefit Covered Species 2.12 Wetland, Pond, and Stream Avoidance and Minimization Measures 1.6 Minimize Development Footprint Adjacent to Open Space 1.7 Establish Stream Setbacks 1.8 Establish Fuel Management Buffer to Protect Preserves and Property 1.9 Urban-Wildland Interface Design Elements 1.10 Maintain and Improve Hydrologic Conditions and Minimize Erosion 1.11 Avoid Direct Impacts on Extremely Rare Plants or Fully Protected Wildlife Species 1.12 Implement Best Management Practices for Rural Road Maintenance 1.13 Implement Best Management Practices for Flood Control Facility Operations and Maintenance 1.14 Design Requirements for Covered Roads outside Urban Development Area 16 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 4. Reporting Period Summary of Species-Level Conditions on Covered Activities by Project Project Name Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat San Joaquin Kit Fox Golden Eagle Western Burrowing Owl Swainson’s Hawk Giant Garter Snake California Tiger Salamander California Red-Legged Frog Covered Shrimp PSPCSAMMCMPSPCSAMMCMPSPCSAMMCMPSPCSAMMCMPSPCSAMMCMPSPCSAMMCMPSPCSAMMCMPSPCSAMMCMPSPCSAMMCMAnton Oakley (Elm Lane)•••••• The Ranchettes at Neroly •••••• CCWD Canal Temporary Impacts (associated with Grand Cypress Preserve)•••••••••• Brady Lots •••••• Pittsburg Renal Center •••••• Byron Hot Springs Solar Project •••••••• Ameresco Keller Canyon Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Facility and Pipeline Project •••••••••• Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair—Winter 2022 Project •••••••••• P66 Line 200 Vasco Road Remediation Project (Near Vasco Road, Byron, CA)•••• Marsh Creek Restoration and Instream Dam Improvement Project •••••••••••• Sciortino Ranch Center—Grocery Outlet, Commercial Phase 2 & Panda Express • Hess Creek Log Jam Repair Restoration Project •••••••• Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair—Summer 2021 Project 1st Amendment •••• Project Name Alkali Milkvetch Big Tarplant Brewers Dwarf Flax Contra Costa Goldfields Diamond-Petaled Poppy Large-Flowered Fiddleneck Mount Diablo Buckwheat Round-Leaved Filaree Showy Madia PSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSAnton Oakley (Elm Lane) The Ranchettes at Neroly CCWD Canal Temporary Impacts (associated with Grand Cypress Preserve) Brady Lots Pittsburg Renal Center Byron Hot Springs Solar Project Ameresco Keller Canyon Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Facility and Pipeline Project •••••••••••••••• Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair—Winter 2022 Project •••••••••••• P66 Line 200 Vasco Road Remediation Project (Near Vasco Road, Byron, CA)•••••••••• Marsh Creek Restoration and Instream Dam Improvement Project •••••••••••••••• Sciortino Ranch Center—Grocery Outlet, Commercial Phase 2 & Panda Express Hess Creek Log Jam Repair Restoration Project ••••••••••••• Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair—Summer 2021 Project 1st Amendment Table continues on following pageAbbreviations PS Planning surveys PCS Pre-construction surveys AMM Avoidance and minimization measures CM Construction monitoring 17 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 4. Reporting Period Summary of Species-Level Conditions on Covered Activities by Project (continued) Project Name Adobe Navarretia Brittlescale San Joaquin Spearscale Diablo Helianthella Caper Fruited Tropidocarpum Mount Diablo Fairy-Lantern Mount Diablo Manzanita Recurved Larkspur PSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSPSPCSAnton Oakley (Elm Lane) The Ranchettes at Neroly CCWD Canal Temporary Impacts (associated with Grand Cypress Preserve) Brady Lots Pittsburg Renal Center Byron Hot Springs Solar Project Ameresco Keller Canyon Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Facility and Pipeline Project ••• Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair—Winter 2022 Project •••••••••• P66 Line 200 Vasco Road Remediation Project (Near Vasco Road, Byron, CA)•• Marsh Creek Restoration and Instream Dam Improvement Project •••••••• Sciortino Ranch Center—Grocery Outlet, Commercial Phase 2 & Panda Express Hess Creek Log Jam Repair Restoration Project •• Phillips 66 Line 200 Anomaly Investigation and Repair—Summer 2021 Project 1st Amendment Abbreviations PS Planning surveys PCS Pre-construction surveys 18 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 5. Summary of Impacts on Land Cover Types—Reporting Period and Cumulative (acres, unless noted) Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulative c Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Terrestrial Annual grassland 1.6 20.4 137.0 258.6 Alkali grassland 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.2 Ruderal 10.8 7.3 869.3 341.0 Chaparral and scrub 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.7 Oak savanna 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.5 Oak woodland 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.3 Subtotal terrestrial 12.33 27.65 1,008.40 609.29 Aquatic Riparian woodland/scrub 0.00 0.18 1.23 2.17 Perennial wetland a 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.73 Seasonal wetland 0.26 0.08 1.88 4.11 Alkali wetland 0.00 0.00 0.15 1.00 Pond 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 Reservoir (open water) b 0.00 0.00 0.47 4.14 Slough/Channel 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.28 Subtotal aquatic 0.26 0.25 4.47 12.54 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 563 707 6,719 > 25 feet wide 0 14 397 4,738 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 171 4,697 Intermittent 0 14 635 4,511 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 10 0 225 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 553 298 2,024 Subtotal stream length 0 577 1,104 11,457 Irrigated agriculture Cropland 0.0 0.0 168.6 33.4 Pasture 5.4 34.3 40.3 93.8 Orchard 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.2 Vineyard 10.2 0.0 61.0 7.2 Subtotal irrigated agricultural 15.7 34.3 284.3 134.6 Totals (excludes subtypes) Acres 28.2 62.2 1,297.2 756.4 Linear feet 0.0 577 1,104 11,457 Notes a Perennial wetlands are equivalent to permanent wetlands. b Reservoir (open water) is equivalent to aquatic. c Cumulative impact acreages and linear feet may differ slightly from previous years due to refinements to the data tracking system. 19 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 6. Impacts on Aquatic Land Cover Types and Streams by Watershed/Basin—Reporting Period and Cumulative Table continues on following page Watershed/Basin and Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulativec Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Brushy Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0 Perennial wetlanda 0 0 0.01 0.12 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0.02 0.63 Pond 0 0 0.01 0.03 Reservoir (open water)b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0.01 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0.04 0.79 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 10 132 379 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 10 110 392 > 25 feet wide 0 0 22 118 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 56 283 Intermittent 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 131 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 10 76 96 Subtotal stream length 0 10 132 510 Clifton Court Forebay Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0 Perennial wetlanda 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water)b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0 0 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 47 112 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 > 25 feet wide 0 0 47 112 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 47 112 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 47 112 Watershed/Basin and Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulativec Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Deer Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0 Perennial wetlanda 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water)b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0 0 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 12 43 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 0 15 > 25 feet wide 0 0 12 28 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 12 43 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 12 43 East Antioch Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0 Perennial wetlanda 0 0 0 0.0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0 0.1 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water)b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0 0.1 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 0 12 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 0 12 > 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 0 12 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 0 12 Watershed/Basin and Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulativec Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts East County Drainages Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0.42 0 Perennial wetlanda 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0.22 0.02 0.47 1.57 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water)b 0 0 0.34 3.35 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0.58 0.07 Subtotal aquatic 0.22 0.02 1.81 5.19 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 0 0 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 > 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 0 0 Kellogg Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0.05 0.31 Perennial wetlanda 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0.29 0.01 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0.11 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water)b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0.07 0.14 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0.41 0.57 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 6 440 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 0 440 > 25 feet wide 0 0 6 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 6 0 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 440 Subtotal stream length 0 0 6 440 20 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 6. Impacts on Aquatic Land Cover Types and Streams by Watershed—Reporting Period and Cumulative (continued) Watershed/Basin and Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulativec Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Kirker Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0.18 0.05 0.27 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0.18 0.05 0.27 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 10 0 45 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 10 0 45 > 25 feet wide 0 0 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 35 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 10 0 10 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 10 0 45 Lower Marsh Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0.04 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0.13 0.24 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0.13 0.79 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0.06 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0.26 1.13 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 33 4,660 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 0 622 > 25 feet wide 0 0 33 4,074 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 4,211 Intermittent 0 0 33 365 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 84 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 33 4,660 Watershed/Basin and Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulativec Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Lower Mt. Diablo Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0 0 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 193 0 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 193 0 > 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 193 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 193 0 Oakley Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0.98 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0.98 0 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 0 0 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 > 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 0 0 Watershed/Basin and Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulativec Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Sand Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0.30 0.73 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0.04 0.57 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0.02 2.37 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0.36 3.67 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 295 3,639 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 295 3,639 > 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 295 3,639 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 295 3,639 Upper Marsh Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0.34 0.61 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0.06 0.03 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0.01 0.08 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0.41 0.72 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 14 299 1,312 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 58 978 > 25 feet wide 0 14 241 374 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 93 191 Intermittent 0 14 177 257 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 29 904 Subtotal stream length 0 14 299 1,352 Table continues on following page 21 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 6. Impacts on Aquatic Land Cover Types and Streams by Watershed—Reporting Period and Cumulative (continued) Watershed/Basin and Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulativec Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Upper Mt. Diablo Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0.02 0.02 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0.01 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0.02 0.02 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 22 53 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 22 53 > 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 22 12 Intermittent 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 41 Subtotal stream length 0 0 22 53 West Antioch Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0 0 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0 0 Seasonal wetland 0 0 0 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0 0 0 0 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 0 8 10 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 0 8 10 > 25 feet wide 0 0 0 0 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 8 10 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 0 0 0 Subtotal stream length 0 0 8 10 Watershed/Basin and Land Cover Type Reporting Period Cumulativec Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Willow Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 0.08 0.02 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0.02 0 Seasonal wetland 0.04 0.06 0.04 0 Alkali wetland 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0 0 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal aquatic 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.08 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 543 57 582 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 543 21 549 > 25 feet wide 0 0 36 33 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 57 39 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 543 0 543 Subtotal stream length 0 543 57 582 Total Aquatic (acres) Riparian woodland/scrub 0 0 1.23 2.17 Perennial wetland a 0 0 0.08 0.73 Seasonal wetland 0 0 1.88 4.11 Alkali wetland 0 0 0.15 0.98 Pond 0 0 0.02 0.11 Reservoir (open water) b 0 0 0.47 4.14 Slough/Channel (includes stream) 0 0 0.65 0.28 Total aquatic 0 0.25 4.48 12.52 Stream (linear feet) Total stream length 0 577 1,104 11,286 Stream length by width category < 25 feet wide 0 563 707 6,755 > 25 feet wide 0 14 397 4,738 Stream length by type and order Perennial 0 0 171 4,697 Intermittent 0 14 635 4,511 Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order 0 10 0 225 Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order 0 553 298 2,024 Total stream length 0 577 1,104 11,457 Notes a Perennial wetlands are equivalent to permanent wetlands. b Reservoir (open water) is equivalent to aquatic. c Cumulative impact acreages and linear feet may differ slightly from previous years due to refinements to the data tracking system. 22 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 7. Reporting Period and Cumulative Impacts on Covered Plants Common Name Scientific Name Known Occurrences that May Be Removed by Covered Activities a Impacts (occurrences) Reporting Period Cumulative Mount Diablo manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata 0 —0 Brittlescale Atriplex depressa 1 —0 San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquiniana 0 —1 b Big tarplant Blepharizonia plumosa 1 —0 Mount Diablo fairy lantern Calochortus pulchellus 0 —0 Recurved larkspur Delphinium recurvatum 1 —0 Round-leaved filaree Erodium macrophyllum 2 —— c Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea 0 —0 Brewer’s dwarf flax Hesperolinon breweri 0 —0 Showy madia Madia radiata 0 —0 Adobe navarretia Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis 1 —0 Total 6 0 1 Notes a This column provides the limit of impacts, by number of occurrences, on plant species allowable under the HCP/NCCP per HCP/NCCP Table 5-20. b Vasco Road Safety Phase 1 Project population was translocated to the Souza II preserve property in 2011; however, the population did not survive. See Table 10 for conservation efforts. The Conservancy is working on establishing a new population. c Temporary impacts occurred to round-leaved filaree as part of the PG&E Contra Costa Las Positas Project (2009). The soil was protected from disturbance, the site was returned to pre-project conditions, seeds collected on site were propagated, and monitoring reports document that round-leaved filaree persists on site and is as abundant as before the project. 23 23 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Land Acquisition Habitat Conserved One property was acquired by the Conservancy during the reporting period: the Pugh property. This acquisition increased the Conservancy’s Preserve System to 43 properties encompassing approximately 12,000 acres. All but one of the acquisitions were completed in partnership with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). EBRPD owns these properties and, together with the Conservancy, manages the Preserve System lands. Figure 4 shows the current Preserve System. This section documents properties acquired for the Preserve System during the reporting period. It also tracks impacts and land acquisition across the Preserve System. 24 24 Land Acquisition East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Pugh Property The newly acquired 79.8-acre Pugh property is located south of Byron in a rural unincorporated area of southeast Contra Costa County. The property borders two Preserve System properties on the north and western side: Grandma’s Quarter and Souza III. This property protects core habitat for San Joaquin kit fox and improves connectivity between known breeding habitats. The extensive grasslands make it prime habitat for raptors such as golden eagles. There is one pond on the property where California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog have been found. A total of five wind turbines of the Buena Vista Wind Farm are present on the site. Preservation Achieved Figure 5 shows progress toward assembling the Preserve System. Table 8 summarizes natural community protection, restoration, and creation by land cover type. Table 9 shows the progress towards fulfilling preservation requirements for jurisdictional wetlands and waters, and Table 10 shows the status of conservation of covered plants. The Pugh property is located within the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, which is known to have the densest population of golden eagles in the lower United States. 25 25 Land Acquisition East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Figure 4. Preserve System Map The Conservancy’s Preserve System consists of 43 properties encompassing approximately 12,000 acres of new conservation. 39 40 Danville Alamo Blackhawk SanRamon BethelIsland Clayton WalnutCreek Concord DiscoveryBay Byron Knightsen BayPoint Brentwood Oakley Antioch Pittsburg 7 27 12 26 1 16 8 14 11 3 2 6 5 9 4 28 17 21 25 23 18 29 19 15 20 10 13 22 24 30 31 32 33 34 36 35 37 38 41 43 42 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Preserve System Lands as of 03/07/2022 Other Parks and Open Space HCP/NCCP Preserve System 0 2 4 Miles 1 Souza 1 2 Lentzner 3 Chaparral Springs 4 Schwartz 5 Souza 2 6 Fox Ridge 7 Vaquero Farms South 8 Vaquero Farms North 9 Grandmas Quarter 10 Martin 11 Ang 12 Souza 3 13 Irish Canyon 14 Barron 15 Land Waste Mgmt 16 Thomas Southern 17 Thomas Central 18 Fan 19 Moss Rock 20 Galvin 21 Affinito 22 Vaquero Farms Central 23 Austin - Thomas North 24 Alaimo 25 Adrienne Galvin 26 Smith (Dainty Ranch) 27 Roddy Ranch 28 Viera-Perley 29 Clayton Radio 30 Nunn 31 Hanson Hills 32 Coelho 33 Campos 34 Viera North Peak 35 Roddy Home Ranch 36 Casey 37 Roddy Ranch Golf Course 38 Poppi/Halstead 39 Olesen/Duke 40 Bloching 41 Nortonville Strip 42 Civic Rancho Meadows 43 Pugh HCP/NCCPPreserve System 26 26 Land Acquisition East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037Acres Projected Actual Initial Urban Development Area, preserve approximately 23,800 acres 11,927 acres Maximum Urban Development Area, preserve approximately 30,300 acres Figure 5. Progress toward Assembling the Preserve System In most years, acquisition for the Preserve System has exceeded what is needed to achieve the 30,300-acre estimate by Year 30 of the permit term. 27 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 8. Summary of Natural Community Protection, Restoration, and Creation by Land Cover Type Land Cover Requirementsa (acres)Reporting Period (acres)Cumulative (acres)Percent Complete (%)b Land Cover Type Protection Creation Restoration Protection No Creditc Creation Restoration Protection No Creditc Creation Restoration Protection Creation Restoration Terrestrial Annual grassland 16,500 ----75.2 ------8,180.9 1,463.6 0.6 50%---- Alkali grassland 1,250 ------------275.79 17.5 0.0 22%---- Ruderal ------1.5 ------118.55 25.7 0.0 ------ Chaparral and scrub 550 ------------310.57 0.0 0.0 56%---- Oak savanna 500 --165 --------399.83 23.0 0.0 80%--0% Oak woodland 400 ------------2,564.3 131.6 0.0 641%---- Subtotal terrestrial 19,200 0.0 165 76.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,745.2 1,661.4 0.0 0.6 56%--0% Aquatic Riparian woodland/scrub 70 --55 --------72.41 0.2 5.40 103%--10% Perennial wetlandd 75 --85 --------5.38 5.8 0.16 7%--0% Seasonal wetland 168 --163 0.10 ------13.44 1.4 10.70 8%--7% Alkali wetland 93 --67 --------34.75 4.3 2.40 37%--4% Pond 16 16 --0.07 ----11.36 2.7 0.61 0.00 71%4%-- Reservoir (open water)e 12 6 --0.07 ------0 0.0 0.00 0%---- Slough/Channel 36 --72 --------3.1 0.0 0.00 9%--0% Subtotal aquatic 470 22 442 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 140.4 14.4 0.61 18.66 30%3%4% Stream (length in linear feet) Perennial 4,224 --2,112 --------12,919 889 0 306%--0% Intermittent 2,112 --2,112 --------137,957 25,242 4,328 6532%--205% Ephemeralf 26,400 --26,400 --------68,702 878 4,103 260%--16% Classification pendingf --------------89,220 16,445 0 2,951 ------ Subtotal stream length 32,736 0.0 30,624 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 308,798 43,454 0 11,382 943%--37% Irrigated agriculture Cropland 400 ------------541.4 ----135%---- Pasture --------------71.3 ---------- Orchard --------------4.7 ---------- Vineyard -------------------------- Subtotal irrigated agricultural 400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 617.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 ------ Notes a All land cover requirements assume the Maximum Urban Development Area scenario. The requirements for restoration and creation are dependent upon amount of impact. The requirements provided are based on the conservative estimates of wetland impacts provided in the Plan. b The HCP/NCCP allows for out-of-kind restoration and creation for certain land cover types. Information in these column do not reflect any out-of-kind mitigation, and will be noted if such compensation has occurred. See Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP for additional details. c These acres refer to land within the Preserve System that receive no credit toward HCP/NCCP conservation goals due to prior conservation of those areas (i.e. pre-existing conservation easements). d Perennial wetlands are equivalent to permanent wetlands. e Reservoir (open water) is equivalent to aquatic. f Many of the streams identified as “classification pending” will ultimately be classified as ephemeral. 28 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 9. Cumulative Summary of Progress toward Preservation Requirements of Wetlands and Waters Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Requirement Total Requirementa Reporting Period Area Acquiredb Cumulative Area Acquired Percentage of Requirement Met by Acquisition Preserve-wide Riparian woodland/scrub (acres)70 0.00 72.41 103% Preserve-wide Perennial wetland (acres)75 0.00 5.38 7% Preserve-wide Seasonal wetland (acres)168 0.10 13.44 8% Preserve-wide Alkali wetland (acres)93 0.00 34.75 37% Preserve-wide Pond (acres)16 0.07 11.36 71% Preserve-wide Reservoir (open water) (acres)12 0.00 0 0% Preserve-wide Slough/Channel (acres)36 0.00 3.1 9% Preserve-wide stream length (feet)32,736 0.00 308,798 943% Stream length by type Perennial (feet)4,224 0.00 12,919 306% Intermittent (feet)2,112 0.00 137,957 6,532% Ephemeral c (feet)26,400 0.00 68,702 260% Classification Pending b (feet)—0.00 89,220 — Notes a Requirements are dependent on the amount of impacts. The requirements provided are based on the conservative estimates of wetland impacts provided in the Plan. b Reporting period may not reflect preserve acquisitions for that year, since field-verification of wetlands/waters on properties are conducted after acquiring properties, sometimes the following year. c Many of the streams identified as “classification pending” will ultimately be classified as ephemeral. 29 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 10. Summary of Covered Plant Preservation to Date Common Name Scientific Name Number of Occurrences Protected Required Reporting Period Cumulative % Complete Mount Diablo manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata 2 0 0 0% Brittlescale Atriplex depressa 2 (4) a 0 3 150% San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquiniana 0 0 10 — Big tarplant Blepharizonia plumosa 3 0 b 13 433% Mount Diablo fairy lantern Calochortus pulchellus 1 0 6 600% Recurved larkspur Delphinium recurvatum 2 0 0 0% Round-leaved filaree Erodium macrophyllum 2 0 5 250% Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea 2 0 13 650% Brewer’s dwarf flax Hesperolinon breweri 3 0 6 200% Showy madia Madia radiata 0 0 0 — Adobe navarretia c Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. nigelliformis 1 0 0 0% Shining navarretia c Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians 0 0 (7)— Total 18 (20)0 49 Notes a With the initial urban development area, at least two occurrences of brittlescale will be preserved. As soon as permitted urban development exceeds this, four occurrences of brittlescale must be preserved. b One population of approximately 3,605 individuals was recorded at the Civic Rancho Meadows property in 2022, representing an extension of a previously known population from the Roddy Ranch property. c The species Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. nigelliformis is no longer believed to occur within Contra Costa County based on specimen annotations at the University and Jepson Herbaria at the University of California Berkeley, as well as the opinions of experts in the genus. This taxon is now recognized as Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians. Pending further policy clarification, the Conservancy is continuing to track occurrences of shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians). 30 30 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Habitat Restoration and Creation This section summarizes habitat restoration and creation projects and activities undertaken during the reporting period and documents cumulative restoration and creation by watershed. Habitat restoration and creation is a critical component of the Plan’s conservation strategy. Restoration and creation of specific habitats and land cover types are required in addition to protection of land within the Preserve System. Figure 6 shows a map of restoration projects. Table 11 shows restoration and creation of aquatic land cover types in the Plan by watershed. Restoration has occurred in three of the five watersheds in the Permit Area; Table 12 summarizes restoration acreages. 31 31 Habitat Restoration and Creation East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Upper Hess Creek Watershed Restoration Project The reporting period was Monitoring Year 11 for the Upper Hess Creek Watershed Restoration Project. While hydrologic monitoring was scheduled to be completed each month from November through June, monitoring only took place in December due to the lack of rain for the remainder of the season. On this visit, a small area of the Main Stock Pond and portions of four of the Alluvial Valley Basins were inundated, but all other features were dry. Vegetation monitoring in May showed vegetation mirroring the dry conditions, with only one volunteer willow (Salix spp.) and a few patches of spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya) representing wetland plants and the remainder of the plant community being either facultative or facultative upland species. In April, Upper Hess was visited to check on the status of the willow poles that were planted the prior fall. At the visit, 18 willow poles were found alive and leafed out. Additionally, the presence of three nesting pairs of tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) was confirmed in the cattails in the Main Stock Pond as well as many more of the birds foraging in the adjacent grassland vegetation. In June 2022, a fire started along Kirker Pass Road and tore through the Alluvial Valley and the Lower Channel as well as the surrounding hillsides. This fire burned the wetland vegetation in the Alluvial Valley as well as the planted willow trees along the Lower Channel. The ground was charred until January of the following year (2023) when the winter rains washed the ash away. In mid-2022, a fire occurred in the Upper Hess area within the Alluvial Valley, leaving charred ground through early 2023. After 2 consecutive years of fire impacts, the Conservancy replanted willows in the downstream area of the project site. (Image: © Google Earth Pro 2023) 32 32 Habitat Restoration and Creation East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Vaquero Farms Seasonal Wetlands (Pool 3) The 2021–2022 season was year 7 of hydrologic monitoring for the Vaquero Farms Seasonal Wetland 3. Rainfall data from a nearby station showed 9.03 inches of precipitation, which was more than double compared to the previous year (3.92 inches) and approximately 120% compared to normal rainfall for the area. Despite this, Seasonal Wetland 3 was not inundated with water. With only trace amounts of rain falling after December, no further site visits were conducted for hydrological monitoring. During vegetation monitoring in April, Seasonal Wetland 3 was found to support upland vegetation. This was expected given the lack of standing water earlier in the season. In May, invasive perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) plants in Seasonal Wetland 3 were treated by digging up and spraying the cut tubers. Ang Riparian Restoration Project In late September 2017, Save Mount Diablo initiated a new riparian planting project downstream of the 2010 Irish Canyon restoration project. The objective of this project, taking place on the 462 acre Ang property, is similar to that of the Irish Canyon Riparian Restoration Project: improve approximately 1.56 acres of riparian woodland habitat for wildlife by filling in gaps in existing vegetation along the banks of Irish Canyon Creek. The restoration plan called for a mix of valley oak (Quercus lobata), buckeye (Aesculus californica), and red willow (Salix laevigata) planted across five riparian planting areas (RPAs). The plantings of valley oak and buckeye were completed by the end of 2018, and plantings of red willow were completed by the end of the first quarter of 2019. Red willow survival has been the least successful over the 3 monitoring years (2020– This restoration project will help meet the HCP/NCCP goal for improving riparian woodland habitat to support covered wildlife species such as California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. 33 33 Habitat Restoration and Creation East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 2022) with zero survival recorded in 2022, while valley oak and buckeye have been more successful with at least 50% survival averaged over the five RPAs. Horse Valley Creek and Wetland Restoration Project The Horse Valley Wetland Creation and Creek Restoration Project is a coordinated effort between the Conservancy and EBRPD and was constructed in the summer and fall of 2018. The project is located on the Roddy Ranch property south of the city of Antioch and was selected to restore the site’s historic function by removing artificial alterations that have impacted site hydrology and habitat quality. This involves creek restoration with net channel gain and creation of new wetland habitats. Monitoring began in 2018 following the completion of construction activities and will extend for a 5-year period or until performance standards have been met. The performance standards include criteria for wetland creation, wetland covered species habitats, and restored ephemeral creek criteria. Year 4 monitoring showed that 19 of the 37 created seasonal wetlands met all the applicable performance standards, and none of the 20 Channel Assessment Reaches met all applicable performance standards. This low level of performance was due primarily to below-average rainfall during Year 4. This restoration project will provide breeding habitat for California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander as well as suitable habitat for vernal pool invertebrates. It also contributes to stay-ahead and the following conservation measures: 2.1 Enhance, Restore, and Create Land Cover Types and Species Habitat and 2.3 Restore Wetlands and Create Ponds. 34 34 Habitat Restoration and Creation East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Inoculation of the constructed seasonal wetlands with vernal pool branchiopod cysts had not yet taken place as of the end of Year 4, so no monitoring related to these species occurred. Vegetation sampling was performed on April 14 and 28, 2022, during peak spring bloom. All 37 of the created seasonal wetlands met the invasive weed performance standard, and 22 met the wetland species dominance performance standard. The vegetation data corresponded very closely to the hydrology data, with the wetlands that dried up by February 2022 not being dominated by wetland vegetation, while the wetlands that remained ponded into February were dominated by wetland vegetation. Roddy Ranch Golf Course, Invasive Weed Control The Roddy Ranch golf course was in operation through August 2016 and has been closed to the public since it was acquired by the Conservancy in 2018. It is surrounded by the 1,861-acre Roddy Ranch Preserve and is located immediately north of Deer Valley, which has very few invasive weed threats and is southeast of the Conservancy’s Horse Valley Creek and Wetland Restoration project, which was constructed on the Roddy Ranch Preserve in 2018. When the golf course ceased to be managed, weeds rapidly moved in and dominated the area. Invasive weed mapping conducted in spring 2018 showed 160 acres of the 230-acre property being infested with 14 different non-native noxious weeds. The Conservancy has been managing the weeds onsite for the immediate habitat benefits, but also to prevent the weeds from moving in all directions into the rest of the Preserve System. Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus subsp. pycnocephalus) now occurs in scattered patches of low density—typical of grassland in the region. Jubata grass (Cortaderia jubata) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) have been eradicated from the site. Stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens) and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus subsp. flavescens) are still present but in much smaller numbers. In 2022, invasive weeds were spot-sprayed with herbicide in March and May, the stand of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) that was spreading via seedlings was removed in September, and stinkwort was hand-pulled throughout the site in September and October. In September 2022, a stand of tree of heaven was removed. 35 35 Habitat Restoration and Creation East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report In the area on the west side of the property previously seeded with native seed mix, dense non-native grass was present in January 2022, which suggests that non-native grass will move in and colonize gaps left by invasive weed control. In 2021, Great Valley gumweed (Grindelia camporum) was seeded in the same area on a slope with dense non-native annual grass cover but did not establish onsite. It did, however, establish successfully immediately to the north, in a level valley bottom in areas with moister soils. This suggests that Great Valley gumweed, collected from nearby Horse Valley, prefers gentle slopes and moister soils and will do well in level areas at the bottom of the slopes. Hess Creek Channel Restoration Project The 5.22-acre Hess Creek Channel Restoration Project is located on the north edge of the Diablo Range in the northwest region of the HCP/NCCP Plan Area. This restoration project includes a series of components along the main stem of Hess Creek where a 930-foot portion of the creek was re-routed, stabilized, and enhanced. In addition, 0.30 acre of seasonal wetlands, 0.08 acre of other waters, and 2.57 acres of riparian woodland were restored. Detailed monitoring was not required for the reporting year, however in the previous year (year 7 of monitoring) the project was meeting performance criteria, with the exception of re- established wetland acreage. Upcoming Restoration Projects The Conservancy currently has one restoration project in planning, the Knightsen Wetland Restoration Project, with the objective to create and restore wetlands as well as other habitat and improve Delta water quality. The Roddy Ranch Golf Course Habitat Restoration and Public Access Plan is the most recent project to be approved by the Conservancy, EBRPD, USFWS, and CDFW. This property will support grassland habitat objectives and is a part of a larger planned 3,700-acre Deer Valley Regional Preserve. 36 36 Habitat Restoration and Creation East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Figure 6. Location of Restoration and Creation Projects A total of 11 restoration projects have been undertaken in the Preserve System.39 40 ·|}þ16 0 Danville Alamo Blackhawk SanRamon BethelIsland Clayton WalnutCreek Concord DiscoveryBay Byron Knightsen BayPoint Brentwood Oakley Antioch Pittsburg ·|}þ4 456J4 ·|}þ4 ·|}þ4 ·|}þ4 7 27 12 26 1 16 8 14 11 3 2 6 5 9 4 28 17 21 25 23 18 29 19 15 20 10 13 22 24 30 31 32 33 34 36 35 37 38 41 43 42 Lentzner Springs Wetland Restoration Project Irish Canyon Riparian Restoration Project Upper HessWatershedRestorationProject Hess CreekChannelResto-rationProject Ang Riparian Restoration Project Horse Valley Creek and Wetland Restoration Project Souza 2 Wetland Restoration Project Vasco Caves Souza 1 Pond Creation Project Souza 2 Corral Wetland Restoration Project Vaquero Farms South Wetlands Restoration Project Roddy Ranch Golf Course Restoration Project Knightsen Wetland Restoration Project East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Preserve System Other Parks and Open Space HCP/NCCP Preserve System ¯ 0 2 4 Miles 1 Souza 1 2 Lentzner 3 Chaparral Springs 4 Schwartz 5 Souza 2 6 Fox Ridge 7 Vaquero Farms South 8 Vaquero Farms North 9 Grandmas Quarter 10 Martin 11 Ang 12 Souza 3 13 Irish Canyon 14 Barron 15 Land Waste Mgmt 16 Thomas Southern 17 Thomas Central 18 Fan 19 Moss Rock 20 Galvin 21 Affinito 22 Vaquero Farms Central 23 Austin - Thomas North 24 Alaimo 25 Adrienne Galvin 26 Smith (Dainty Ranch) 27 Roddy Ranch 28 Viera-Perley 29 Clayton Radio 30 Nunn 31 Hanson Hills 32 Coelho 33 Campos 34 Viera North Peak 35 Roddy Home Ranch 36 Casey 37 Roddy Ranch Golf Course 38 Poppi/Halstead 39 Olesen/Duke 40 Bloching 41 Nortonville Strip 42 Civic Rancho Meadows 43 Pugh HCP/NCCPPreserve System Restoration Projects In Planning Phase 37 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 11. Aquatic Land Cover and Stream Restoration and Creation by Watershed Basin/Watershed Aquatic Land Cover (acres)Stream (linear feet) Riparian woodland/ scrub Perennial wetlands a Seasonal wetlands Alkali wetlands Ponds Reservoir (open water)b Slough/ channel Aquatic Land Cover Total Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Classification Pending Stream Total Brushy Creek N Stem Sub Basin Restoration —0.16 8.10 ————8.26 —2,075 508 —2,582 Creation ————0.30 ——0.30 ————0.00 Subtotal —0.16 8.10 —0.30 ——8.56 —2,075 508 0.00 2,582 Frisk Creek Sub Basin Restoration ——0.33 ————0.33 ————0 Creation ————————————0 Subtotal ——0.33 ————0.33 —0 0 0 0 Kirker Creek Restoration 3.08 —0.23 2.40 ———5.71 ——1,7560 —1,760 Creation ————0.12 ——0.12 ————0.00 Subtotal 3.08 —0.23 2.40 0.12 ——5.83 —0 1,760 0.00 1,760 Sand Creek Sub Basin Restoration ——2.00 0.05 ———2.05 ——684 4,103 4,787 Creation ————0.19 ——0.19 ————0 Subtotal ——2.00 0.05 0.19 ——2.24 —0 684 4,103 4,787 Upper Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration 2.31 ——————2.31 —2,254 ——2,254 Creation ————————————0 Subtotal 2.31 ——————2.31 —2,254 0 0 2,254 Total for Inventory Area 5.39 0.16 10.66 2.45 0.61 ——19.27 —4,328 2,951 4,103 11,382 Notes a Perennial wetlands include wetlands of indeterminate hydrology. In Appendix J, perennial wetlands are classified as wetlands. b The term aquatic used in Appendix J refers to reservoirs and open water. Reservoir (open water) is used to in place of aquatic in this table to remain consistent with the other tables in this report. 38 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 12. Restoration Acreage Summary Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement Design Target (acres unless otherwise noted) Restoration Project Name Year Constructed Met Success Criteria Permanent Wetland Created Permanent Wetland Restored Seasonal Wetland Created Seasonal Wetland Restored Seasonal Alkali Wetland Created Seasonal Alkali Wetland Restored Pond Restored Riparian Restored Stream Channel Restored (feet) Stream Channel Created (feet) Enhanced Lentzner Spring Restoration Project 2008 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Vasco Caves Souza I Pond Creation Project 2008 2015 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Souza II Wetland Restoration Project 2009 2015 0.00 0.54 0.17 0.00 1.17 0.64 0.00 0.00 2,782 0.00 N/A Irish Canyon Riparian Restoration Project 2009–2010 2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 688.50 0.00 N/A Upper Hess Watershed Restoration Project 2011 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 226 0.00 N/A Souza II Corral Seasonal Wetland Restoration Project 2012 2017 0.00 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 Vaquero Farms Seasonal Wetlands Creation (Pools 1 and 2)2012 2018 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Hess Creek Channel Restoration Project 2015 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13 1,364.00 730 N/A Vaquero Farms Seasonal Wetland Creation (Pool 3)2015 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Ang Riparian Restoration Project 2016 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.00 0.00 N/A Horse Valley Creek and Wetland Restoration Project 2018 N/A 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 4,150.00 0.00 N/A Total 0.00 0.54 4.58 2.47 1.25 0.87 0.23 5.60 9,210.50 730.00 1.12 39 39 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Preserve System Management During the reporting period, the Preserve System grew to encompass approximately 12,000 acres of conservation land. The Preserve System requires a wide array of land management actions that are geographically, topographically, and ecologically unique to each unit of land. A variety of management actions took place on all preserve properties throughout the year including the following: • Natural resource maintenance projects • Invasive plant and wildlife management • Grazing management • Fence installation and maintenance • Gate installation and maintenance This section summarizes management actions that took place during the reporting period and highlights notable accomplishments. 40 40 Preserve System Management East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report • Trash removal • Vegetation management • Safety and security patrol • Native seed collection • Outdoor fieldwork to support the above-listed tasks • Contractor management to support the above-listed tasks • Ranch road maintenance • Grazing infrastructure maintenance (tanks, troughs, wells, paddocks) • Response to fire and flood conditions to protect community and habitat • Hazard abatement (fallen trees, landslides) Highlights from the aforementioned tasks include the following: • The Conservancy implemented a channel repair at the Hess Creek Restoration Project in October 2022. A head cut gully had been observed developing in the channel over the last several years of monitoring. This was repaired using a staked log jam. • Smooth distaff thistle (Carthamus criticus) was removed in May 2022 at the Civic Rancho Meadows in Deer Valley, a property acquired in 2021. The property was surveyed and patches identified, and the thistle was then hand pulled, bagged, and disposed of. This is the first time that this invasive non-native plant has been identified on the Preserve System. The Preserve System requires land management actions that are geographically, topographically, and ecologically unique to each unit of land. 41 41 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report The purpose of the monitoring, research, and adaptive management program is to inform and improve conservation actions in the Preserve System and to ensure that the Plan achieves its biological goals and objectives. The scope of the monitoring and adaptive management program is limited to habitat restoration and creation and the assembly, management, and monitoring of the Preserve System. The purpose of directed research is to inform management in cases where species and natural community response to management is uncertain. Each year the Conservancy seeks project proposals across all scientific disciplines that advance the Plan’s conservation strategy, monitoring and adaptive management program, and/or inform successful compliance with the biological goals and objectives of the HCP/NCCP. In 2022, three studies were completed: a covered plant species survey on the Preserve System, a camera station survey for San Joaquin kit fox, and an investigation of an extensive pine and manzanita die-off in the inventory area, which are detailed in the following sections. Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management This section summarizes monitoring, research, and adaptive management projects undertaken during the reporting period. 42 42 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Science and Research Grant Program The conservation strategy under the HCP/NCCP is designed to achieve the biological goals and objectives established for the natural communities and the covered species that each community supports. Under the Conservancy’s Science and Research Grant Program, the Conservancy funds research that endeavors to illuminate, and where possible to resolve, uncertainties associated with adaptive management of natural communities and covered species. Research selected for funding aids in achieving the biological goals and objectives of the Plan and inform management actions and/or contribute to the general understanding of a covered species. San Joaquin Kit Fox Camera Station Survey Report This study was intended to address the Plan goal to preserve “the most important movement routes and core habitat for San Joaquin kit fox.” The study was conducted in two areas within the Preserve System that have the most suitable habitat for the target species, the Vasco Hills/Byron Vernal Pools management area and the Deer Valley management area. A total of eight camera stations were set up, producing more than 70,000 photos of animals during the spring, summer, and fall survey dates. San Joaquin kit fox was not caught on camera; however, coyotes were detected frequently which are a known predator of kit foxes. There are no verified sightings of San Joaquin kit fox within the Plan area in the last 20 years. In total, 31 species were detected of which one is a covered target species (burrowing owl [Athene cunicularia]) and two are special status species (American badger [Taxidea taxus] and loggerhead shrike [Lanius ludovicianus]). American kestrel caught on camera. 43 43 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Target Plant Surveys In 2022, surveys were conducted on the Civic Rancho Meadows and Pugh properties during the months of March, April, May, and September, and a total of one population of covered plant species, big tarplant, was recorded at the Civic Rancho Meadows property. This population is a part of a previously recorded population and will therefore not increase the population size of a known covered plant species population within the preserves. To date, 79% of the species-specific biological goals for covered plant populations have been met. Mt. Diablo Manzanita and Knobcone Pine Dieback Study Extensive dieback and mortality of manzanitas (Arctostaphylos auriculata and A. manzanita) and knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata) were noted in the southwest portion of Mt. Diablo State Park starting in fall 2020. Although dieback was related to severe plant water stress associated with historic drought conditions, this study suggests that the cause of dieback differed for the pines and manzanitas. Mortality of pines appears to be driven primarily by an outbreak of the California fivespined ips (Ips paraconfusus), a bark beetle that infests stressed pines and recently cut pine slash. The bark beetle outbreak likely could have been minimized by better management of slash under the severe drought conditions that existed. For manzanitas, it appears that extreme August–September 2020 heat events in combination with high plant water stress induced scorching of the foliage. However, regrowth occurred in many plants and only a small percentage of the scorched manzanitas appeared to be dead or nearly dead in 2022. One population of big tarplant was recorded at the Civic Rancho Meadows property. 44 44 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Stay-Ahead Provision The Stay-Ahead Provision of the HCP/NCCP requires that the amount of each land cover type conserved, restored, or created by the Conservancy as a proportion of the total requirement for each land cover type must be roughly proportional to the impact on that land cover type as a proportion of the total impact expected by all covered activities. For example, if 25% of the expected impacts on grasslands have occurred, then at least 25% of the required land acquisition for grasslands must also have occurred. To provide flexibility during implementation, the Conservancy may fall behind by a maximum of 5% of its conservation strategy requirements and still be in compliance with the Stay-Ahead Provision. This deviation accounts for the likely pattern of infrequent acquisition of large parcels that will allow the Conservancy to jump far ahead of impacts with just one transaction. This section evaluates compliance with the Plan’s Stay-Ahead Provision for land cover types, covered plants, vernal pool shrimp, and giant garter snake. 45 45 Stay-Ahead Provision East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report The Conservancy is in compliance with Stay-Ahead requirements. The Plan’s Stay-Ahead Provision requires that conservation is ahead of or proportional to impacts for land cover types, plants, vernal pool shrimp, and giant garter snake. This is achieved by acquiring land for the Preserve System in advance of impacts. For vernal pool shrimp, restoration and creation of habitat in addition to preservation is an alternative, and purchase of an equivalent amount of preservation or restoration credit is an option for mitigation. Figure 7 displays the conservation achieved and impacts incurred for terrestrial land cover types; Figure 8 summarizes the same for aquatic land cover types and streams. The reporting period (Year 15) represents 50% of the permit term. If a constant rate of impacts is assumed, allowable impacts should be at about 50% of the impact cap. The following pages show Stay-Ahead compliance for land cover types (Table 13 and Figure 9), plants (Table 14), vernal pool shrimp (Table 15), and giant garter snake (Table 16). 46 46 Land Acquisition East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oak woodland Oak savanna Chaparral and scrub All grassland, irrigated agriculture, ruderal Conservation AchievedImpacts Incurred 51% (9,211.3 acres) 11% (1,291.4 acres) 57% (310.57 acres) 29% (0.6 acre) 80% (399.83 acres) 0% (0.1 acre) >100% (2,564.3 acres) 1% (0.7 acre) Terrestrial Land Cover Types % of Plan Target/Limit All terrestrial land cover types have achieved more than 50% of protection requirements. Impacts have been small in comparison to the impacts permitted. Figure 7. Comparison of Conservation Achieved to Impacts Incurred for Terrestrial Land Cover Types— Cumulative 47 47 Land Acquisition East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ephemeral stream Intermittent stream Perennial stream Slough/Channel Reservoir (open water) Pond Alkali wetland Seasonal wetland Perennial wetland Riparian woodland/scrub Conservation AchievedImpacts Incurred Aquatic Land Cover Types % of Plan Target/Limit Stream Classifications >100% (72.41 acres) 7.2% (5.38 acres) 3.5% (1.23 acres) 3.9% (0.47 acre) 3.4% (1.88 acres) <1% (0.08 acre) <1% (0.15 acre) <1% (0.01 acre) <1% (0.65 acre) 8% (13.44 acres) 37.4% (34.75 acres) 67.1% (10.73 acres) 8.6% (3.1 acres) 8.1% (171 linear feet) 30.1% (635 linear feet) 1.1% (298 linear feet) 5.3% (0.63 acre) >100% (12,919 linear feet) >100% (137,957 linear feet) >100% (157,922 linear feet) For every aquatic land cover type, conservation is far ahead of impacts incurred. Preservation of riparian woodland/scrub is over 100% of the Plan’s goal, and preservation of pond is about 75%. All impacts on aquatic land cover types are 4% or less than the allowable impacts. For all stream classifications conservation exceeds 100%. Figure 8. Comparison of Conservation Achieved to Impacts Incurred for Aquatic Land Cover Types and Streams—Cumulative Note: Reservoir (open water) is equivalent to “aquatic” and requires conservation ratio of 1:1 wetted acres (pond) and creation of ponds at a ratio of 0.5:1. The stay-ahead calculation is based on a combination of reservoir and pond conservation and creation combined. 48 48 Stay-Ahead Provision East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ephemeral stream4 Intermittent stream Perennial stream Slough/Channel Reservoir (open water) Pond Alkali wetland Seasonal wetland Perennial wetland Riparian woodland/scrub Oak woodland Oak savanna Chaparral and scrub All grassland, irrigated ag., ruderal 40% (7,281.8 acres) 28% (153.8 acres) 7% (5.3 acres) 5% (7.81 acres) 37% (34.3 acres) 67% (10.71 acres) 80% (399.7 acres) 9% (2.78 acres) 1% (0.16 acre) >100% (12,577 linear feet) >100% (2,560.7 acres) >100% (69.94 acres) >100% (137,322 linear feet) >100% (157,624 linear feet) Terrestrial Land Cover Types Aquatic Land Cover Types Streams % Ahead (Conservation% – Impact%) Figure 9. Stay-Ahead Compliance for Land Cover Types Conservation of all land cover types and stream classifications is ahead of impacts incurred with several land cover types exceeding the required protection for the permit term. Though the Stay-Ahead Provision only reflects land cover acreage requirements and does not reflect geographical requirements intended to ensure Preserve System connectivity, the Conservancy is aware of both the qualitative and quantitative goals of the Plan. 49 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 13. Stay-Ahead Assessment—Land Cover and Streams Land Cover Type Conservation Impact Acres/Feet Required to be Ahead Acres Ahead % Ahead c (Conservation % - Impacts %)Protection Required (acres)Protection to date (acres)% of Required Estimated Impacts (acres)Impacts to date (acres)% of Impacts Terrestrial All grassland, irrigated ag., ruderal 18,150 9,211.3 50.8%12,148.0 1,291.4 10.6%1,929.5 7,281.8 40% Chaparral and scrub 550 310.57 56.5%2.0 0.6 28.5%156.8 153.8 28% Oak savanna 500 399.83 80.0%165.0 0.1 0.0%0.2 399.7 80% Oak woodland 400 2,564.3 641.1%73.0 0.7 0.9%3.6 2,560.7 640% Subtotal terrestrial 19,600 11,775.6 60.1%12,388 1,292.7 10%2,090.0 10,396.0 50% Aquatic Riparian woodland/scrub 70 72.41 103.4%35.0 1.23 3.5%2.47 69.94 100% Perennial wetland a 75 5.38 7.2%75.0 0.08 0.1%0.08 5.30 7% Seasonal wetland 168 13.44 8.0%56.0 1.88 3.4%5.63 7.81 5% Alkali wetland 93 34.75 37.4%31.0 0.15 0.5%0.45 34.30 37% Pond 16 10.73 67.1%8.0 0.01 0.2%0.02 10.71 67% Reservoir (open water) b 12 0.63 5.3%12.0 0.47 3.9%0.47 0.16 1% Slough/Channel 36 3.1 8.6%72.0 0.65 0.9%0.32 2.78 9% Subtotal aquatic 470 140 29.8%289 4.47 2%9.44 131.00 28% Stream (length in linear feet) Perennial stream 4,224 12,919 305.9%2,112 171 8.1%342 12,577 298% Intermittent stream 2,112 137,957 6532.1%2,112 635 30.1%635 137,322 6502% Ephemeral stream d 26,400 157,922 598.2%26,400 298 1.1%298 157,624 597% Subtotal stream length 32,736 308,798 943.3%30,624 1,104 4%1,275 307,523 940% Totals Acres 30,300 11,927.4 39%12,677 1,297.2 10.2%2,099.6 10,538.2 29% Linear feet 32,736 308,798 943%30,624 1,104 3.6%1,275 307,523 940% Notes a Perennial wetlands are equivalent to permanent wetlands. b Reservoir (open water) is equivalent to “aquatic” and requires conservation ratio of 1:1 wetted acres (pond) and creation of ponds at a ratio of 0.5:1. The stay-ahead calculation is based on a combination of reservoir and pond conservation and creation combined. c The Plan allows a 5% deviation from Stay-Ahead requirements. For terrestrial land cover, the Plan provides that Stay-Ahead be measured against the following categories: chaparral, oak savanna, oak woodland and the sum of all grassland and irrigated agricultural land cover types. d Many of the streams identified as “classification pending” will ultimately be classified as ephemeral. As such, they are tracked as ephemeral streams for the purposes of the Stay-Ahead Provision. 50 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 14. Stay-Ahead Assessment—Plants Common Name Scientific Name Conservation Impacts Difference % Ahead Mount Diablo manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata 0 0 0 — Brittlescale Atriplex depressa 3 0 3 100% San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquiniana 10 1 a 9 90% Big tarplant Blepharizonia plumosa 13 0 13 100% Mount Diablo fairy lantern Calochortus pulchellus 6 0 6 100% Recurved larkspur Delphinium recurvatum 0 0 0 — Round-leaved filaree Erodium macrophyllum 5 — b 5 100% Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea 13 0 13 100% Brewer’s dwarf flax Hesperolinon breweri 6 0 6 100% Showy madia Madia radiata 0 0 0 — Adobe navarretia c Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. nigelliformis 0 0 0 — Shining navarretia c Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians (7)1 (7)— Total 49 1 48 Notes a Vasco Road Safety Phase 1 Project population was translocated to Souza II property in 2011, however the population did not survive. This table has been updated to account for the single impact to San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana). b Temporary impacts occurred to round-leaved filaree as part of the PG&E Contra Costa Las Positas Project. The soil was protected from disturbance, the site was returned to pre-project connections, seeds collected on site were propagated, and monitoring reports document that round-leaved filaree persists on site and is as abundant as before the project. c The species Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. nigelliformis is no longer considered to occur within Contra Costa County based on specimen annotations at the UC and Jepson Herbaria at the University of California Berkeley as well as the opinions of experts in the genus. This taxon is now recognized as Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians. Pending further policy clarification, the Conservancy is continuing to track occurrences of shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians). 51 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Table 15. Stay-Ahead Summary—Vernal Pool Shrimp Project Name/ Preserve Property Name Species Impacts to Date (acres) a Preserved Occupied to Date (acres) Restored/ Created Occupied to Date (acres) Impacts Deer Valley Road Safety Improvements Project, 2012 VPFS 0.060 Chevron KLM Site 1357 Maintenance Project, 2013 Covered shrimp 0.007 Restoration, Creation, and Preservation Campos VPFS 0.550 Casey VPFS and mid-valley fairy shrimp 0.313 Coelho VPFS 0.980 Souza I VPFS 0.001 Souza II VPFS 0.180 Souza II-Corral b VPFS 0.4002 Vaquero Farms South VPFS 0.052 Vaquero Farms South (Pool 1)VPFS 0.070 Vaquero Farms South (Pool 3)VPFS 0.150 Total 0.067 2.076 0.620 Abbreviation VPFS = vernal pool fairy shrimp Notes a The HCP/NCCP requires preservation and creation of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat be ahead of impacts at a preservation ratio of 2:1 acres occupied habitat and a restoration ratio of 1:1 acre of occupied habitat. The Conservancy is in compliance with the Stay-Ahead requirement. b The Souza II Corral wetland was inoculated in 2012 with soil from the Deer Valley Road Widening Project. VPFS have not been found during annual surveys. The Conservancy continued to survey for 10 years (through 2022) to determine if VPFS are present; VPFS have not be found in this pool. 52 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Notes The HCP/NCCP requires preservation of giant garter snake habitat be ahead of impacts at a preservation ratio of 1:1 for aquatic habitat and 3:1 for upland habitat. The Conservancy is in compliance with the stay-ahead requirement. a The Cypress Preserve project’s impacts to GGS habitat is mitigated through an applicant-led restoration project and therefore the impact acreages are not included in the “total” in this table. The Cypress Preserve project is being constructed in phases. Impacts in this table represent all impacts to GGS from the entire project. b The Conservancy is currently in the planning and design phase of a proposed restoration project on the Nunn property and the acres of preservation will change and will be adjusted in forthcoming annual reports. Table 16. Stay-Ahead Summary—Giant Garter Snake Project Name/Preserve Property Name Aquatic Habitat Impacts to Date (acres) Upland Habitat Impacts to Date (acres) Aquatic Habitat Preserved to Date (acres) Upland Habitat Preserved to Date (acres) Caltrans/Hwy 4 Median Buffer and Shoulder Widening Project, 2012 0.01 4.77 Emerson Ranch, 2013 5.47 Gilbert, 2016 0.577 18.34 Cypress Preserve, 2021 a 0.43 12.46 Nunn Property (Preserve System Acquisition) b 3.10 612.71 Total 0.59 28.58 3.10 612.71 53 53 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances USFWS’s “No Surprises” Regulation defines changed circumstances as those circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by an HCP that can be reasonably anticipated and to which the parties preparing the HCP can plan a response. Unforeseen circumstances cannot be reasonably anticipated and do not require a response to remain in compliance with permit conditions. The NCCP Act has a similar provision for NCCPs. No changed or unforeseen circumstances occurred during the reporting period. This chapter notes any changed or unforeseen circumstances that occurred during the reporting period. 54 54 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Finances Budget, Expenditures, and Funding To develop the 2022 budget, the Conservancy analyzed cost projections from the HCP/NCCP, previous years’ actual costs, and the anticipated work plan. The expenditures for the reporting period to implement the HCP/NCCP totaled $3,096,040 (Figure 10). The Conservancy’s expenditures include program administration, land acquisition, planning and design, environmental compliance, preserve management, monitoring, and habitat restoration. Overall, the Plan anticipated 57.5% of funding from fees and 42.5% from non-fee sources. To date, fee funding makes up 25% and non-fee funding 75% of revenue (Figure 11). This section includes the economic assumptions on which the Plan was based, summarizes all revenues received, and assesses the post-permit term funding strategy. 55 55 Finances East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Fee-based funding includes fees for development, wetland mitigation, temporary impacts, rural road fees, and contribution to recovery. Contributions to recovery include charges on certain covered activities, levied on Participating Special Entities to contribute funds over and above fee requirements to contribute to the recovery of species in the inventory area. These fees collectively pay for the full cost of mitigating covered activities’ effects on the covered species and natural communities addressed by the Plan. The HCP/NCCP allows for additional revenue to be received from non-covered activities. There may be a number of benefits to addressing the mitigation needs of non-covered projects through the structure of the HCP/NCCP, and USFWS and CDFW may wish to use the conservation strategy and implementing structure of the Plan to maximize the conservation benefits to covered species and natural communities. Project proponents may wish to utilize the mitigation approach of the Plan to facilitate their mitigation obligations under a variety of state and federal regulations. Mitigation funds collected from non-covered activities must augment the mitigation and conservation obligations of the Plan (i.e., they may not offset these requirements). Mitigation funding arrangements vary by project and are reviewed and approved by USFWS and CDFW before acceptance of these funds. No revenue from non-covered activities were collected in 2022. Only one such project—the Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing Lane (Area Outside HCP/ NCCP) (2018)—was not covered by the HCP/NCCP but fees were received by the Conservancy to facilitate their mitigation obligations. Non-fee-based funding includes funding from local, state, and federal sources. Grant funding from these sources assist with Plan implementation activities, including land acquisition, restoration and creation, and preserve management and monitoring. In addition, foundation grants (e.g., Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation) also fund these Plan implementation activities. 56 56 Finances East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report A requirement of the HCP/NCCP is to develop a long-term funding strategy to provide for the stewardship of the Preserve System in perpetuity. Post-permit term costs would be funded by a portion of mitigation fees and other revenue transferred to an endowment over time. The endowment would grow with reinvested earnings through the end of the permit term. No withdrawals would be made from the endowment to fund the HCP/NCCP during the permit term. At the end of the permit term, the endowment generates ongoing earnings sufficient to fully fund post-permit management and monitoring costs in perpetuity and adjusted for inflation. After the HCP/NCCP permit term ends, distributions from an endowment will be used for long- term management and monitoring of the Preserve System. The Conservancy established an endowment account (Endowment) with the Regional Parks Foundation in 2020. Since its establishment, deposits have been made to the Endowment, and its standing at the end of 2022 is at $6,706,268. 57 57 Finances East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Actuals (Reporting Period) TOTAL $3,096,040 Program Administration and Permitting Program $1,149,735 Land Acquisition $899,522 Planning and Design $399,149 Environmental Compliance $275,591 Preserve Management and Maintenance $150,334 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $121,391 Habitat Restoration and Creation $100,320 Contingency Fund $0 Remedial Measures $0 The expenditures for the reporting period to implement the HCP/NCCP totaled $3,096,040. Less budget was spent this year due to fewer land acquisitions than forecast. Figure 10. Summary of Expenditures 58 58 Finances East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Revenue (Reporting Period) Plan Assumptions Fee Funding 57.5% Non-Fee Funding 42.5% Actual Revenue (Cumulative) Fee Funding 25.5% Non-Fee Funding 74.5% TOTAL $2,656,252 TOTAL $99.4M Fee Funding $1,273,208 / 47.9% Non-Fee Funding $1,383,044 / 52.1% Development Fees $508,426 Wetland Mitigation Fees $82,328 Temporary Impact Fees $185,942 Contributions to Recovery $496,511 Maximum Urban Development Area assumptions were used. For the reporting period, the majority of fee funding came from development fees and contributions to recovery, while non-fee funding mainly came from grants. Figure 11. Summary of Revenue 59 59 Finances East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Mitigation Fee Act Annual Reporting The Annual Report also functions as the Conservancy’s annual reporting on mitigation fees collected pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (“Mitigation Fee Act”), which requires local agencies to provide an accounting of fees charged for development projects. The requirement set forth under Government Code Section 66006(b)(1) provides that each local agency is required on an annual basis, within 180 days after fiscal year end (June 30), for each separate account, to make available to the public the following information. 1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund, and the amount of the fee (Table 17): a) Development Fee. The purpose of the Development Fee is to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat and species covered by the HCP/NCCP. The Development Fee revenues will be used to fund the acquisition of land that does or could provide habitat for covered species, the management and enhancement of that land and habitat, and the administrative actions necessary to accomplish these tasks, as more particularly set forth in the HCP/NCCP. The Development Fee imposed on a development project is determined based on the Development Fee Zone in which the project is located. b) Wetland Mitigation Fee. The purpose of the Wetland Mitigation Fee is to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters, riparian woodland/scrub, or stream buffers. The Wetland Mitigation Fee revenues will be used to fund the restoration, creation and management of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, and the administrative actions necessary to perform these tasks, as more particularly set forth in the HCP/NCCP. 2. The amount of fees collected and interest earned, and the beginning and ending balance of the account or fund (Table 18). 60 60 Finances East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report 3. An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditure on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with the fees. Development Fees were expended on a variety of land acquisition, preserve management and monitoring, and habitat conservation plan implementation activities in 2022. Wetland Mitigation Fees collected in 2022 were expended fully on the planning and design activities for the Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project. The total cost of the planning phase for this project totals $1,658,000, with 6.02% funded by Wetland Mitigation Fees and interest in 2022. 4. An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the Board determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, and the public improvement remains incomplete. Construction of the Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project is scheduled for construction in 2024/2025. 5. A description of each interfund transfer or loan from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. No interfund transfers or loans have been made. 6. The amount of refunds made pursuant to Government Code section 66001(e) and any allocations pursuant to Government Code section 66001(f). No refunds were made. 61 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Fee Type With Fee Audit Without Fee Audit Development Fees (per acre, unless otherwise stated) Zone 1 $18,937.95 $19,679.42 Zone II $37,875.90 $39,358.84 Zone III $9,468.98 $9,840.54 Wetland Mitigation Fees Riparian woodland/scrub $105,515.99 $89,571.31 Perennial Wetland $159,911.71 $122,571.26 Seasonal Wetland $374,220.31 $265,571.06 Alkali wetland $378,310.21 $251,428.23 Pond $205,923.71 $133,571.25 Aquatic (open water)$102,962.44 $67,571.34 Slough/ Channel $147,029.10 $152,428.36 Streams 25 feet wide or less—fee per linear foot $542.59 $730.25 Streams greater than 25 feet wide—fee per linear foot $814.47 $1,100.00 Table 17. 2022 Fee Schedule Table 18. 2022 Mitigation Fees Beginning Balance Revenue Interest Earned Expended Ending Balance Development Fee $4,070,054 $555,600 $52,562 $1,638,691 $3,039,525 Wetland Mitigation Fee $0 $82,328 $17,455 $99,783 $0 Note The Permittees were on two different fee schedules. The Conservancy, County, Clayton, and Oakley adopted the 2017 Fee Audit and Nexus Study (Fee Audit) in 2021, and Pittsburg and Brentwood in March and April, 2022, respectively. Temporary impact fees are based on the amounts shown adjusted for duration of impact as set forth in Chapter 9 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP. 62 62 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report Program Administration There were no modifications or amendments made to the Plan during the reporting period. Implementation tasks that occurred during the reporting period are described below. Coordinated Wetland Permitting The Conservancy has continued to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to align permitting for impacts on federally regulated waters with the HCP/NCCP permitting. The Corps issued a Regional General Permit (RGP) 1 in 2012, with the most recent renewal on December 1, 2022. The permit will expire 3 years after the reissuance date. The Conservancy submitted a proposal to the Corps to implement an In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Program. This will comply with the federal Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (Mitigation Rule; 33 [Code This section summarizes any administrative changes, minor modifications, and amendments proposed or approved during the reporting year. 63 63 Program Administration East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 2022 Annual Report of Federal Regulations] CFR Part 332). The proposed ILF Program will be implemented in conjunction with the RGP and HCP/NCCP and will sanction payment of HCP/NCCP fees as eligible mitigation under the RGP. The most recent draft of the ILF documents was submitted to the Corps in May 2022, and the Conservancy entered into a Water Resources Development Act Memorandum of Agreement with the Corps to expedite review and development of the ILF Program and processing of permits under RGP 1. Mitigation Fee Audit and Update The HCP/NCCP requires automatic annual adjustments to mitigation fees based on economic indices as well as periodic audits in years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20, and 25 of Plan implementation. These periodic audits assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs over time require additional fee adjustment. The reporting period was year 15 of the permit term and in accordance with the Plan requirements, work on the mitigation fee audit and update was initiated. Public Outreach/Engagement In 2022, Save Mount Diablo continued to work with volunteers to maintain the Ang property riparian plantings. A volunteer Watering Crew performed tri-weekly summer watering and in July volunteers removed tubes from dead trees and relocated them to other seedlings. In 2022, seven volunteers contributed a total of 85 hours to work on this property. Roddy Ranch Save Mount Diablo Volunteer Water Crew Vaquero Farms Seasonal Wetland Restoration This report was prepared by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy with technical assistance from ICF. • • • • • • • • • TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:08/14/2023   Subject:ACCEPT the Infrastructure Report and DIRECT staff of the Public Works Director to submit the report to the Board of Supervisors. Submitted For: Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: 1   Referral Name: Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.  Presenter: Craig Standafer Contact: Craig Standafer, (925) 313-2018 Referral History: This is a new item that did not come directly from a County Supervisor. County staff have suggested reporting quantities of infrastructure items that have been constructed by capital, maintenance, and developer projects throughout the course of the year. The report lists those quantities that were constructed in calendar years 2020 through 2022, and a report is planned to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for each calendar year in the future. The report only considers new items of infrastructure and is not a complete inventory in the unincorporated County. A complete inventory of infrastructure items may be undertaken in the future. Referral Update: This is the first time this item has been presented to the TWIC. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT the Infrastructure Report for Calendar Years 2020 through 2022 dated August 2023, and DIRECT staff of the Public Works Director to submit the report to the Board of Supervisors. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments Infrastructure Report “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 Brian M. Balbas, Director Deputy Directors Stephen Kowalewski, Chief Allison Knapp Warren Lai Carrie Ricci Joe Yee 2020 TO 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT August 2023 2020 TO 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT 2 OF 5 I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF REPORT This asset inventory report provides the data to view the progress in the construction of transportation infrastructure in the County road right-of-way. In the process of constructing the infrastructure, the County met many of its goals for improving safety, reliability, efficiency, multi- modal access, equity, and sustainability. County-maintained bicycle and pedestrian improvements, pavement preservation, traffic signals, and green stormwater infrastructure are among the items inventoried within this report. Within this report various items of infrastructure were inventoried. The various items were constructed and added to the inventory as a result of capital transportation projects administered by the Public Works Department (PWD), developer improvements, and miscellaneous projects within the County right-of-way from calendar years 2020 through 2022. Future reports are expected to be produced in March of each year for infrastructure that was constructed the previous calendar year. II. PROJECTS Transportation infrastructure improvements are constructed by the PWD’s contractors and labor forces and by land developer projects. Table 1 at the end of this report lists all of the capital transportation, maintenance, developer, and miscellaneous projects that were done during the 2020 through 2022 time period. Each project listed shows its purpose and need, description, and goals achieved in the columns. The capital transportation projects are typically listed in the biennially adopted Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP) Report. Types of projects include but are not limited to pavement widenings, sidewalk improvements, bicycle improvements, traffic signal installations, and pavement preservation projects. These projects were funded by various sources, such as local, state, and federal funds. Maintenance projects include surface treatments that are performed using County labor and equipment. They also include base failure repairs and pothole filling. Note that some pavement preservation projects are performed by a contractor to the PWD, and these fall under capital transportation projects. Developer projects are typically constructed as a result of Conditions of Approval (COAs) that were written to support projects such as subdivisions, land use permits, or development permits, and are constructed by the developers’ contractors. These projects are either on-site or off-site improvements depending on the COA, and these projects are only considered for this list if they constructed facilities in the road right-of-way, as opposed to private facilities. Projects are usually directly funded by developers, but a portion of the projects may be funded by local funds collected from developer fees, such as Areas of Benefit (AOB). 2020 TO 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT 3 OF 5 Finally, some miscellaneous projects were constructed during the course of the year as a direct result of community input or other programs. These are usually for the purpose of traffic calming, which may include speed humps or crosswalk enhancements. Miscellaneous projects are usually funded by local funds such as gas tax and Measure J sales tax. The projects are funded in a variety of ways including local, state, and federal funds. The funding plan usually includes gas tax, developer mitigation fees, and grants. The PWD determines what infrastructure is needed and scopes projects based on public input and data that gets collected. The PWD will then put together a funding plan and apply for the grants throughout the course of each year. There are many types of projects like bridge replacements and retrofits, storm damage repair projects, pavement preservation projects, complete streets projects, road widenings, etc. For more information on project funding, see the CRIPP report located on PWD’s website at www.contracosta.ca.gov/cripp. III. GOALS Every project or activity that is performed within the County’s road right-of-way are chosen to meet one or a combination of six goals that came from the mission, vision, values statements for the Transportation Engineering Division and the PWD: • Safety: The project improves a road or an intersection such that it either tends to cause people to drive more slowly, provides a separation between motorists and bicyclists and pedestrians, or warns motorists if they may be departing their lane. These projects that promote safety are chosen because they support the County’s Vision Zero plan as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 1, 2022. (General Plan Goal 5-A) • Reliability: The project or activity restores a road or other piece of infrastructure to a better condition. One of the most common reasons for a reliability project is to return a road’s pavement condition index (PCI) to a higher condition. The PCI is a measure of how much work must be done to return the road to an as-new condition. As a road degrades, surface treatment activities like slurry or chip seals will increase the PCI. If a road degrades too far before such treatment is performed, the road will further degrade and may require a much more expensive treatment, which could include removing the old pavement and replacing it with new pavement. The PCI is a metric that the PWD uses to gauge how much funding should be allocated to reliability projects. As roads age, they get exponentially more expensive to repair. The PWD has typically performed less expensive but more frequent surface treatments that extend the life of the pavement. However, there have been budgetary issues that cause PWD to defer the maintenance to later years. The trouble with that is that the pavement begins to quickly deteriorate to the point where more base failure and pothole repairs are needed. Ultimately, the entire pavement section may need to be replaced in a capital project, which would take funds from other projects that serve other goals. (General Plan Goal 5-38) 2020 TO 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT 4 OF 5 • Efficiency: The project typically adds capacity of efficiency for motor vehicles travelling County roads. These include adding additional travel lanes or turning lanes. They also include signal timing adjustments that require analysis of how each intersection operates. The idea is that more motor vehicles can use the road more efficiently. As local, state, and federal policies toward complete streets have been implemented, the County has performed fewer efficiency projects, with more focus on achieving other goals. Efficiency projects are designed to improve the level of service (LOS) of roadway corridors and intersections. With the State of California’s new emphasis on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) with the passage of SB 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which is a metric of how many new cars are put on the roads as a result of new development, LOS analysis for the automobile is no longer evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act. Efficiency projects are often in opposition to the other goals mentioned below. (General Plan Goal 5-E) • Multi-Modal Road Access: The project includes improving bicycle, pedestrian, and transit uses within the right-of-way. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is built where feasible in accordance with the County’s complete streets policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 2016. Also, infrastructure that promotes connectivity of all roadway users, especially pedestrian, bicycle, and transit have been scoped based on the Active Transportation Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 26, 2022. (General Plan Goal 5-A) • Equity: Every area is unique and provides different levels of challenge. Some communities are considered “impacted” if their median income falls below a certain level, and there has been a push in recent years to apply more resources to these areas. Another form of equity is the Americans with Disabilities Act and the requirements to make the road right-of-way accessible to all users, regardless of disability. Today, most grant opportunities that exist rate equity as a high criteria for project selection. This means that given all things equal as far as improving safety and multi-modal access, projects within impacted communities are usually selected to boost this demographic. (General Plan Goal 5-C and 5-K) • Sustainability: Today there is more focus on the longevity of projects than previously considered. This is especially true in the face of climate change and the problems it has caused. Sustainability projects may consider sea level rise or greenhouse gas emissions as criteria that they are attempting to correct for. (Will be a goal in the new General Plan.) IV. INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT The projects listed in Table 1 constructed various types of public infrastructure. The facilities that were constructed are listed in Table 2. The quantity of each type of public infrastructure facility constructed (e.g. linear feet (LF) of Class II Bike lane and number ("Each” or “EA”) of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant ramps) within a given year is summarized in each column. The right-most column cross-references the projects listed in Table 1 to the Public Infrastructure Items listed in Table 2. 2020 TO 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT 5 OF 5 The Public Infrastructure items are sorted into several headings, such as bicycle improvements and pedestrian enhancements. The list includes the following: • Bicycle improvements and pedestrian enhancements, which support the County’s complete streets and County’s Active Transportation Plan programs. • Pavement preservation, such as surface treatments that are planned annually to cycle through all roads within the County over time, and repairs such as base failure repairs and pothole fillings. • Bridges and guardrails. • Traffic signal improvements. • Other traffic safety improvements and miscellaneous items. • Green stormwater infrastructure, as is required to be built by section C.3 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), that was constructed both by capital projects and by development projects. JV:CS:sr G:\transeng\Asset Inventory\2020-2022\Report\Infrastructure Report Aug2023 Final.docx Table 1 Projects No. Year Built Project Name Purpose and Need Description Goals Achieved Bridge Projects B22-1 2022 Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement To replace a structurally, geometrically, and hydraulically deficient bridge and improve multi-modal connectivity. Replaced bridge to be higher and wider than the old one and to have a pedestrian path and bicycle lanes. Reliability, Sustainabilty, Multi- Modal Capital Projects C20-1 2020 2019 Full Trash Capture To meet State Water Board requirements to reduce trash flowing to streams and creeks. Installed trash capture devices at various inlets throughout the County.Sustainability C20-2 2020 2020 Surface Treatment To preserve the existing pavement for another period of time in lieu of a full depth replacement or overlay. Performed various surface treatments at various locations throughout the County. Reliability, Sustainability C20-3 2020 Countywide Guardrail To replace deficient guardrails throughout the County and to upgrade them to the latest standards. Replaced or upgraded sections of guardrails throughout the County.Safety C20-4 2020 Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure To improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation in downtown Rodeo. Constructed sidewalk improvements and improved multi-modal infrastructure. Safety, Multi-modal C20-5 2020 San Pablo Dam Road Traffic Safety To improve safety by installing a mitgation to reduce incidents where motorists cross into the opposing traffic lane. Constructed rumble strips on the centerline and some plastic delineators. Safety C20-6 2020 Walnut Creek Crosswalk Improvements To improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area. Constructed two crosswalk improvements at Olympic Blvd and at Iron Horse Trail including addition of rapidly repeating flashing beacons (RRFBs). Safety, Multi-modal B = Bridge Project, C = Capital Project, D = Developer, M = Maintenance Project, T = Traffic Improvement Table 1 Projects No. Year Built Project Name Purpose and Need Description Goals Achieved C21-1 2021 2021 Countywide Curb Ramps To install ADA-compliant curb ramps at various intersections throughout the County, often in advance of a road preservation project. Constructed new ADA-compliant curb ramps at various locations in the County. Multi-modal, Equity C21-2 2021 2021 Countywide Surface Treatment To preserve the existing pavement for another period of time in lieu of a full depth replacement or overlay. Performed various surface treatments such as double chip seals and cape seals at locations throughout the County. Reliability, Sustainability C21-3 2021 Alhambra Valley Road Realignment To realign a curve on Alhambra Valley Road to reopen two through lanes of traffic in the location of a bank failure of Alhambra Creek Realigned the road and repair the embankment from a storm damage bank failure. Safety, Reliability C21-4 2021 Bailey Road / SR4 Pedestrian and Bike Improvements To improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation at the interchange zone under the State Route 4 overpass of Bailey Road in Bay Point. Constructed pedestrian and bike safety enhancements at the SR4 freeway ramps including traffic signal modifications and removal of the underutilized pedestrian tunnel. Safety, Multi-modal C21-5 2021 Bel Air Trail Crossing To improve pedestrian circulation and to improve safety for pedestrians on various streets along the Bel Air Trail in Bay Point. Constructed crossing improvement of Delta de Anza Trail including a rapidly repeating flashing beacon (RRFB). Safety, Multi-modal C21-6 2021 Fred Jackson First Mile Last Mile Connection To improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation on Fred Jackson Street in North Richmond. Constructed new pedestrian and bicycle facilities including wider sidewalk, ADA-compliant curb ramps and a new wearing surface for the road. Safety, Multi- modal, Equity C21-7 2021 Happy Valley Embankment Repair To repair the embankment adjacent to Happy Valley Road. Repaired the embankment with a new retaining wall and install new guardrail. Reliability B = Bridge Project, C = Capital Project, D = Developer, M = Maintenance Project, T = Traffic Improvement Table 1 Projects No. Year Built Project Name Purpose and Need Description Goals Achieved C21-8 2021 Kirker Pass Road Safety Improvements To improve safety along Kirker Pass Road between Concord and Pittsburg. Constructed roadway safety improvements including new guardrail and roadside delineators. Safety C21-9 2021 Pinehurst Road Sinkhole Culvert Repair To repair a deficient culvert that became a sinkhole on Pinehurst Road. Repaired deficient culvert and road surface. Reliability, Sustainability C21-10 2021 Rodeo Pedestrian Enhancements To improve pedestrian circulation and to impove safety at two pedestrian crossings in Rodeo. Constructed new ADA-compliant curb ramps, improved pedestrian crossings, enhanced bicycle facilities, and landscaping. Safety, Multi-modal C21-11 2021 Oak Road Bikeway To improve bicycle circulation and safety on Oak Road. Constructed Class II and Class III bike lanes.Multi-modal, Safety C22-1 2022 2022 Countywide Curb Ramp To install ADA-compliant curb ramps at various intersections throughout the County, often in advance of a road preservation project. Constructed new ADA-compliant curb ramps at various locations in the County. Multi-modal, Equity C22-2 2022 2022 Surface Treatment To preserve the existing pavement for another period of time in lieu of a full depth replacement or overlay. Performed various surface treatments such as double chip seals and cape seals at locations throughout the County. Reliability, Sustainability C22-3 2022 Alves Lane Trail Crossing To improve pedestrian circulation and safety on the Delta de Anza Trail in Bay Point. Constructed bicycle and pedestrian safety enhancements at a trail crossing. Safety, Multi-modal C22-4 2022 Byron Highway at Byer Road Safety Improvements To improve safety on Byron Highway at the intersection with Byer Road. Widened pavement and constructed roadway safety improvements.Safety C22-5 2022 Crockett Area Guardrail Upgrades To replace deficient guardrails throughout the Crockett area and to upgrade them to the latest standards. Replaced and upgraded guardrails in the Crockett area.Safety B = Bridge Project, C = Capital Project, D = Developer, M = Maintenance Project, T = Traffic Improvement Table 1 Projects No. Year Built Project Name Purpose and Need Description Goals Achieved C22-6 2022 Mayhew Way and Cherry Lane Trail Crossing To improve pedestrian and bicycle safety on the Contra Costa Canal Trail and the Iron Horse Trail. Constructed bike/pedestrian safety enhancements.Safety, Multi-modal C22-7 2022 Tara Hills Trash Capture Installation To meet State Water Board requirements to reduce trash flowing to streams and creeks. Installed large-scale underground trash capture devices.Sustainability Development Projects D20-1 2020 SD15-09314, Alamo Creek Phase 4 To meet condition of approval for the project. Constructed sidewalk along Drysdale Street, Kerry Hill Street, Damara Ct, Corriedale Ct, Gritstone St. Safety, Multi- modal, Equity D21-1 2021 SD14-09389, Laurel Place II To meet condition of approval for the project. Constructed sidewalk improvements along Bailey Road. Safety, Multi- modal, Equity D21-2 2021 SD15-09423, 2200 Central Street To meet condition of approval for the project. Constructed sidewalk improvements along Pittsburg Avenue and Central Street. Safety, Multi- modal, Equity D22-1 2022 DP14-3041, 500 Pittsburg Ave To meet condition of approval for the project. Constructed sidewalk improvements along Pittsburg Avenue. Safety, Multi- modal, Equity Maintenance Projects M20-1 2020 2020 Chip Seal Project Fulfills periodic maintenance in order to prevent and slow pavement deterioration. Performed a chip seal on various roads throughout the County. Reliability, Sustainability M20-2 2020 2020 Base Failure Repairs Repairs road failures that have occurred that do not require repaving the full road. Performed base failure repairs by cutting out existing pavement, repairing the base and repaving throughout the County. Reliability B = Bridge Project, C = Capital Project, D = Developer, M = Maintenance Project, T = Traffic Improvement Table 1 Projects No. Year Built Project Name Purpose and Need Description Goals Achieved M20-3 2020 2020 Pothole Repair Repairs and fills potholes that develop, especially during the rainy season. Repaired and filled potholes throughout the County.Reliability M21-1 2021 2021 Chip Seal Project Fulfills periodic maintenance in order to prevent and slow pavement deterioration. Performed a chip seal on various roads throughout the County.Reliability M21-2 2021 2021 Base Failure Repairs Repairs road failures that have occurred that do not require repaving the full road. Performed base failure repairs by cutting out existing pavement, repairing the base and repaving throughout the County. Reliability M21-3 2021 2021 Pothole Repair Repairs and fills potholes that develop, especially during the rainy season. Repaired and filled potholes throughout the County.Reliability M22-1 2022 2022 Chip Seal Project Fulfills periodic maintenance in order to prevent and slow pavement deterioration. Performed a chip seal on various roads throughout the County. Reliability, Sustainability M22-2 2022 2022 Base Failure Repairs Repairs road failures that have occurred that do not require repaving the full road. Performed base failure repairs by cutting out existing pavement, repairing the base and repaving throughout the County. Reliability M22-3 2022 2022 Pothole Repair Repairs and fills potholes that develop, especially during the rainy season. Repaired and filled potholes throughout the County.Reliability B = Bridge Project, C = Capital Project, D = Developer, M = Maintenance Project, T = Traffic Improvement Table 1 Projects No. Year Built Project Name Purpose and Need Description Goals Achieved Traffic Improvements T21-1 2021 TR4503, Grove Avenue at 5th Street Improves intersection safety after study by the Traffic Engineer.Added stop signs to the intersection.Safety T22-1 2022 TR4518, Silver Avenue at Giarmita Street Improves intersection safety after study by the Traffic Engineer.Added stop signs to the intersection.Safety T22-2 2022 TR4517, Grove Avenue at Giarmita Street Improves intersection safety after study by the Traffic Engineer.Added stop signs to the intersection.Safety B = Bridge Project, C = Capital Project, D = Developer, M = Maintenance Project, T = Traffic Improvement Table 2 Asset Inventory ID Public Infrastructure Items UNITS 2020 2021 2022 Project Source (See Table 1)Goals Achieved 1 Bicycle Improvements 1A Class I bicycle paths LF ---Multi-Modal 1B Class II bicycle lanes (LF of individual lanes since some roads may be dual Class II/Class III) LF -7588 -C21-4, C21-6, C21-11 Multi-Modal 1C Class III bicycle routes (LF of individual lanes)LF -1350 -C21-11 Multi-Modal 1D Class IV bikeways LF ---Multi-Modal, Safety 1E Bicycle Parking EA ---Multi-Modal 1F Painted Conflict Zones (e.g. at right turn lanes or other conflict points)EA 6 --C20-4, C20-5 Multi-Modal, Safety 2A ADA-compliant ramps (New/Reconstructed curb ramps)EA 25 222 270 C20-4, C20-6, C21-1, C21-4, C21-5, C21-6, C21-10, C22-1, C22-3, C22-4, C22-6, D20-1, D21-2, D21-1 Multi-Modal, Equity 2B Midblock Crosswalks EA ---Multi-Modal, Safety 2C Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Intersections (e.i. no traffic signal, no stop signs) EA --1 C22-6 Multi-Modal Construction Year 2 Pedestrian Enhancements EA = Each Item; LF = Linear Feet; MI = Miles Sheet 7 of 11 Table 2 Asset Inventory ID Public Infrastructure Items UNITS 2020 2021 2022 Project Source (See Table 1)Goals Achieved Construction Year 2D Crosswalks at Signalized Intersection EA ---Multi-Modal 2E Crossings with Refuge islands EA -1 1 C21-4, C22-4 Multi-Modal, Safety 2F Speed Tables w/ crosswalks EA -1 1 C21-10, C22-3 Multi-Modal, Safety 2G Sidewalk Gaps (# of gaps filled)EA -1 -C21-5 Multi-Modal 2H Sidewalk ONLY LF 5,541 4,739 900 C20-4, C21-4, C21-5, C21-6, D20-1, D21-1, D21-2, D22-1 Multi-Modal 2I Miscellaneous Pathways (asphalt, concrete, porous concrete)LF ---Multi-Modal 2J Pedestrian-level lighting EA Area (not total number) ---Multi-Modal, Safety, Equity 2k Street Furniture EA Area (not total number) -1 -C21-6 Multi-Modal, Equity 2K Bulb-outs at crosswalks EA 1 12 4 C20-4, C21-4, C21-5, C21-6, C21-10, C22-3, C22-6 Multi-Modal, Safety 2L Street trees EA -39 -C21-6 Equity, Sustainability 2M Wayfinding or directional signage EA Area (not total number) 5 --C20-4 Multi-Modal, Equity 2N Street Lights EA 17 1 32 D20-1, D21-1, D22-1 Safety EA = Each Item; LF = Linear Feet; MI = Miles Sheet 8 of 11 Table 2 Asset Inventory ID Public Infrastructure Items UNITS 2020 2021 2022 Project Source (See Table 1)Goals Achieved Construction Year 3A Surface Treatment (Slurry seal, cape seal, chip seal, double chip seal, fog seal, etc.) centerline miles 57.66 109.13 47.598 C20-2, C21-2, C22-2, C22-4, M20-1, M21-1, M22-1 Reliability, Sustainability 3B HMA Replacement/Overlay LF -6,072 2,112 C21-2, C21-3, C21-7, C22-2 Reliability, Sustainability 3C Base Failures LF 7,346 90,674 72,260 M20-2, M21-2, M22-2 Reliability, Sustainability 3D Potholes Filled EA 1,134 1,245 2,150 M20-3, M21-3, M22-3 Reliability, Sustainability 4A Wearing Surface Pavement Rehabilitation EA ---Reliability, Sustainability 4B Retrofit/Major Repair EA ---Reliability, Sustainability 4C Bridge Replacements EA -1 -B22-1 Reliability, Multi-Modal, Equity, Sustainability 4D New Bridge EA ---Reliability, Multi-Modal, Equity, Sustainability 5A New Guardrails LF -86 -C21-7 Safety 5B Upgraded Guardrails LF 6,975 5,047 10,715 C20-3, C21-8, C22-5 Safety 3 Pavement Preservation 4 Bridges 5 Guardrail EA = Each Item; LF = Linear Feet; MI = Miles Sheet 9 of 11 Table 2 Asset Inventory ID Public Infrastructure Items UNITS 2020 2021 2022 Project Source (See Table 1)Goals Achieved Construction Year 6A Traffic Signal/Lighting System EA Inter- section -2 -C21-4, C21-8 Efficiency, Safety 6B Bicycle-actuated traffic signals EA Inter- section ---Multi-modal, efficiency, safety 6C Pedestrian countdown signals EA Inter- section ---Multi-modal, safety 6D Improve Signal Timing EA Inter- section --1 D22-1 Efficiency 6E Roundabout Intersection EA Inter- section ---Multi-modal, efficiency, safety 6F Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) - Pedestrian Actuated EA Crossing 2 3 4 C20-6, C21-5, C21-10, C22-3, C22-4, C22-6 Multi-modal, safety 6G Pedestrian Hyrbrid Beacon (PHB) Crossing EA Crossing ---Multi-modal, safety 7A Road diet (typically four lanes to two lanes with a center turn lane.)LF ---Safety, Multi-modal, Equity 7B Two Way Stop Controlled Intersection EA ---N/A 7C All Way Stop Controlled Intersection EA -1 2 T21-1, T22-1, T22-2 Safety, Efficiency 7D Speed Feedback Sign EA 1 -1 C20-5, C22-4 Safety 7E Flashers (school zone, curve ahead, etc.)EA 2 --C20-5 Safety 6 Traffic signals 7 Other Traffic Safety Improvements EA = Each Item; LF = Linear Feet; MI = Miles Sheet 10 of 11 Table 2 Asset Inventory ID Public Infrastructure Items UNITS 2020 2021 2022 Project Source (See Table 1)Goals Achieved Construction Year 7F Railroad Crossing Improvements EA ---Safety 7G Trail Crossings EA 1 2 3 C20-6, C21-5, C21-6, C22-3, C22-6 Multi-Modal, Safety 7H Protected Intersections EA ---Multi-Modal, Safety 7I Rumble Strips LF 24,300 --C20-5 Safety 8A Bio-Retention Basin EA 1 1 2 C20-4, C21-6, D22-1 Sustainability 8B Grass Swale LF ---Sustainability 8C Other (Infiltration column, dry well, etc.)EA ---Sustainability 9A Regional Trash Capture EA 4 -1 C20-1, C22-7 Sustainability 9B Slide Repair EA ---Reliability 8 Green Stormwater Infrastructure 9 Miscellaneous Improvements EA = Each Item; LF = Linear Feet; MI = Miles Sheet 11 of 11 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:08/14/2023   Subject:REVIEW legislative and planning matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1   Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.  Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: John Cunningham, (925) 655-2915 Referral History: The transportation, water, and infrastructure legislation and planning report is a standing Committee item. Referral Update: In developing transportation related 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. This report includes four sections, 1: Local, 2: Regional, 3: State, and 4: Federal. 1. LOCAL  Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) Integrated Transit Plan (ITP): CCTA is conducting the ITP in order to, "...improve transit services and coordination in Contra Costa County. CCTA is reviewing all existing services and will recommend new ways to improve transit for everyone, with special consideration for the different needs of riders across the county."  The ITP is being conducted at a critical time, initiatives intended to improve public transit and ensure fiscal solvency are underway at the State legislature and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Seamless Bay Area, a nonprofit advocating for improved public transit has had sucess influencing legislation and regional policy. Locally, the CCTA is developing a new Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) anticipated to be finalized in 2025. The CTP (see update below) is likely to expand on the theme from the 2017 CTP which indicated a need to pivot towards active transportation and public transit. Further on the horizon is the 2034 expiration of the current Measure J (2004) transportation sales tax. CCTA ITP Update: CCTA is still in the ITP initiation phase. The timeline and link to the project website is below. Updates will be brought to TWIC as the need arises.  https://ccta.net/planning/integrated-transit-plan/ Update: CCTA Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan CCTA continues to make progress in implementing the ATS Plan with the support of Measure X funding. An extension of the original Measure X funding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is going to the Board of Supervisors at their August 15 meeting. A second MOU is in development for the second year of Measure X funding.  CCTA has recently hired new staff for the Accessibility and Equity Programs Manager position approved by the CCTA Board in the spring. It is anticipated that this new position will speed the implementation of the ATS Plan and expedite the use of Measure X funds for programs benefiting older Contra Costa residents and those with disabilities.  Update: CCTA Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) CCTA is in the process of finalizing the CTP. The timeline is below and an Outreach Summary is attached to this report which breaks down feedback received by age, zip code, income, race/ethnicity and the Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) subregions.  2. REGIONAL Update: Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC): Plan Bay Area 2050+ Blueprint MTC is conducting a "limited and focused" update to "Plan Bay Area 2050". There is a survey out (link below) which has been promoted on the County's social media and the Contra Costa 2050+ "Pop-Up Workshop" will also be promoted.  MTC Survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MTC-ABAG Diablo Valley College — Pleasant Hill Campus Wednesday, September 6, 12 to 3 p.m. 321 Golf Club Road Pleasant Hill, CA 3. STATE The County's legislative advocate will be present at the August TWIC meeting to provide an update. Two items have been flagged for potential discussion at TWIC and are described below:  Senate Bill 532 (Wiener): San Francisco Bay area toll bridges: tolls: transit operating expenses. A report from Mark Watts on this bill is attached to this staff report. Below is a summary from the Assembly Transportation Committee Analysis:  Requires the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to increase by $1.50 the toll for each of the seven state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area and continuously appropriates toll revenues to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), including revenues from the toll increase for allocation to transit operators in the region that are experiencing a financial shortfall. Specifically, this bill: 1) Beginning January 1, 2024, and until December 31, 2028 requires MTC to increase the base toll rate by $1.50 for the seven state-owned toll bridges within its jurisdiction and requires the toll to be adjusted annually based on the California Consumer Price Index. 2) Continuously appropriates moneys from the toll increase and other specified tolls to MTC to expend for specified purposes. 3) Requires MTC to provide revenues from the toll increase to toll operators within MTC’s jurisdiction that are experiencing a financial shortfall and operate fixed-route public transit services, including bus, rail, or ferry and do not directly receive most of their revenues from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District. 4) Requires MTC to annually distribute at least 90% of the revenues from the toll increase to these operators in order to avoid service cuts and maintain operations, including safety, security, reliability, or cleanliness services and improvements. 5) Provides that MTC may only allocate these funds to a transit operator after it determines that the funds are necessary to avoid service cuts relative to service levels provided by that transit operator during the 2022-23 fiscal year. 6) Requires MTC to prioritize averting service cuts for transit operators that serve the highest number of transit riders. 7) Requires MTC to annually distribute no more than 10% of the revenues from the toll increase to assist eligible transit riders with restoring or reconfiguring service above levels provided during the 2022-23 fiscal year, or for the purpose of funding initiatives to transform transit service pursuant to the MTC’s adopted Transit Transformation Action Plan, or to make specific safety, reliability, or cleanliness improvements. 8) Requires each transit operator eligible to receive an allocation to annually submit a five-year projection of its operating needs based on standardized assumptions and guidance developed by MTC. 9) Allows MTC to audit, request revision, or directly amend operating needs projections if necessary to ensure consistency and fairness across transit operators. 10) Prohibits the $1.50 toll increase from being reduced without statutory authorization by the Legislature. 11) Authorizes BATA to issue revenue bonds to finance transit operations and capital funded by the $1.50 toll increase. 12) Decreases the maximum amount of penalties that can be included in a schedule of toll evasion penalties for a toll evasion violation on a San Francisco Bay area state-owned toll bridge to instead be $5 for the notice of toll evasion violation and $10 for the notice of delinquent toll evasion violation beginning July 1, 2024. 13) States legislative intent to enact future legislation to require MTC to study, design, and implement an equity-based program to mitigate the impacts of the $1.50 toll increase within two years of the effective date of this act. 14) Creates a state-local mandate and requires a 2/3 vote. AB 1464 (Connolly): Toll Bridges: Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Summary from the 5/10/2023 Assembly Transportation Analysis:  This bill requires the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to consider the following, if they decide to develop a project to open a third lane on the westbound level of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to motor traffic: 1) Restore the third westbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to motor vehicle traffic during the weekday morning commute. 2) Add a moveable “zipper” barrier to the eastbound level of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge similar to the barrier on the westbound level so that a continuously operated bicycle and pedestrian lane and the San Francisco Bay Trail can be maintained. 3) Operate the moveable zipper barriers on both levels of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in such a manner so as to allow the most efficient flow of traffic in either direction while preserving an open bicycle and pedestrian lane and the San Francisco Bay Trail. 4. FEDERAL No report in August.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative and Planning Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments MWatts-TWIC-SB532summary(Aug2023) TWIC Legislation Tracking Report Bill Text-AB 1464 (Connolly) Toll Bridges Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Bill Text-SB-532 San Francisco Bay area toll bridges tolls transit operating expenses CALCOG_Budget_TIRCP_ZETCP_Summary CCTA ITP Presentation-CC County Transit Landscape CCTA-CTP-Outreach_Summary   July 31, 2023  MEMORANDUM  TO:  TransportaƟon, Water, and Infrastructure CommiƩee  c/o John Cunningham   FROM:  MARK WATTS  SUBJECT: SB 532 (WIENER) – BATA TOLL INCREASE for TRANSIT OPERATIONS  SB 532 was introduced as an amendment on June 22, 2023, to an exisƟng measure in the wake of the  legislaƟve response to the Bay Region’s and state’s fiscal condiƟon of the transit agencies as reflected in  the adopted 2023‐24 state budget.   Status: The bill is in Assembly AppropriaƟons commiƩee, pending a hearing date to be set in August.   Background. The hallmark of the approved current year budget for transit agencies was the restoraƟon of  $2 billion ($1 billion each year) for 2023‐24 and 2024‐25 that had originally been included within the  budget agreement reached in the summer of 2020. However, the Governor later proposed that $2 billion  of the $4 billion be withdrawn in his January 2023 budget proposal.   In addiƟon, along with the restoraƟon of the $2 billion (GF), the current year budget includes an  addiƟonal $1.1 billion for short term, immediate transit agency assistance.   Although a  grand total of $5.1 billion was made available for transit agencies in the state budget process,  Bay Region Transit enƟƟes in collaboraƟon with MTC, proclaimed that ridership recovery was experienced  unevenly across the state due to a variety of factors. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) aƩested that their  system had been hit parƟcularly hard by the shiŌ to remote work, and ridership is only about 35% of what  it was before the pandemic, according to APTA. Similarly, Caltrain, had returned to only 25% of its former  ridership, also according APTA reports. The bay area advocacy enƟƟes pointed out that in contrast, Los  Angeles’s buses and trains, and the AC Transit bus service based in Oakland have been doing much beƩer  in 2023, carrying closer to 75% of their pre‐pandemic ridership.    SB 532 – Summary  Toll Increase. Requires the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to increase by $1.50 the toll for each of the  seven state‐owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area and conƟnuously appropriates toll revenues  to the Metropolitan TransportaƟon Commission (MTC), including revenues from the toll increase for  allocaƟon to transit operators in the region that are experiencing a financial shorƞall.  Revenue distribuƟon. Requires MTC to provide revenues from the toll increase to toll operators within  MTC’s jurisdicƟon that are experiencing a financial shorƞall and operate fixed‐route public transit services,  including bus, rail, or ferry and do not directly receive most of their revenues from the Golden Gate  Bridge, Highway, and TransportaƟon District.  AllocaƟons. Provides that MTC may only allocate these funds to a transit operator aŌer it determines that  the funds are necessary to avoid service cuts relaƟve to service levels provided by that transit operator  during the 2022‐23 fiscal year.  Avoidance of service cuts. Requires MTC to prioriƟze averƟng service cuts for transit operators that serve  the highest number of transit riders  OperaƟng needs. Requires each transit operator eligible to receive an allocaƟon to annually submit a five‐ year projecƟon of its operaƟng needs based on standardized assumpƟons and guidance developed by  MTC.  Toll increase “Locked In”. Prohibits the $1.50 toll increase from being reduced without statutory  authorizaƟon by the Legislature.  Revenue Bonds. Authorizes BATA to issue revenue bonds to finance transit operaƟons and capital funded  by the $1.50 toll increase.  Discussion  The short term funding the state approved is considered by some as unlikely to cover the operaƟng  shorƞalls of all transit operators based on budget forecasts provided by some of the larger operators in  the state. As a result, transit agencies facing a shorƞall not covered by the state relief will need to consider  other ways to cover their shorƞall.  Revenues. According to the author’s office, the toll increase proposed in this bill is expected to yield  roughly $180 million annually over the 5‐year period.  Principal Support:  Bart states that their system faces a deficit of almost $1.1 billion through Fiscal Year 2027‐28, and  addiƟonal funding will be necessary to avoid drasƟc service cuts, staƟon closures, and layoffs. SB 532  offers Bay Area transit agencies experiencing the worst shorƞalls a lifeline unƟl a Bay Area regional  transportaƟon funding measure can be placed on the ballot in 2026 or 2028. With increased toll revenues  planned through Fiscal Year 2028‐29, regional stakeholders are afforded Ɵme to assemble a funding  measure that will help operators achieve financial sustainability long‐ term and transform the regional  transit network.  Principal OpposiƟon:   The Bay Area council has stated that Bay Area residents’ ability to pay for improvements is not limitless,  and they deserve a more cost‐effecƟve, efficient, seamless, and in some cases safer transit system. They  add,  Before we can support new taxes, tolls or fees to support transit, we need to see the agencies do  the hard work to make their systems safer, most cost effecƟve and more seamless”. This is work  that needs to be done now, at a very fast pace. While we acknowledge this work by the agencies  will be painful and complex, we have been excepƟonally frustrated with the stubbornness to  change and adapt.  Latest Related AcƟvity:  The author’s office is conducƟng a series of stakeholder work groups sessions. The first one last week  centered around the revenue distribuƟon aspects of he bill as proposed.     AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 23, 2023 california legislature—2023–24 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1464 Introduced by Assembly Member Connolly February 17, 2023 An act to add Section 30910.8 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation. legislative counsel’s digest AB 1464, as amended, Connolly. Toll Bridges: Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Existing law establishes state-owned toll bridges within the geographic jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, in the San Francisco Bay area, including the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Under existing law, the Bay Area Toll Authority is responsible for the administration of the toll revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to collect tolls, operate, maintain, and provide rehabilitation of the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area and to be responsible for the design and construction of improvements on those bridges in accordance with programming and scheduling requirements adopted by the Bay Area Toll Authority. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to improve traffic flow on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. require the department and the authority, if they develop a project to open the 3rd lane on the westbound level of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to motor vehicle traffic, to consider operating the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in a specified manner. 98 Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no yes.​ State-mandated local program: no.​ The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following: line 3 (a)  The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge opened on September 1, line 4 1956. At the time of construction, the bridge was one of the longest line 5 bridges in the world and was constructed at a cost of $62,000,000. line 6 (b)  The initial construction, with the help of additional funding line 7 provided by the state (Chapter 159 of the Statutes of 1955), line 8 provided for the construction of six 12-foot-wide lanes. The six line 9 lanes were initially composed of three lanes in both the eastbound line 10 and westbound directions. line 11 (c)  In 1977, the then little-used third lane on the Richmond-San line 12 Rafael Bridge was closed to allow for a pipeline to transport line 13 8,000,000 gallons of water a day from the East Bay Municipal line 14 Utility District to drought-stricken Marin County. In 1978, the line 15 pipeline was removed and the third lane was restriped as an line 16 emergency shoulder. line 17 (d)  In 1989, following the Loma Prieta earthquake and the line 18 closure of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge from October line 19 17 to November 18, inclusive, the third lane on the Richmond-San line 20 Rafael Bridge was opened in both the eastbound and westbound line 21 directions to help ease traffic flow across the bay, and was closed line 22 after the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge reopened. line 23 (e)  In 2016, the Bay Area Toll Authority and the Metropolitan line 24 Transportation Commission (MTC) declared that the Marin County line 25 side of the bridge had “unacceptable levels of service,” not only line 26 on the freeway, but also on the local Marin streets in the Cities of line 27 Larkspur and San Rafael. As a result, they authorized a line 28 $74,000,000 project to reopen the third lane of the lower deck. line 29 Completed two years later, the Department of Transportation and line 30 MTC reported that the new lane “has eliminated afternoon line 31 congestion on eastbound I-580 onto the bridge saving drivers line 32 approximately 15 minutes daily on their seven mile trip from Marin line 33 to Contra Costa County. This equates to annual savings of 700,000 line 34 vehicle-hours of delay on weekdays and another 91,000 vehicle 98 — 2 — AB 1464 line 1 hours on weekends.” The project was put up for awards, and won line 2 “Project of the Year” in California. line 3 (f)  Unaddressed traffic on the East Bay approach of the line 4 Richmond-San Rafael Bridge has steadily worsened, even during line 5 the pandemic. Each workday, during the morning commute, line 6 approximately 18,000 Bay Area residents cross the Richmond-San line 7 Rafael Bridge. The vast majority of those commuters, 63 percent, line 8 are people of color. Sixty-nine percent of them do not have a line 9 college degree, and the majority of commuters, 60 percent, make line 10 less than the median income in the San Francisco Bay area. line 11 Virtually all of these drivers have no other reasonable means to line 12 get to work. line 13 (g)  As these 18,000 drivers approach the Richmond-San Rafael line 14 Bridge in the County of Contra Costa, they hit a very significant line 15 and growing traffic issue. During the peak hour, on average, they line 16 face an added 16 minutes of gridlocked, stop-and-go traffic. This line 17 traffic jam on the freeway also backs up local streets and roads line 18 in the City of Richmond, impacting many local families residing line 19 in traditionally disadvantaged communities. line 20 (h)  According to air monitors in the City of Richmond, this line 21 morning freeway backup is now the largest source of nonwildfire line 22 air pollution in the City of Richmond. This pollution is largely line 23 concentrated in disadvantaged communities. line 24 (i)  In the interest of social justice, environmental justice, line 25 improving traffic flow, maximizing existing resources, reducing line 26 greenhouse gases, and reducing the environmental impacts line 27 resulting from traffic backup on the westbound Richmond-San line 28 Rafael Bridge approach, the Department of Transportation and line 29 the Bay Area Toll Authority should consider reopening the third line 30 westbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to motor line 31 vehicle traffic in a manner that considers expanding multimodal line 32 transportation, preserving pathways for bicyclists, and reducing line 33 localized greenhouse gas emissions. line 34 SEC. 2. Section 30910.8 is added to the Streets and Highways line 35 Code, to read: line 36 30910.8. If the authority and the department develop a project line 37 to open the third lane on the westbound level of the Richmond-San line 38 Rafael Bridge to motor vehicle traffic, the authority and the line 39 department shall consider doing all of the following as part of the line 40 project: 98 AB 1464 — 3 — line 1 (a)  Restoring the third westbound lane on the Richmond-San line 2 Rafael Bridge to motor vehicle traffic during the weekday morning line 3 commute. line 4 (b)  Adding a movable “zipper” barrier to the eastbound level line 5 of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge similar to the barrier on the line 6 westbound level so that a continuously operating bicycle and line 7 pedestrian lane and the San Francisco Bay Trail can be line 8 maintained. line 9 (c)  Operating the moveable “zipper” barriers on both levels of line 10 the Richmond-San Rafael bridge in such a manner so as to allow line 11 the most efficient flow of traffic in either direction while preserving line 12 an open bicycle and pedestrian lane and the San Francisco Bay line 13 Trail. line 14 SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact line 15 subsequent legislation to improve traffic flow on the Richmond-San line 16 Rafael Bridge. O 98 — 4 — AB 1464 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 29, 2023 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 22, 2023 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 18, 2023 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2023 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 13, 2023 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 30, 2023 SENATE BILL No. 532 Introduced by Senator Wiener (Principal coauthors: Senators Becker and Cortese) (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Haney, Lee, Ting, and Wicks) February 14, 2023 An act to amend Sections 30911, 30916, and 30920 of, and to add Section 30914.8 to, the Streets and Highways Code, and to amend Section 40258 of Vehicle Code, relating to transportation, and making an appropriation therefor. legislative counsel’s digest SB 532, as amended, Wiener. San Francisco Bay area toll bridges: toll increase: tolls: transit operating expenses. Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as a regional agency in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) as a separate entity governed by the same governing board as MTC and makes BATA responsible for the administration of toll 93 revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to collect tolls on these state-owned toll bridges. Existing law requires those toll revenues to be deposited in the Bay Area Toll Account and requires BATA to control and maintain that account, as specified. This bill would, until December 31, 2028, require BATA to increase the toll rate for vehicles for crossing the state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area by $1.50, as adjusted for inflation. The bill would require the revenues collected from this toll to be deposited in the Bay Area Toll Account, would continuously appropriate moneys from this toll increase and other specified tolls, and would require moneys from this toll to be transferred to MTC for allocation to transit operators that provide service within the San Francisco Bay area and that are experiencing a financial shortfall, as specified. The bill would direct MTC to require each transit operator eligible to receive an allocation from the account to, on an annual basis, submit a 5-year projection of its operating needs, as specified. To the extent this bill would mandate that MTC or a transit operator provide a new program or higher level of service, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, beginning July 1, 2024, prohibits a schedule of toll evasion penalties for a toll evasion violation on a toll bridge from exceeding $25 for the notice of toll evasion violation and $50 for the notice of delinquent toll evasion violation, as specified. This bill, beginning July 1, 2024, would decrease the maximum amount of penalties that can be included in a schedule of toll evasion penalties for a toll evasion violation on a San Francisco Bay area state-owned toll bridge to instead be $5 for the notice of toll evasion violation and $10 for the notice of delinquent toll evasion violation, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.​ State-mandated local program: yes.​ 93 — 2 — SB 532 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 2 Safe, Clean, and Reliable Bay Area Public Transportation line 3 Emergency Act. line 4 SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact future line 5 legislation to require the Metropolitan Transportation Commission line 6 to study, design, and implement an equity-based program to line 7 mitigate the impacts of the $1.50 toll increase required by this act line 8 within two years of the effective date of this act. It is the intent of line 9 the Legislature that the commission would establish the line 10 equity-based program in a manner that is operationally feasible, line 11 financially practicable, and effective, and that the commission line 12 would consider including discounts, toll caps, and toll exemptions line 13 as part of the program. line 14 SEC. 2. line 15 SEC. 3. Section 30911 of the Streets and Highways Code is line 16 amended to read: line 17 30911. (a)  The authority shall control and maintain the Bay line 18 Area Toll Account and other subaccounts it deems necessary and line 19 appropriate to document toll revenue and operating expenditures line 20 in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. line 21 (b)  (1)  After providing for expenditures pursuant to subdivision line 22 (a) of Section 30912 and for operating assistance pursuant to line 23 subdivision (d) of Section 30914 and subdivision (c) of Section line 24 30914.7 and after the requirements of any bond resolution or line 25 indenture of the authority for any outstanding revenue bonds have line 26 been met, the authority shall transfer on a regularly scheduled basis line 27 as set forth in the authority’s annual budget resolution, the revenues line 28 defined in subdivision (b) of Section 30913 and Sections 30914, line 29 30914.7, and 30914.8 to the commission. The funds transferred line 30 are continuously appropriated to the commission to expend for the line 31 purposes specified in subdivision (b) of Section 30913 and Sections line 32 30914, 30914.7, and 30914.8. After the commission makes a line 33 determination that the projects and programs funded by the line 34 commission have been completed, the revenues transferred to the line 35 commission shall be expended by the commission for supplemental line 36 funding for the projects and programs identified in subdivision (a) line 37 of Section 30914.7 if the voters approve a toll increase authorized line 38 pursuant to Section 30923. 93 SB 532 — 3 — line 1 (2)  For purposes of paragraph (1), the revenues defined in line 2 subdivision (b) of Section 30913 and subdivision (a) of Section line 3 30914 include all revenues accruing since January 1, 1989. line 4 SEC. 3. line 5 SEC. 4. Section 30914.8 is added to the Streets and Highways line 6 Code, to read: line 7 30914.8. (a)  The Metropolitan Transportation Commission line 8 shall, from proceeds of the toll imposed pursuant to subdivision line 9 (f) of Section 30916 and transferred pursuant to Section 30911, line 10 provide funding to transit operators that provide service within the line 11 commission’s geographic jurisdiction and that are experiencing a line 12 financial shortfall. A transit operator shall only be eligible to line 13 receive an allocation pursuant to this section if it operates line 14 fixed-route public transit services services, including by bus, rail, line 15 or ferry, within the commission’s geographic jurisdiction and does line 16 not directly receive the majority of its revenues from the Golden line 17 Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District. line 18 (b)  The commission shall annually distribute at least 90 percent line 19 of the revenues described in subdivision (a) to eligible transit line 20 operators in order to avoid service cuts and maintain operations, line 21 including safety, security, reliability, or cleanliness services and line 22 improvements. The commission may only allocate funds pursuant line 23 to this subdivision to a transit operator after it makes a line 24 determination that the funds are necessary to avoid service cuts line 25 relative to service levels provided by that transit operator during line 26 2022–23 fiscal year. In providing allocations pursuant to this line 27 subdivision, the commission shall prioritize averting service cuts line 28 for transit operators that serve the highest number of transit riders. line 29 The commission shall also take into consideration the extent of line 30 local funding to support transit service and may also consider line 31 operator fares and other sources of revenue. line 32 (c)  The commission shall annually distribute no more than 10 line 33 percent of the revenues described in subdivision (a) to assist line 34 eligible transit operators with restoring or reconfiguring service line 35 above levels provided during the 2022–23 fiscal year or for the line 36 purpose of funding initiatives to transform transit service pursuant line 37 to the commission’s adopted Transit Transformation Action Plan, line 38 or to make specific safety, security, reliability, or cleanliness line 39 improvements. 93 — 4 — SB 532 line 1 (d)  The commission shall require each transit operator eligible line 2 to receive an allocation pursuant to this section to, on an annual line 3 basis, submit a five-year projection of its operating needs. This line 4 projection of operating needs shall be based on standardized line 5 assumptions and guidance developed by the commission in line 6 collaboration with transit operators. The commission may line 7 reasonably audit, request revision to, or directly amend operating line 8 needs projections if appropriate or necessary to ensure consistency line 9 of assumptions and fairness across transit operators. line 10 SEC. 4. line 11 SEC. 5. Section 30916 of the Streets and Highways Code is line 12 amended to read: line 13 30916. (a)  The base toll rate for vehicles crossing the line 14 state-owned toll bridges within the geographic jurisdiction of the line 15 commission as of January 1, 2003, is as follows: line 16 line 17 Toll  Number of Axles line 18 $1.00 Two axles line 19 3.00 Three axles line 20 5.25 Four axles line 21 8.25 Five axles line 22 9.00 Six axles line 23 10.50 Seven axles & more line 24 line 25 (b)  If the voters approve a toll increase, pursuant to Section line 26 30921, commencing July 1, 2004, the base toll rate for vehicles line 27 crossing the bridges described in subdivision (a) is as follows: line 28 line 29 Toll  Number of axles line 30 $ 2.00 Two axles line 31 4.00 Three axles line 32 6.25 Four axles line 33 9.25 Five axles line 34 10.00 Six axles line 35 11.50 Seven axles & more line 36 line 37 (c)  (1)  If the voters approve a toll increase, pursuant to Section line 38 30923, the authority shall increase the base toll rate for vehicles line 39 crossing the bridges described in subdivision (a) from the toll rates line 40 then in effect by the amount approved by the voters pursuant to 93 SB 532 — 5 — line 1 Section 30923. The authority may, beginning six months after the line 2 election approving the toll increase, phase in the toll increase over line 3 a period of time and may adjust the toll increase for inflation based line 4 on the California Consumer Price Index after the toll increase has line 5 been phased in completely. line 6 (2)  Revenue generated from the adjustment of the toll to account line 7 for inflation pursuant to paragraph (1) may be expended for the line 8 following purposes: line 9 (A)  Bridge maintenance and rehabilitation necessary to preserve, line 10 protect, and replace the bridge structures consistent with line 11 subdivision (b) of Section 30950.3. line 12 (B)  Supplemental funding for the projects and programs line 13 authorized pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30914.7. line 14 (d)  The authority shall increase the amount of the toll only if line 15 required to meet its obligations on any bonds or to satisfy its line 16 covenants under any bond resolution or indenture. The authority line 17 shall hold a public hearing before adopting a toll schedule reflecting line 18 the increased toll charge. line 19 (e)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the line 20 adoption of either a discounted commute rate for two-axle vehicles line 21 or of special provisions for high-occupancy vehicles under terms line 22 and conditions prescribed by the authority in consultation with the line 23 department. line 24 (f)  (1)  Beginning January 1, 2024, and until December 31, line 25 2028, the authority shall increase the base toll rate for vehicles line 26 crossing the bridges described in subdivision (a) from the toll rates line 27 then in effect by one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50). line 28 (2)  The authority shall adjust the toll increase imposed pursuant line 29 to paragraph (1) on an annual basis for inflation based on the line 30 California Consumer Price Index. line 31 (3)  Notwithstanding Section 30918, the toll increase imposed line 32 pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be reduced without statutory line 33 authorization by the Legislature. line 34 (4)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, line 35 2029. line 36 SEC. 5. line 37 SEC. 6. Section 30920 of the Streets and Highways Code is line 38 amended to read: line 39 30920. The authority may issue toll bridge revenue bonds to line 40 finance any or all of the projects and purposes, including those 93 — 6 — SB 532 line 1 specified in Sections 30913, 30914, 30914.7, and 30914.8, if the line 2 issuance of the bonds does not adversely affect the minimum line 3 amount of toll revenue proceeds designated in Section 30913 and line 4 in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of, and subdivision (b) of, line 5 Section 30914 for rail extension and improvement projects and line 6 transit projects to reduce vehicular traffic. A determination of the line 7 authority that a specific project or projects or purposes shall have line 8 no adverse effect will be binding and conclusive in all respects. line 9 SEC. 7. Section 40258 of the Vehicle Code, as added by Section line 10 13 of Chapter 969 of the Statutes of 2022, is amended to read: line 11 40258. (a)  (1)  The schedule of toll evasion penalties for a toll line 12 evasion violation on a toll bridge shall not exceed twenty-five line 13 dollars ($25) for the notice of toll evasion violation, and shall not line 14 exceed fifty dollars ($50) for the notice of delinquent toll evasion line 15 violation for a cumulative total of fifty dollars ($50) for each line 16 individual toll evasion violation. line 17 (2)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the schedule of toll evasion line 18 penalties for a toll evasion violation on a San Francisco Bay area line 19 state-owned toll bridge shall not exceed five dollars ($5) for the line 20 notice of toll evasion violation, and shall not exceed ten dollars line 21 ($10) for the notice of delinquent toll evasion violation for a line 22 cumulative total of fifteen dollars ($15) for each individual toll line 23 evasion violation. For purposes of this paragraph, “San Francisco line 24 Bay area state-owned toll bridge” means any of the toll bridges line 25 described in Section 30910 of the Streets and Highways Code. line 26 (2) line 27 (3)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), paragraphs (1) and (2), the line 28 schedule of toll evasion penalties may include any administrative line 29 fee, fine, or assessment imposed by the state after enactment of line 30 this chapter in addition to the cumulative fifty-dollar ($50) limit line 31 per each individual toll evasion violation. line 32 (b)  If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes line 33 payment to the processing agency within 15 days of the mailing line 34 of the notice of toll evasion violation issued pursuant to subdivision line 35 (a) of Section 40254 for a bridge toll evasion, the amount owed line 36 shall consist of the amount of the toll without any additional line 37 penalties, administrative fees, or charges. line 38 (c)  The maximum penalty for each toll evasion violation line 39 included in a notice of toll evasion for either a toll highway, toll line 40 road, or express lane shall be sixty dollars ($60). The maximum 93 SB 532 — 7 — line 1 cumulative toll evasion penalty shall not exceed one hundred line 2 dollars ($100) for each individual toll evasion violation. line 3 (d)  Toll evasion penalties under this article shall be collected line 4 as civil penalties. line 5 (e)  The amounts specified in this section may be adjusted line 6 periodically by an issuing agency at a rate not to exceed any line 7 increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and line 8 reported by the Department of Industrial Relations. line 9 (f)  An issuing agency shall waive the toll evasion penalty for a line 10 first violation with the issuing agency if the person contacts, as line 11 applicable, the issuing or processing agency customer service line 12 center within 21 days from the mailing of the notice of toll evasion line 13 violation, and the person is not currently an accountholder with line 14 the issuing agency, signs up for an account, and pays the line 15 outstanding toll. line 16 (g)  This section shall become operative on July 1, 2024. line 17 SEC. 6. line 18 SEC. 8. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that line 19 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to line 20 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made line 21 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division line 22 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. O 93 — 8 — SB 532 July 21, 2023 The RTPA Role in Distributing New Transit Capital (and Operations) Funding in FY 23-24 State Budget The State’s Fiscal Year 23-24 Budget includes significant new funding for transit capital that may also be applied to cover transit operational needs on a region-by-region basis. Over $5 Billion in funds will be allocated directly to Regional Transportation Planning Agencies for these purposes through a formula Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and a new Zero Emission Transit Capital Program (ZETCP). Accompanying this funding, however, are obligations to conduct financial and transit service quality analysis that will be new to most RTPAs. This Policy Brief is meant to provide a quick overview of what is in the budget, how much will be allocated to each RTPA, and what issues still need to be addressed. We welcome your input. A. CAPITAL FUNDING PROGRAM OVERVIEW • TIRCP + ZETCP = $5.1 Billion! Together, the two capital programs provide $5.1 billion over four years (but most allocated in the next two years). There is $4 billion for a regional Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and $1.1 billion for a new Zero Emission Transit Capital Program (ZETCP). • With Option to Use Funds for Transit Operating Costs. An RTPA may opt to use all or any portion of the funds from either program for transit operating expenses consistent with an approved regional short-term financial plan or a long-term financial plan (see below). The Legislature’s goal is to provide those regions that need it with a one-time multiyear bridge funding to address operational costs until long-term transit sustainability solutions are identified. Funds can be used to prevent service cuts and increase ridership; prioritize the availability of transit for riders who are transit dependent; and to prioritize transit agencies representing a significant percentage of the region’s ridership. • Formula Allocations Coming to an RTPA Near You! The TIRCP funding will be allocated to the 49 eligible RTPAs each year under the following formula: each agency to receive $300,000 “off the top” with the remainder allocated by population as provided by Public Utilities Code § 99313. The ZETCP funding will be allocated half by population and half by revenue as provided by PUC § 99312.1(a). Our estimated funding allocations for each RTPA are on the next page. (Note that these are not official allocations, just our best guess based on the formulas and past practice). Policy Brief: RTPA Role in New Transit Funding Programs in FY 23-24 State Budget Page 2 CALCOG’s Estimate of Funding Allocations for TIRCP and ZETCP Programs Methodologies. (1) For TIRCP: For each year, $300,000 was taken off the top to each agency; the remainder ($1.863 Billion) is allocated by population using DOF 2023 county populations. But figures for the two entities in San Diego County and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency are estimates based on previous distributions under this formula made by the State Controller. We are least certain about the Tahoe number. (2) For ZETCP: In each year, half of the funds are distributed by population formula using the same method as TIRCP, the second half are distributed by transit revenues (e.g. farebox). These figures are proportional to the previous year's allocation by the State Controller. Policy Brief: RTPA Role in New Transit Funding Programs in FY 23-24 State Budget Page 3 • TIRCP Eligibility. Eligibility for TIRCP tracks with the existing competitive program: rail capital projects (including acquisition of rail cars and locomotives, that expand, enhance, and improve existing systems and connectivity); intercity, commuter, and urban rail that increase service levels, improve reliability or decrease travel times; rail, bus, and ferry integration; and bus rapid transit and other bus and ferry investments that increase ridership and reduce GHG emissions. • ZETCP Eligibility. Funds may be allocated for funding zero-emission transit equipment, including, but not limited to, zero-emission vehicles and refueling infrastructure; and funding transit operations expenditures that prevent service reduction or elimination in order to maintain or increase transit ridership (if consistent with an approved regional short-term or long-term financial plan). • Guidelines (Coming Quick!). CalSTA to establish Guidelines by September 30, 2024 in consultation with transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, transit development boards, and transit operators. • Three Steps for RTPAs to Access Funds in FY 23-24. Prior to December 31, 2023, the RTPA must: (1) Submit compiled transit operator data (see below); then (2) Determine whether funds will be applied to transit operations either in FY 23-24 or prior to the end of FY 26-27. (If no funds will be applied to operations, then no further steps are necessary); If funds will be applied, then (3) the RTPA must submit a regional short-term financial plan (see below). Agencies that do not submit complete information will have until April 30 to remedy their filings. • Two Steps for RTPAs to Accessing Funds in FY 24-25. Each RTPA must submit compiled operator data and a regional short-term financial plan (regardless of whether any funds will be used to support transit operations prior to the end of FY 26-27). • Submitting Compiled Transit Operator Data. The submission of data must be consistent with adopted guidelines, but at minimum must include: operator fleet and asset management plans; revenue collection methods and annual collection costs by operator; the existing service plan and planned changes; expenditures on security and safety measures; opportunities for restructuring, eliminating redundancies, and improving coordination amongst transit operators (including consolidation of agencies or reevaluation of network management and governance structure); and schedule data in General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) format. • Contents of a Regional Short-Term Financial Plan. The plan shall: demonstrate how the region will address any operational deficit using all available funds through FY 2025–26; justify how the region’s funding is proposed to be allocated to capital and operational expenses; justify and breakdown how the funding distributed between transit operators and among projects is consistent with program guidelines; demonstrate how the plan mitigates service cuts, fare increases, or layoffs to achieve short-term financial sustainability; summarize how the plan supports ridership improvement strategies. Policy Brief: RTPA Role in New Transit Funding Programs in FY 23-24 State Budget Page 4 • Timing and Contents of a Regional Long-Term Financial Plan. By June 30, 2026, RTPAs shall submit a plan to sustain transit operations absent additional discretionary or nonformula state funding. The plan should demonstrate the implementation of ridership retention and recovery strategies, including, policies that prioritize safety and cleanliness and streamlined coordination between transit operators, such as schedule coordination, operational management, and site sharing, to improve rider experience. The plan must also include a five-year forecast of operating funding requirements with detail on all sources of funding proposed for operations, including any new local and regional funding sources being pursued and the progress and improvements implemented since the last submitted regional short-term financial plan. • Transit Data Posted. RTPAs must post on its website a summary of monthly ridership data, consistent with the data submitted to the National Transit Database, from all its transit operators during the period of time for which it receives those moneys. • ZETCP Use of Funds Report. By October 31 of each year, RTPAs shall submit a report to CalSTA that describes how much funding was used for operating costs; the number, type, date, and location of zero-emission buses, trains, or other vehicles purchased; the number, type, data, and location of electric charging stations or hydrogen fueling stations installed; the nameplate capacity of installed equipment in kilowatts for electric charging stations and kilograms per day for hydrogen fueling stations; and the total costs and the source of funding for vehicles and equipment purchased using these funds. • CalSTA Responsibilities. Provide technical assistance to transit operators to transition to GTFS Real Time; work with Caltrans and regions to identify improvements that could grow ridership (including transit priority); work with Caltrans and regions to identify costs of revenue collections (including Cal-ITP); B. New Transit Transformation Task Force (Gov’t Code § 13979.3) • To Be Convened By The End of the Year. Membership includes Caltrans, local governments, MPOs, RTPAs, public transit advocacy organizations, labor, academia, Legislative Committee representatives, and others at the discretion of CalSTA. Operators shall represent bus, rail, ferry, and multi-modal services. • Goal: grow transit ridership and improve the transit experience for all users • Timeline. CalSTA shall publish a report of recommendations by October, 2025. • Data to Collect. The report must include: details of current services provided, demographics, funding source breakdowns (and limitation) for capital and operations, use of TDA funds for other modes, 10 year costs estimates that include costs of local, state, and federal mandates (e.g, ADA and Clean Transit regulations, workforce challenges, state and local policies that effect service and ridership, such as transit prioritization on roads, land use, housing, and pricing policies, state agency responsibilities and COVID service responses. Policy Brief: RTPA Role in New Transit Funding Programs in FY 23-24 State Budget Page 5 • Recommendations to Be Made. The report must also include recommendations to improve mobility and increase ridership (e.g., service and fare integration between agencies, providing safe and clean experiences, increasing service frequency and reliability, first and last mile access, fleet management, land use, housing and pricing policy changes, workforce development challenges, TDA reform (fare box recovery), new options for revenue, and options to value capture of property near transit. C. SOME INITIAL OBSERVATIONS (And Please Share Yours With Us!) • Clean Up Legislation? We have heard differing opinions about the need for clean up Legislation. There is at least one instance where a specific date in the statute does not make sense, which suggests the need for some clean up. There are also some undefined terms, like “transit operator,” where further clarification could provide better certainty. If there is any clean up Legislation, it will likely be part of a “baby budget” bill that includes clean up across several budget items. • Guidelines ASAP! CalSTA must develop program Guidelines by September 30 that will be immediately applicable to $2.4 billion allocated this budget in consultation with RTPAs and transit operators (among others). • Scope of CalSTA Authority. The statute could be read many ways. But CalSTA is clearly required to “approve” the short- and long-term plans upon which funding is dependent. And the plan requires, among other things, that the RTPA provide “justification for how the region’s funding is proposed to be allocated to capital and operational expenses.” Some have expressed concern than the language invites general scrutiny beyond TIRCP and ZETCP funds to the general budget decisions of the RTPAs and transit operators in the region. We also find it interesting that the RTPA may be in the role of “justifying” specific decisions of transit operators. • Basic Definitions. There is some question of whether basic terms like transit operator need more definition. The quick development of the Guidelines provides some opportunity for clarity, but significant policy decisions (like determining which operators are eligible for funding) are less likely to be accomplished in Guidelines. • Other Remaining Uncertainties. There are no doubt a large number of questions that either the Guidelines or clean up legislation could/should address. Here is our start: o What level of review or deference will CalSTA apply in reviewing plans submitted by or projects selected by the RTPA? o What happens when CalSTA disagrees with an RTPA demonstration or justification; what level of deference will be applied? o What unexpected issues may arise by requiring this new level of coordination between RTPAs and transit providers within such a short time period? o How will RTPA’s cover the costs of managing funds, developing short- and long- term plans, compiling data, and undertaking other obligations? Policy Brief: RTPA Role in New Transit Funding Programs in FY 23-24 State Budget Page 6 D. STATUTORY LANGUAGE Government Code § 13979.3. (a) On or before January 1, 2024, the agency shall establish and convene the Transit Transformation Task Force. (b) The task force shall include, but is not limited to, representatives from transit operators, both small and large operating in urban and rural jurisdictions, the Department of Transportation, local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation planning organizations, transportation advocacy organizations with expertise in public transit, labor organizations, academic institutions, the Senate Committee on Transportation, the Assembly Committee on Transportation, and other stakeholders, as appropriate, at the discretion of the agency. Transit operators included on the task force shall include a mix of agencies that provide bus-only service, rail-only service, ferry-only service, and multimodal service. (c) The task force shall develop a structured, coordinated process for engagement of all parties to solicit and develop policy recommendations to grow transit ridership and improve the transit experience for all users of those services. (d) The agency shall, in consultation with the task force, prepare and submit a report of findings and policy recommendations, including identifying where statutory changes would be needed to implement recommendations, based on the task force’s efforts to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature on or before October 31, 2025. The report shall identify the financial and technical feasibility of those recommendations. (e) The report shall include, but is not limited to, and to the extent feasible, a detailed analysis of the following issues: (1) The services provided by transit agencies and the demographics of transit ridership, with detail on services provided, including persons with disabilities, or specific populations like low-income individuals and students. (2) Existing funding sources for transit with a breakdown of funding available for capital and operations, including any constitutional and statutory limitations on these existing funding sources. (3) The use of moneys from local transportation funds established pursuant to Section 29530 for other modes, such as streets and roads. (4) The cost to operate, maintain, and provide for the future growth of transit systems for the next 10 years. (5) The costs and operational impacts associated with federal, state, and local mandates, including, but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132) and the State Air Resources Board’s Innovative Clean Transit regulations (Article 4.3 (commencing with Section 2023) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations), to the extent feasible. (6) Workforce recruitment, retention, and development challenges, impacting transit service. (7) Existing policies on state and local metrics to measure transit performance. (8) State and local policies that impact service efficiency and transit ridership, including, but not limited to, transit prioritization on roads, land use, housing, and pricing policies. (9) Identification of state departments and agencies that have responsibility for transit system oversight, grant administration, and reporting. (10) Information on how transit agencies modified their services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting drop in ridership and revenue. (11) The division of transit funding between capital and operations. (f) The report shall also include, but is not limited to, recommendations on the following: (1) How to improve mobility and increase ridership on transit, including, but not limited to: (A) Service and fare coordination or integration between transit agencies. (B) Coordinated scheduling, mapping, and wayfinding between transit agencies. (C) Providing a safe and clean ride for passengers and operators. (D) Increasing the frequency and reliability, through strategies that include, but are not limited to, the sharing of real-time transit information such as arrival and departure times and predictions, service alert data, and transit prioritization on roads. (E) Strategies to provide first- and last-mile access to transit. (F) Strategies to achieve fleet and asset management goals and needs, including funding approaches. (2) Changes to land use, housing, and pricing policies that could improve public transit use. (3) Strategies to address workforce recruitment, retention, and development challenges. (4) Reforming the Transportation Development Act (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 99200) of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code), including, but not limited to, replacing the fare box recovery ratios and efficiency criteria with performance metrics that better measure transit operations. (5) Identification of the appropriate state department or agency to be responsible for transit system oversight and reporting. (6) New options for revenue sources to fund transit operations and capital projects to meet necessary future growth of transit systems for the next 10 years. (7) The potential of transit-oriented development and value capture of property around transit stations as a source of sustainable revenue for transit operations. Policy Brief: RTPA Role in New Transit Funding Programs in FY 23-24 State Budget Page 7 (g) The task force may consult with the California Transportation Commission to use its work on the needs assessment prepared pursuant to Section 14518 regarding the identification of future transit capital and operational needs. The task force may use data provided pursuant to Section 13987 to inform the analysis. (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2028, and as of that date is repealed. Government Code § 13987. (a) Subject to the appropriation of funds for the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in the Budget Act of 2023, 2024, 2025, or 2026, the agency shall develop and administer an accountability program related to the distribution of funds from the following sources: (1) Funds appropriated to the agency in the annual Budget Act from the General Fund for purposes of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (Part 2 (commencing with Section 75220) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code) for allocation pursuant to Section 99313 of Public Utilities Code. (2) Funds appropriated to the agency in the annual Budget Act from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and the Public Transportation Account for purposes of the Zero-Emission Transit Capital Program (Part 6 (commencing with Section 75260) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code) for allocation pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 99312.1 of the Public Utilities Code. (b) (1) The agency shall, in consultation with transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, transit development boards, and transit operators, develop guidelines aligned with the legislative intent described in subdivision (d) of Section 75226 of, and subdivision (f) of Section 75260 of, the Public Resources Code for the administration of the funding described in subdivision (a). (2) The guidelines described in this section shall be exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1). (3) Before adopting or modifying the guidelines pursuant to paragraph (4), the agency shall adopt draft guidelines, post those draft guidelines on its internet website, and conduct at least one public workshop or hearing on the draft guidelines. Nothing in this section precludes the agency from conducting additional public workshops or posting informal draft guidelines to inform guideline development before the adoption of final guidelines. (4) (A) The agency shall adopt the final guidelines governing the distribution of funds for the 2023–24 fiscal year on or before September 30, 2023. (B) The agency may modify the guidelines adopted pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the distribution of funds for the 2024–25 fiscal year no later than September 30, 2024. (c) (1) (A) A regional transportation planning agency may only receive an allocation of funds in the 2023–24 fiscal year from the funding sources described in subdivision (a) if both of the following conditions are met by December 31, 2023: (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the regional transportation planning agency submits, and the agency approves, a regional short-term financial plan for immediate service retention consistent with the adopted guidelines and the requirements set forth in subdivision (e). If a regional transportation planning agency elects to use the funds described in subdivision (a) for operations for any of its transit operators in the 2023–24 fiscal year or forecasts operational need between the 2023–24 and 2026–27 fiscal years, inclusive, for any of its transit operators, then it shall submit a regional short-term financial plan pursuant to this clause. (ii) The regional transportation planning agency submits to the agency regionally compiled transit operator data that is consistent with requirements included in the adopted guidelines and the requirements set forth in subdivision (f), and is compiled in coordination with transit operators providing service within the jurisdiction of the regional transportation planning agency. (B) A regional transportation planning agency shall not be required to submit a regional short-term financial plan pursuant to subparagraph (A) if it declares that it does not have an operational need between the 2023–24 and 2026–27 fiscal years, inclusive, for any of its transit operators and will not use funding sources described in subdivision (a) for operations for any of its transit operators. (2) A regional transportation planning agency may only receive an allocation of funds in the 2024–25 fiscal year from the funding sources described in subdivision (a) if it submits, and the agency approves, an updated regional short-term financial plan, and updated transit operator data, as described in paragraph (1), by December 31, 2025. The requirement to submit a regional short-term financial plan to receive 2024–25 fiscal year funding shall apply to all regional transportation planning agencies receiving funding described in subdivision (a) regardless of whether the agency was exempt pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). (3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the agency shall provide a regional transportation planning agency that does not meet requirements specified in paragraph (1) or (2) with an opportunity to remedy its plan and data and shall provide the allocation of funding after the requirements are met by no later than April 30, 2024, for the 2023–24 fiscal year and by no later than April 30, 2025, for the 2024–25 fiscal year. (4) Upon agency approval of a regional short-term financial plan pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2), a regional transportation planning agency shall post the plan on its internet website. Policy Brief: RTPA Role in New Transit Funding Programs in FY 23-24 State Budget Page 8 (d) A regional transportation planning agency shall submit a long-term financial plan consistent with the requirements of subdivision (g) to the agency by June 30, 2026, that addresses the approach to sustain its region’s transit operations absent additional discretionary or nonformula state funding. (e) For purposes of subdivision (c), a regional short-term financial plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) A demonstration of how the region will address any operational deficit, using all available funds including the fund sources described in subdivision (a), through the 2025–26 fiscal year, based on a 2022 service baseline. (2) Justification for how the region’s funding is proposed to be allocated to capital and operational expenses. (3) A detailed breakdown and justification for how the funding is proposed to be distributed between transit operators and among projects, consistent with the legislative intent described in subdivision (d) of Section 75226 of, and subdivision (f) of Section 75260 of, the Public Resources Code (4) A demonstration of how the plan will mitigate service cuts, fare increases, or layoffs relative to a 2022 service baseline to achieve short-term financial sustainability. (5) A summary of how the plan will support ridership improvement strategies that focus on riders, such as coordinating schedules and ease of payment and improving cleanliness and safety, to improve the ridership experience. (f) For purposes of subdivision (c), a regional transportation planning agency shall compile and submit regionally representative transit operator data to the agency including, but not limited to, all of the following data: (1) Existing fleet and asset management plans by transit operator. (2) Revenue collection methods and annual costs involved in collecting revenue for each transit operator and regional transportation planning agency involved. (3) A statement of existing service plan and planned service changes. (4) Expenditures on security and safety measures. (5) Opportunities for service restructuring, eliminating service redundancies, and improving coordination amongst transit operators, including, but not limited to, consolidation of agencies or reevaluation of network management and governance structure. (6) Schedule data in General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) format to enable full visibility of service and service changes where feasible. (g) For purposes of subdivision (d), a regional long-term financial plan shall include, but is not limited to, both of the following: (1) Demonstration of the implementation of ridership retention and recovery strategies, including, but not limited to, policies that prioritize safety and cleanliness and streamlined coordination between transit operators, such as schedule coordination, operational management, and site sharing, to improve rider experience. (2) A five-year forecast of operating funding requirements with detail on all sources of funding proposed for operations, including any new local and regional funding sources being pursued and the progress and improvements implemented since the last submitted regional short-term financial plan. (h) As a condition of receiving moneys from the funding sources described in subdivision (a), a regional transportation planning agency shall post on its internet website a summary of monthly ridership data, consistent with the data submitted to the National Transit Database, from all its transit operators during the period of time for which it receives those moneys. (i) (1) The agency shall support the transit goals set forth in this section by doing all of the following: (A) Providing technical assistance to transit operators to transition to GTFS Real Time. (B) Working with the Department of Transportation and each region to identify service improvements that could further grow ridership at both regional and interregional levels, including, but not limited to, transit priority. (C) Working with the Department of Transportation and each region to identify opportunities to reduce the costs of revenue collection across operators, including through their California Integrated Transit Project. (2) The agency may withhold up to five million dollars ($5,000,000) of the funding described in subdivision (a) to administer the accountability program established pursuant to this section. This funding shall be available for encumbrance and liquidation until June 30, 2028. (j) For purposes of this section, “regional transportation planning agency” means a recipient of funding described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 99312.1 of the Public Utilities Code. Government Code § 14509.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, each member of an advisory committee to the commission who is not a commission member shall receive a per diem of one hundred dollars ($100) for each day actually spent in the discharge of authorized advisory committee duties, and shall also be reimbursed for traveling and other expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of those duties. (b) For purposes of this section, “advisory committee” includes, but is not limited to, those committees described in Sections 14506 and 14506.5 of this code and Section 3090 of the Vehicle Code. Contra Costa County Transit Landscape Ying Smith, Director, Mobility Programs July 2023 Service Provider Overview BUS TRANSIT County Connection (Joint Powers Agency) Serving Concord, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, San Ramon, and unincorporated communities in Central County. Board of Directors appointed by each member jurisdiction. 2 Tri Delta Transit (Joint Powers Agency) East County including Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, and Brentwood. Board of Directors appointed by each member jurisdiction. WestCAT (Joint Powers Authority) West County including Hercules, Pinole, and unincorporated areas of the County.Board of Directors appointed by each member jurisdiction. AC Transit (Alameda/Contra Costa Transit District) Serving Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito in Contra Costa County and western Alameda County.Board of Directors elected directly to AC Transit Board representing wards plus two elected at large. Service Provider Overview RAIL •BART Contra Costa County Lines Yellow Line: Antioch – SFO and Millbrae Red Line: Richmond – SFO and Millbrae Orange Line: Berryessa/North San Jose-Richmond •Capitol Corridor Contra Costa Stations Martinez,Richmond •Amtrak San Joaquins Contra Costa Stations Antioch, Martinez, Richmond FERRY •San Francisco Bay Ferry Contra Costa Service San Francisco/Richmond 3 Bus Transit Service Area Map 4 County Connection Bill Churchill, General Manager 5 Service Area: 200 square miles Service Population: 482,400 Ridership & Revenue Hours: Fleet Size: 125 fixed-route buses and 63 Paratransit vans Annual Operating Budget FY 23/24: $49,667,889 Services: Local and Express buses, Go San Ramon on demand, School services, Paratransit Zero -Emission Bus Plans: 100% ZEB by 2040: Mix of hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric buses Ridership – Fixed Route Ridership – Demand Response/Paratransit Revenue Hours FY18/19 3,252,149 152,716 308,206 FY21/22 1,908,475 65,862 239,250 FY18/19 data from NTD – FY21/22 data from transit operators Tri Delta Transit Rashidi Barnes, CEO 6 Service Area: 225 square miles Service Population: 315,000+ Ridership & Revenue Hours: Fleet Size: 62 fixed-route buses and 36 Paratransit vans and buses Annual Operating Budget FY 23/24: $35,332,185 Services: Local and Express buses, Tri MyRide, Mobility on Demand, Paratransit Zero -Emission Bus Plans: 100% ZEB by 2036: Approx 50/50 mix of hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric buses Ridership – Fixed Route Ridership – Demand Response/Paratransit Revenue Hours FY18/19 1,825,574 160,346 205,659 FY21/22 889,091 146,051 201,993 FY18/19 data from NTD – FY21/22 data from transit operators WestCAT Rob Thompson, General Manager 7 Service Area: 20 square miles Service Population: 67,000 Ridership & Revenue Hours: Fleet Size: 54 fixed-route buses and 12 Paratransit buses Annual Operating Budget FY 23/24: $15,307,000 Services: Local and Express buses, Transbay buses, Paratransit, Senior Dial-A-Ride Zero-Emission Bus Plans: 100% ZEB by 2040: 100% hydrogen fuel cell Ridership – Fixed Route Ridership – Demand Response/Paratransit Revenue Hours FY18/19 1,143,874 35,671 109,890 FY21/22 551,806 13,323 78,835 FY18/19 data from NTD – FY21/22 data from transit operators AC Transit (Alameda + Contra Costa) Michael Hursh, General Manager 8 Service Area: 364 square miles Service Population: 1,500,000 Ridership & Revenue Hours: Fleet Size: 635 vehicles Annual Operating Budget FY 23/24: $545,900,000 Services: Local and express buses, Transbay buses, school services, Paratransit (Provided by a consortium between BART and AC Transit dba East Bay Paratransit) Zero -Emission Bus Plans: 100% ZEB by 2040: 70% hydrogen fuel cell, 30% battery electric Ridership – Fixed Route Ridership – Demand Response/Paratransit Revenue Hours FY18/19 53,303,040 764,131 2,486,382 FY21/22 28,909,000 316,792 1,891,321 FY18/19 data from NTD – FY21/22 data from transit operators Agency FY18/19 Total Ridership FY 21/22 Total Ridership Percentage Change County Connection 3,404,865 1,974,337 -42% Tri Delta Transit 1,985,920 1,035,142 -48% WestCAT 1,179,545 565,129 -52% AC Transit 54,067,171 29,225,792 -46% Percentage of Total Ridership Change 9 Data source: Latest data available from National Transit Database, FTA -80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% FY 18-19 (pre-pandemic) FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 Percentage Change in Ridership FY18-19 to FY 21-22 AC Transit County Connection Tri Delta Transit WestCAT Ridership Trends and Focus in 2023 •Ridership recovery varies by agency, trip type and travel period •Return-to-work rebound has plateaued •Commuter ridership is lagging •Local service is in strong post-Covid recovery •Service demands are all day rather than peak hours •County Connection gained back weekend and school ridership •Agencies are focusing on rebalancing service within budget constraints •Starting in September, BART’s reimagined service plan is redistributing trips to nights and weekends and to their highest ridership line: Antioch- SF (Yellow Line). 10 Bus Transit Revenue Sources •Farebox •Non-Fare revenue: Advertising, interest, vending, etc. •Property Taxes •County Sales Tax: Measure J in Contra Costa, BB and VV in Alameda •Transportation Development Act •State Transit Assistance •Federal Transit Grants •Other 11 Revenue Source Description County Connection Tri Delta Transit WestCAT AC Transit Farebox Revenue Revenue derived from passenger fares 5%6%7%5.3% Non-Fare Revenue Advertising on buses and shelters, interest, vending, etc.6%2%Less than 1%2.4% Property Tax Levied by Alameda and Contra Costa Counties each Fiscal Year on taxable real and personal property situated within the AC Transit District. 0%0%0%24.1% County Sales Tax Measure J in Contra Costa, Measure BB and VV in Alameda 15%7%12%19.2% Transportation Development Act (TDA) ¼ cent state sales tax collected by county for the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). Available to transit operators for operations and capital with restrictions. Administered by MTC. 43% 68% 23%18.9% State Transit Assistance (STA) Revenue generated by sales tax on diesel fuel. Allocated to transit for operations or capital by formula. Revenue based portion directly to operators. Population based portion through MTC. 12%8%5.4% Federal Transit Grants & Stimulus Federal grant funds primarily for capital only. Small portions can be used for operations. American Rescue Act for operations. ADA assistance funds. 16%14%22%13.5% Other AB 1107, AB 434 (TFCA), RM2, Lifeline Transportation Program, BART Feeder, etc.3%4%28%11.2% FY 2022/23 Operating Revenue by Agency 12 Measure J Transit Fund Allocation Notes: Measure J allocation: per the 2004 Expenditure Plan 14: Countywide Bus 15: Transportation for Seniors & Disability 16: Express Bus Other MJ programs available to Central and West subregions (not listed): additional Bus Transit Enhancements and additional Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities Subregion MJ 14 Allocation MJ 15 Allocation MJ 16 Allocation Job/Housing Distribution Central County 24%25%20%30.7% West County 52%35%40%26.6% Southwest 15%17%20%20.5% East County 9%23%6%22.2% Funding Allocation by Subregion Compared to Current Job/Housing Distribution 13 Integrated Transit Plan CCTA’s transit-first vision includes an Integrated Transit Plan (ITP) that provides technical and planning guidance with a clear vision for delivering a robust transit network that connects all major activity centers and regional hubs in Contra Costa. 14 Project Oversight Committee Kickoff & Interviews •The ITP kicked off in April with the first meeting of the Project Oversight Committee. •The committee includes representatives from MTC, AC Transit, WestCAT, County Connection, and Tri Delta Transit. •In June, the ITP Consultant team conducted 1:1 interviews with members of the POC and executive staff from each agency 15 Key Themes Questions focused on the agency’s goals, priorities and initiatives, coordination efforts, current challenges and needs, and possible solutions. Discussion revolved around topics like: •Funding and Financial Sustainability •Evolving Travel Patterns, Rider Needs, and Equity •Operational Efficiency and Service Improvements •Technology and Innovation •Coordination and Integration •Stakeholder Engagement 16 Aspirations for the ITP and Beyond The agencies are looking to CCTA to: provide a comprehensive roadmap for transportation within the county identify and prioritize projects that are supported and ready for implementation seek and secure funds for operations and capital projects to address congestion and transit priority develop shared interests and build consensus around new initiatives, like transit priority policies 17 Project Schedule 18 Coordination with Transit Agency Studies & Regional Initiatives 19 Transit Agency Input •Service Assessment: input from transit operators’ data, studies and passenger survey •Interviews •Qualitative input Regional Initiatives •Transit 2050+ •Regional Network Management •State and Regional Funding for Transit Project Status 20 Project Highlights Timeline & Status Project & Project Oversight Committee Kick-Off April 2023 Complete Stakeholder Engagement May 2023 – August 2024 Ongoing Service Assessment & Travel Market Analysis May 2023 - October 2023 In Progress Service Assessment Memo & Presentation September 2023 Transit Action Plan Framing Workshop September 2023 Transit Action Plan Playbook & Presentation February 2024 Institutional & Policy Changes White Paper February 2024 Capital Improvements Memo & Presentation August 2024 Expected Project Completion December 2024 21 Questions? For more information,visit: ccta.net/ITP Outreach Summary Action Plan and Countywide Transportation Plan Updates March - May 2022 Prepared by: 151 People Commented Online 553 People Commented In Person In-person pop up events included interactive poster boards, surveys, and project flyers while the virtual workshops included a PowerPoint presentation and group discussion. Regardless the event, participants were asked the same set of questions (though additional feedback was welcomed and encouraged): • What do you think transportation should look like in the future? • What can we do to help you with your transportation needs? • What is your bright idea for improving transportation in the County? A total of 704 comments were collected through this outreach effort. 151 of these comments were made on the online community forum survey, the remaining 553 comments were collected during the pop-up and workshop events. This document outlines the first round of public outreach conducted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and its consultants between March and April 2022 for the Action Plan and Countywide Transportation Plan Updates. Outreach was conducted to the general Contra Costa Community and the Alameda County portion of the Tri Valley area. Feedback was collected both in-person and virtually to provide for a variety of feedback channels: ■11 In-Person Pop Up Events ■5 Virtual Workshops ■Online Community Forum Survey ■421 Project Flyers Distributed! Each CCTA subregion had two in-person pop up events and one virtual workshop, except for the West County subregion where a repeated pop up was conducted due to a last-minute rain cancellation. The online community forum survey was available countywide for all residents. Introduction TRI-VALLEY AREA: San Ramon Farmers Market Saturday, March 5th 2022 from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm 6000 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon Urbanized Areas within CCTA Study Area Regional Transportation Planning Committee Boundaries CCTA Study Area Boundary 0 31.5 Miles West County East County Tri-Valley Tri-Valley Central County Lamorinda San Ramon Farmers Market Iron Horse Trail Danville Rest Area Concord Farmers Market Walnut Creek BART El Cerrito del Norte BART Self Care Sunday (2)Brentwood Farmers Market Pittsburg Center BART Orinda Farmers Market Lafayette BART Pop Up Event Urbanized Areas Regional Transportation Planning Committee Boundaries County Boundary Demographic Breakdown The project team collected optional demographic information on the written surveys at the pop-up events, during registration for the virtual workshops, and on the online community forum survey. Note that not all respondents chose to share demographic information. Percentages shown on this page indicate the percentage of responses in each category, not demographics of all respondents. WEST COUNTY: El Cerrito del Norte BART Tuesday, March 22nd 2022 from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm 6400 Cutting Blvd, El Cerrito ■Zip Code - 38 Responses ■Household Income - 63 Responses ■Age - 74 Responses ■Race/ Ethnicity - 73 Responses West County Central County East County Lamorinda Tri-Valley Other Bay Area Out of Bay Area ZIP 13%13% 21% 11% 11% 16% 16% Under 29 years old70+ years old 30 to 49 years old 50 to 69 years old AGE 16% 32%39% 12% Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 More than $200,000 5%6% 16% 11% 24% 13% 25% INCOME * 0% American Indian or Alaska Native ** 0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 60% 7% 18% 3% 4% 8% Non- Hispanic White Other Asian Two or more Races Hispanic or Latino Black or African American RACE/ ETHNICITY General Comments BARTbikebusbuses public cars transportation traffic school needs safe people parking trail car betterroutes electricroad transit lanes Of the 704 total comments, 470 of them were general comments about countywide transportation and not focused on improvements in a specific subregion. The most commented words include: This list of comments includes frequently mentioned topics and ideas but is not an exhaustive list of general comments. Comments are not listed in order of priority. ■Increase walkability and explore pedestrian-only areas ■Increase bikeability, number of bike lanes, and their convenience and safety ■Ensure bicyclists and pedestrians feel safe ■Conduct safety presentations for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers ■Bike and scooter share ■Improve last mile connections to public transit ■Bus express lanes or bus-only lanes on freeways and arterials ■Public transit improvements to frequency, hours of service, reliability, and cleanliness ■Ensure public transportation is accessible for all socioeconomic groups ■Improve paratransit and other accessible transportation options and solutions ■Safety improvements on BART and buses ■Improved parking options at major transit stations ■Plan for regional connections throughout the county and beyond ■Electrify the transportation system (public and private) and improve infrastructure ■Explore autonomous vehicles ■Decrease number of potholes on freeways and major roadways ■Decrease traffic congestion ■Improve the timing of traffic lights EAST COUNTY: Brentwood Farmers Market Saturday, March 26th 2022 from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm Oak Street and 1st Street, Brentwood CENTRAL COUNTY: Concord Farmers Market Tuesday, March 8th 2022 from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm Todos Santos Plaza at 2175 Willow Pass Road, Concord The graph to the right indicates the percent of comments that were collected by subregion, with some subregions more eager to comment than others. Note that the number of comments by subregion does not reflect the number of people engaged with, but rather the number of comments since many participants chose to provide more than one comment. Of the 704 comments collected, 234 of them were comments made to indicate transportation improvements in a specific subregion. The most frequently mentioned topics and ideas are listed in the following pages. Note that this list is not exhaustive and are not listed in order of priority. Incorporated Jurisdictions: Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Richmond, El Cerrito Feedback regarding West County focused on safe and adequate roadways, transit improvements, bike and pedestrian improvements and safety of all modes. There was little mention of technology, climate change, and equity. ■Desire for well-maintained, continuous, protected/safe/ calm bike facilities that cross cities, especially connecting to waterfront destinations and regional routes, with safe and easy freeway crossings ■Need for traffic calming techniques ■Improve transit access for those with mobility needs ■Give bus priority on arterial routes between Alameda County and Contra Costa County ■Provide timed/coordinated service between BART, Amtrak, and various bus agencies to serve long-distance and regional travel ■Ensure public transportation is safe, comfortable, and efficient ■Increase frequency of BART ■Improve streetlight issues throughout Richmond, replace traffic lights, fix potholes and paving issue areas ■Many comments mentioning improvements to specific roadways, including: San Pablo Ave, Cutting Blvd, Central Ave, Canal Blvd, and 15th Street Incorporated Jurisdictions: Martinez, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Clayton Feedback regarding Central County focused on transit improvements, bike and pedestrian sidewalk and intercity access, need for traffic calming, and equity in the transportation system. Few comments are made regarding climate change and technology. ■Address active and public transportation barriers for those with mobility needs, including ADA accessible bike and pedestrian facilities, taxi service with wheelchair access, and extended service hours ■Increase traffic calming techniques along busy roadways ■Desire for safe bike and pedestrian connections across the subregion, particularly when crossing roadways and train tracks ■Provide continuous sidewalks and bike lanes and install lighting for safe travel in the dark ■Provide protected bike lanes to schools ■Improve traffic light cycles and remove unprotected left turns ■Reduce neighborhood cut-through traffic ■Connect trail networks to transit hubs ■Encourage public transit ridership again Specific Comments West County Central County West County Central County East County Lamorinda Tri-Valley Other 12% 20% 12% 30% 25% 12% LAMORINDA: Orinda Farmers Market Saturday, March 12th 2022 from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm Orinda Village at 14 Orinda Way, Orinda TRI-VALLEY: Iron Horse Trail Danville Rest Area Sunday, March 6th 2022 from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm East County Incorporated Jurisdictions: Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley Feedback regarding East County focused on improvements to and extension of the BART system. ■More frequent BART service and extension to Brentwood ■Increased BART connections and access, including parking, carpooling, or commuter buses from outlying communities ■Deploy High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) commuter buses to job centers and BART stations ■Increase off-street bikeways and connections to BART and railroads ■Increase first and last mile connections from residential areas to public transportation ■Increase lighting and shade on trails ■Ensure adequate ADA accessibility on all modes ■Reduce frequency of automobile speeding Tri-Valley Incorporated Jurisdictions: Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore Feedback regarding the Tri Valley area focused on I-580/I-680 corridor connections, bike and pedestrian improvements, general equity, and general safety concerns. Climate change was not a specific concern mentioned. ■Increase traffic calming techniques, especially near schools ■Improve crossings of bike and pedestrian facilities with roadways ■Deploy bike and scooter share programs ■Improve bike and pedestrian facilities, especially with better lighting and restroom facilities ■Increase bus service to schools and other major facilities ■Expand BART service through the Tri Valley area ■Examine the success of HOV and toll lanes on I-680 Lamorinda Incorporated Jurisdictions: Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda Feedback regarding the Lamorinda area included safe routes to schools, BART access, transportation electrification, and roadway speeding. Little mention of equity concerns or climate change were given. ■Increase traffic calming solutions around schools and improve general Safe Routes to Schools techniques ■Increase controlled crossings of major roads ■Explore first and last mile connections to BART ■Improve bike and pedestrian facilities with traffic lights and bike activation of traffic signals ■Expand County Connection service to middle and high school students ■Explore small bus options ■Explore feasibility of autonomous vehicles ■Reduce frequency of automobile speeding