Brentwood City Council
November 14, 2023

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 31 Supplemental Initial Study
stormwater drainage systems or natural stream channels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not affect flows in any drainage or stream channel. The additional impervious surfaces constructed would be approximately 4 acres, and additional stormwater drainage and runoff from these surfaces would be incorporated into the final site design to ensure that site runoff is appropriately conveyed to a drainage system. Potential erosion associated with drainage areas also would be addressed in the project design, and thus minor amounts additional runoff would not substantially contribute to or change erosion and siltation rates compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on existing drainage patterns of the site or area. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.
d) The Proposed Project not located in a flood zone, or an area subject to exposure to seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the risk release of pollutants due to project inundation from flooding, seiche, or tsunami. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination. e) WWTP discharges to Marsh Creek are regulated by an NPDES permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board). The NPDES permit requirements implement federal and state water quality regulations, including relevant water quality objectives and implementation provisions in state water quality control plans.

As described above in paragraph “b,” the Proposed Project would not result in depletion of groundwater or impede groundwater recharge in the project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact with regard to conflicting with or obstructing the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

This is a new impact determination relative to the 2016 Initial Study. The 2016 Initial Study did not address this question because it was not part of the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist at the time of preparation.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

3.11.1 Setting
The Land Use and Planning setting is provided in the 2016 Initial Study.

3.11.2 Discussion
a) The Proposed Project would not involve any land use changes and no communities would be physically divided. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on established communities. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 32 Supplemental Initial Study
b) The City obtained coverage under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (ECCCHCP) for the WWTP Phase II Expansion Project. The City would submit an application to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy to obtain an addendum to the HCP coverage for the project modifications. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

3.12.1 Setting
The Mineral Resources setting is provided in the 2016 Initial Study.

3.12.2 Discussion
a,b) The Proposed Project is not in an area used for mineral extraction. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on availability of known mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state, or the availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

3.13 NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 33 Supplemental Initial Study

3.13.1 Setting
The Noise setting is provided in the 2016 Initial Study.

3.13.2 Discussion
a) As discussed in the 2016 Initial Study, under project operations, the noise generated from the unit processes would be similar to that which currently occurs at the WWTP. However, construction activities may result in potentially significant generation of a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NZ-1, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

MITIGATION MEASURE NZ-1. MINIMIZE CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NOISE.

To reduce noise-related impacts to occupants of nearby residential land uses, the following BMPs will be incorporated into the plans and design of the Proposed Project:

Noise-generating construction activities will be limited to the weekday and weekend restrictions specified by the City’s Municipal Code. All construction equipment will be required to have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust system.

Additional noise-reduction measures will be implemented as appropriate and practical, including but not limited to: (a) locating staging areas and stationary construction equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as feasible and direct noise emissions away from receptors; (b) limiting equipment idling time; and, (c) notifying nearby residents 48 hours in advance of starting construction in an area not previously affected by recent construction activities.

Require construction contractor to have a designated “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to noise complaints, determining the causes of the noise, and instituting reasonable measures (as warranted) to correct the problem. b) As discussed in the 2016 Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not involve the long-term use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially substantial levels of ground vibration. Temporary construction-related activities for the Proposed Project may result in intermittent ground vibration. However, predicted ground vibration levels at nearby structures would not be anticipated to exceed minimum perceptible thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.
c) The Proposed Project is not located in the vicinity of an airport. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, where those people reside or work in the vicinity of an airport. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 34 Supplemental Initial Study

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

3.14.1 Setting
The Population and Housing setting is provided in the 2016 Initial Study.

3.14.2 Discussion
a,b) As described in the 2016 Initial Study, the purpose of the WWTP Phase II Expansion Project is to accommodate future increased wastewater flows associated with development and population growth identified in the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the increased supply of recycled water would not induce additional population growth, displace housing, or displace residents. The project modifications for biosolids treatment would not increase treatment capacity, thus would not be growth inducing. The path realignment similarly would not be growth inducing. There is no housing in the area where the BDPS units and realigned path would be located. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on population growth in the area or the displacement of people or housing. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 35 Supplemental Initial Study

3.15.1 Setting
The Public Services setting is provided in the 2016 Initial Study.

3.15.2 Discussion
a) The Proposed Project would not cause changes to the level of fire and police protection services, schools, or other public services. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the need for fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities.

This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

The Proposed Project would involve temporary construction-related activities affecting the use of the path connecting Sunset Park to Marsh Creek Trail. The public would not be able to use the path during construction of the realigned portion and installation of the new WWTP perimeter fencing. Construction of these project elements is anticipated to take approximately one month, after which the public would have access to the path. There are two nearby access points to Marsh Creek Trail, one is approximately 0.25 mile west of Sunset Park adjacent to the Black Diamond Kids Center and the other is approximately 0.5 mile west of Sunset Park near the intersection of Sunset Road and Jane Way. Because there are nearby access points to Marsh Creek Trail and closure of bike-walking path during realignment would be a shortterm effect to users, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on the need for new park services. This is a change from the 2016 Initial Study impact determination, which concluded there would be no impact to parks.

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

3.16.1 Setting
The Recreation setting is provided in the 2016 Initial Study.

3.16.2 Discussion
a) As described in Section 3.15, “Public Services,” the Proposed Project would involve temporary construction-related activities affecting the use of the path connecting Sunset Park to Marsh Creek Trail, during which the public would not be able to use the path. However, there are two nearby access points to Marsh Creek Trail and construction activities would be of short duration. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 36 Supplemental Initial Study
on neighborhood parks and regional parks or other recreational facilities. This is a change from the 2016 Initial Study impact determination, which concluded there would be no impact on recreation.
b) The Proposed Project’s effect on the recreational use of the path connecting Sunset Park to Marsh Creek Trail would be temporary. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in population resulting in an associated increase in demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the requirement for construction or expansion of recreational facilities. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.17.1 Setting
The Transportation setting is provided in the 2016 Initial Study.

3.17.2 Discussion
a,c,d) The Proposed Project would not require any changes to the City’s roads or access points to the WWTP. The realigned path would still connect Sunset Park and the Marsh Creek Trail.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the City’s circulation system, hazards due to geometric design or incompatible uses, or emergency access. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination. b) Per Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines generally analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) attributable to a Proposed Project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. The VMT refers to the amount of distance of automobile travel attributable to a specific project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in Section 15064.3(b)(2) regarding roadway capacity, a project’s effect on automobile delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. As provided in Section 15064.3(b)(1), projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 37 Supplemental Initial Study
The Proposed Project would not create new developments or other infrastructure that would result in additional VMTs relative to existing conditions. Although the construction component of the project would cause additional VMTs, these VMTs would be temporary.

Further, the temporary additional VMTs would not substantially affect transit and nonmotorized vehicle travel or regional VMTs. As described in Section 2.6, “Project Operations,” the project would result in a decrease of 260 truck trips per year to haul biosolids. Assuming the distance for biosolids hauling is 21 miles (consistent with the 2016 Initial Study), the project would reduce VMTs by 5,460 miles. As such, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on the potential to conflict with or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision(b). This is a new impact determination relative to the 2016 Initial Study. The 2016 Initial Study did not address this question because it was not part of the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist at the time of preparation.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

3.18.1 Setting
Overview of Tribal Use of the Proposed Project Site
The Proposed Project is located in the ethnographic territory of the Eastern Miwok, near the boundary between the territory of the Bay and Plains Miwok. Miwok primarily relied on gathering wild foods and hunting mammals (e.g., mule deer, tule elk, antelope) for subsistence.

Among the plant foods exploited were greens collected in the spring and acorns collected in the fall. Miwok use the bow and arrow, snares, traps, nets, and enclosures or blinds for hunting land mammals and birds. For fishing, they made canoes from tule, balsa, or logs, and used harpoons, hooks, nets, and basketry traps. To collect plant resources, they used sharpened digging sticks, long poles for dislodging acorns and pinecones, and a variety of woven tools. Political units

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 38 Supplemental Initial Study
among the Miwok were structured by similarities in language and ethnicity, and villages were divided into “tribelets” that controlled specific lands and the natural resources within that territory. (Natural Investigations Company 2023)
Overview of Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes that, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

To initiate the AB 52 consultation process, Tribes must submit a written request to a lead agency to be informed through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribe (PRC Section 21080.3.1[b]). The following is the City’s list of Tribes that have requested notification of proposed projects:
• Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
• Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians
• Confederated Villages of Lisjan
• Guidiville Indian Rancheria
• Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
• Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe
• North Valley Yokuts Tribe
• Ohlone Indian Tribe
• Tule River Indian Tribe
• Wilton Rancheria
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
On June 15, 2023, the City sent AB 52 notification letters via both U.S. mail and email to the Tribes describing the Proposed Project. The letter included a project description and map depicting the project location. Pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1 (b), the Tribes had thirty days from the receipt of the letter to request, in writing, consultation with the City regarding the Proposed Project. The City received a request for consultation from Wilton Rancheria on August 8, 2023, via email to Casey Wichert, Director of Public Works. No other Tribes requested consultation on the project. Mr. Wichert met with Wilton Rancheria’s representative, Venesa Kremer, Lead Monitor and Cultural Resource Assistant on August 15, 2023, along with Cindy Arrington of Natural Investigations Company to discuss the Proposed Project. The outcome of the meeting was: (1) Natural Investigations Company provided a copy of the cultural resources report and CHRIS data to Ms. Kremer; (2) Ms. Kremer provided an inadvertent discovery plan for the

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 39 Supplemental Initial Study
City’s consideration; and (3) the City sent Ms. Kremer the proposed inadvertent discovery mitigation measures to be adopted by the City as part of the Proposed Project.

3.18.2 Discussion
a) Based on the negative results of the California Historic Resources Information System search and Native American outreach efforts, as well as the negative findings of the field survey, there is no indication that the Proposed Project contain any Native American resources eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register nor does it contain any resources determined by the lead agency to be significant tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, it is possible that maintenance activities have the potential to encounter buried archaeological resources that could be considered tribal cultural resources if they are of Native American origin. Buried tribal cultural resources may include but are not limited to deposits of stone, bone and shell artifacts, dark gray “midden” sediments, or cemeteries, which is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1, CULT-3, and TCR-1 would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a lessthan-significant impact with mitigation. This is a new impact determination relative to the 2016 Initial Study. The 2016 Initial Study did not address this question because it was not part of the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist at the time of preparation.

MITIGATION MEASURE TCR-1. INCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Note: this is a new mitigation measure to address potential additional effects to tribal cultural resources.

If resources of Native American origin are discovered once ground-disturbing activities are underway, the City shall contact local Native Americans to consult on the find. If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, contingency funding, and a time allotment to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation determined in consultation with local Native Americans shall be made available. Work may continue on other parts of the Proposed Project site while tribal cultural resource mitigation takes place.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 40 Supplemental Initial Study
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

3.19.1 Setting
The Utilities and Service Systems setting is provided in the 2016 Initial Study.

3.19.2 Discussion
a) Construction of the new BDPS at the WWTP site would include features onsite to accommodate a minor increase in the amount of stormwater drainage generated from additional impervious surfaces (e.g., building roof runoff, pavement drainage). The Proposed Project would not require modifications to any offsite stormwater drainage systems. The realigned path would have an impervious area similar to existing conditions, thus would not generate additional runoff. The Proposed Project would have no effect on the City’s water supply, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The BDPS would have no effect on WWTP capacity, as defined in the 2016 Initial study. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.
b,c) These resource topics are not relevant to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on water supplies or wastewater treatment demand. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination. d,e) The new BDPS would be operated primarily to produce biochar that would be land applied within the City or hauled offsite by the BDPS vendor for sale. If only the biosolids drying system is operated or if the BDPS is out of service for an extended period, then dewatered biosolids would be produced, which would be hauled to a landfill as occurs under existing conditions. Biosolids are used by landfills for use as “alternative daily cover,” which is the term for the material used each day to cover the exposed waste pile. Consequently, the BDPS units would not generate excess solid waste or conflict with solid waste statutes and regulations.

Demolition of the abandoned portion of the path would not generate solid waste; the material would be reused on the WWTP site as grindings. Any solid waste generated during construction would go to Keller Canyon Landfill, which has remaining capacity through 2050 (CalRecycle 2023). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially affect the capacity of landfills.

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 41 Supplemental Initial Study
Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the capacity of the local solid waste infrastructure, attainment of solids waste reduction goals, or compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination.

3.20 WILDFIRE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

3.20.1 Setting
In California wildfire protection jurisdictions are separated and overseen by local, state, or federal governments. The city of Brentwood is designated as a Local Responsibility Area, meaning that the local government is responsible for wildfire protection (CalFire 2023). There are no “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones” in or near the Proposed Project site (CalFire 2023).

3.20.2 Discussion
a) As described in Section 2.5, “Project Construction,” the peak day construction equipment use or hauling trips for with the Proposed Project would be the same as that described in the 2016 Initial Study. Therefore, for the reasons provided in the 2016 Initial Study, the temporary construction-related trips for the Proposed Project would not substantially affect the capacity or congestion patterns on affected roads. Emergency access to the site for construction and WWTP workers would continue to be provided via Elkins Way during the entire project.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This is a new impact determination relative to the 2016 Initial Study. The 2016 Initial Study did not address this question because it was not part of the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist at the time of preparation. b) There would be little to no risk for wildfire during construction. There is a possibility for construction equipment that runs on fossil fuels to potentially generate sparks, and there is a

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 42 Supplemental Initial Study
possibility that grass could be ignited during grading. As such, construction vehicles would be equipped with fire extinguishers to address any possibility of a small fire that could be ignited by construction activities. There would be little to no risk of wildfire during project operations. The WWTP site is comprised of buildings and paved areas, with little to no vegetation to fuel a fire. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on exacerbating wildfire risks and thereby, creating pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. This is a new impact determination relative to the 2016 Initial Study. The 2016 Initial Study did not address this question because it was not part of the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist at the time of preparation.
c) The Proposed Project would utilize existing roads for WWTP access, existing water sources for operations and fire suppression, and existing utility services. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a no impact on wildfire risk and the environment as a result of installation or maintenance of infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities). This is a new impact determination relative to the 2016 Initial Study. The 2016 Initial Study did not address this question because it was not part of the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist at the time of preparation.
d) As discussed in Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the Proposed Project would not substantially increase in impervious area or runoff or change erosion rates compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, the Proposed Project is not located on a slope that would become unstable post-fire. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on risks to people or structures as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes. This is a new impact determination relative to the 2016 Initial Study. The 2016 Initial Study did not address this question because it was not part of the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist at the time of preparation.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 43 Supplemental Initial Study
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less-thansignificant
impact
No Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

3.21.1 Discussion
a) With respect to terrestrial wildlife resources, as discussed in Section 3.5 (“Biological Resources”), implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential primarily to result in temporary construction-related disturbance to potential habitats in the project area, and several wildlife species, if present during the time of construction. However, feasible projectspecific mitigation measures are identified to minimize and avoid the potential adverse effects. There would be permanent impacts to potential habitats where the BDPS units would be placed. The City would participate in the ECCCHCP, which is designed to protect core habitat areas and populations of special-status species in the region, and promote recovery of species and habitats.

The 2016 Initial Study addresses the primary long-term operations-related effects of the Proposed Project, including the seasonal change in WWTP effluent discharge to Marsh Creek. The Proposed Project modification to include the BDPS units at the proposed location adjacent to the WWTP would not affect the quality or quantity of effluent discharged to Marsh Creek. As described in the 2016 Initial Study, the changes in streamflow would not result in any substantial adverse effects to fish or other aquatic resources, or terrestrial wildlife in the Marsh Creek corridor.

Impacts to fish and wildlife species would be less than significant with mitigation identified in the 2016 Initial Study and herein for the Proposed Project modifications. b) As documented in the 2016 Initial Study and this Supplemental Initial Study, the Proposed Project would either not affect or would result in minimal and localized effects with respect to most environmental resources. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in temporary construction-related disturbances that may affect air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, water quality, traffic, and noise. Feasible mitigation measures have been identified that when implemented would avoid or minimize the potentially significant impacts that may occur to these resources. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the temporary construction-related effects would not cause or contribute to any adverse long-term cumulative effects to these resources.

With respect to potential long-term cumulative environmental effects, the Proposed Project and its operations-related increase in wastewater treatment and disposal of effluent and recycled water reuse could contribute to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, terrestrial biological resources, aquatic biological resources and water quality in Marsh Creek, and transportation effects. The Proposed Project may contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects to these resources.

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 44 Supplemental Initial Study
The potential contribution of operations-related effects of the Proposed Project to cumulative impacts for these resources is discussed below.

Transportation: No information exists to suggest that the future traffic conditions in Brentwood would be significantly adverse. It is assumed that City and regional transportation planning and construction of transportation systems will be implemented to accommodate the increased community development and population growth. The Proposed Project would decrease the number of truck trips for hauling biosolids from 370 per year to 110 per year.

Therefore, potential cumulative transportation impacts are not assessed further.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: As noted above Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” and Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” and in the 2016 Initial Study, the potential adverse effects of GHGs and the primary concern of air quality pollutants occur over local, regional, and global areas as a result of the cumulative emissions of sources. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards, or measurably influence global greenhouse gases. Accordingly, the thresholds of significance for project-related emissions of regulated air pollutants and GHGs established by BAAQMD consider the regional emissions necessary for maintaining compliance with the air quality standards and long-term GHG reduction objectives. Because the estimated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions that would occur under the Proposed Project are well below the BAAQMD thresholds, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative air quality or GHG impacts.

Biological Resources. The 2016 Initial Study concluded that the future cumulative biological resource conditions for terrestrial special-status species in the project area will improve relative to existing conditions given the ongoing implementation of the ECCCHCP and that the Proposed Project would not contribute considerably to any adverse cumulative terrestrial biological resource impacts. With the modification to the Proposed Project to add facilities adjacent to the WWTP to the site by constructing and operating the BDPS, as well as realign the connecting path, the City would contribute to the fair share implementation of the ECCCHCP for the potential project-related permanent habitat disturbances, and thus not contribute considerably to any adverse cumulative terrestrial biological resource impacts.

The 2016 Initial Study also concluded with respect to special-status fish resources (and other aquatic biological resources) in Marsh Creek that the future cumulative resource conditions would not be substantially different than the existing conditions and the Proposed Project would not contribute considerably to any potentially significant future cumulative aquatic biological resource impacts.

Water Quality. The 2016 Initial Study concluded that the existing dissolved oxygen and mercury conditions in Marsh Creek upstream of the WWTP is considered a significant cumulative water quality condition, but that the Proposed Project would not contribute considerably to the cumulative mercury and low dissolved oxygen effects. The Proposed Project modification to include the BDPS units at the proposed location adjacent to the WWTP would not affect the quality or quantity of effluent discharged to Marsh Creek.

Therefore, the Proposed Project as modified also would not contribute considerably to cumulative mercury and low dissolved oxygen conditions in Marsh Creek.

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 45 Supplemental Initial Study
Based on the above discussion, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited but contribute considerably to any significant future cumulative impact.

This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination. c) As described in the 2016 Initial Study, the Proposed Project would support the long-term goals of the Conservation and Open Space element of the City’s General Plan to conserve water resources and increase recycled water uses. Final project planning and engineering designs, and project implementation would be conducted in a manner to minimize the potential temporary construction-related disturbances, and mitigation measures would be implemented for such disturbances. Consequently, the Proposed Project’s environmental effects would have no impact on adverse effects on human beings. This conclusion is consistent with the 2016 Initial Study impact determination. 4 LIST OF PREPARERS
Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

Michael Bryan, Ph.D.......................................................................................Managing Partner Michelle Brown, P.E.....................................................................................Associate Engineer Keith Whitener...................................................................Resource Director / Senior Scientist 5 REFERENCES
CalFire. 2023. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Contra Costa County.

Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022/. Accessed June 27, 2023.

California Air Resources Board. 2022. Maps of Current State and Federal Area Designations.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-areadesignations. Accessed June 22, 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 5. Available: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed July 14, 2023.

California Native Plant Society. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.

Available: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-rare-plants. Accessed July 14, 2023.

CalRecycle. 2023. Solid Waste Information System facility database. Facility/Site Summary Details for Keller Canyon Landfill. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed August 16, 2023.

Jones and Stokes. 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. J&S 01478.01. San Jose, CA. October.

WWTP Phase II Expansion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 46 Supplemental Initial Study
Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Natural Investigations Company. 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project, Contra Costa County, California. Sacramento, CA.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2011. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed: June 22, 2023.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. Species List. Available: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/.

Accessed July 14, 2023.

APPENDIX A
Biosolids Dryer and Pyrolysis System Emissions Data

APPENDIX B
Biological Resources Data

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-1
Table B-1. Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitats.

California Native Plant
Society Vegetation
Community/Alliance
California Wildlife
Habitat
Relationship
Characteristic Species
Locations Affected by Proposed Project
WWTP
Construction
Sites
Lower Marsh
Creek
Downstream of
Effluent
Discharge
Tidally
Influenced
Portion of Lower
Marsh Creek
Downstream of
Effluent
Discharge
Biosolids Dryer
and Pyrolysis
System, and City
Path Connector
Tree-Dominated Communities
Hinds’s walnut and related
stands (Juglans hindsii and
Hybrids Semi-Natural
Woodland Stands)
Valley Foothill
Riparian
Hind’s walnut (Juglans hindsii), willow (Salix
sp.), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii),
giant reed (Arundo donax), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus)
X
Herb-Dominated Communities
Various Semi-Natural
Herbaceous Alliances Annual Grassland
Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), wild
oats (Avena sp.), bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),
tarweed (Holocarpha heermannii),

X X X X
Bulrush/Cattail Marsh
(Schoenoplectus sp. /Typha
sp. Alliances)
Fresh Emergent
Wetland
Bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.), cattail (Typha
sp.), Himalayan blackberry, rush (Juncus sp.),
cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), spearmint
(Menta spicata)
X
Bulrush Marsh
(Schoenoplectus sp. Alliance)
Saline Emergent
Wetland
Bulrush, cattail, willow, water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) X
Non-Vegetated Areas
Not applicable Barren/Ruderal Not applicable X X X
Not applicable Urban Not applicable X X X X
Aquatic Areas
Not applicable Riverine Not applicable X
Not applicable Estuarine Not applicable X

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-2
Table B-2. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species.

Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Plants
Large-flowered fiddleneck
Amsinckia grandiflora
FE/SE/1B,
HCP/NCCP-no
take
Grassy slopes below 1,000 feet in the San
Joaquin Valley.

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Slender silver moss
Anomobryum julaceum --/--/4
Broadleafed upland forest, lower montane
coniferous forest, North Coast coniferous
forest /damp rock and soil on outcrops,
usually on roadcuts.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Mt. Diablo manzanita
Arctostaphylos auriculata
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Chaparral (sandstone), cismontane
woodland. No suitable chaparral/scrub present. T NA: Unlikely to occur.

Contra Costa manzanita
Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp.
laevigata
--/--/1B Chaparral (rocky). No suitable chaparral present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Alkali milkvetch
Astragalus tener ssp. tener --/--/1B Alkaline flats and vernally moist meadows below 200 feet.

Potential for occurrence in areas with
spring moisture within annual grassland
habitats in the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
--/--/1B
Saline or alkaline soils in chenopod scrub,
meadows, and seeps. Sandy soils in
valley and foothill grassland.

Potential for occurrence within the
grasslands or wetlands at the site.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Crownscale
Atriplex coronata var. coronata --/--/4
Alkaline, often clay soils in chenopod
scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools.

Potential for occurrence within the
grasslands at the site.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Wet, alkaline grassland, chenopod scrub,
alkali scalded areas, and/or vernal pools.

Potential for occurrence within the
grasslands at the site.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula --/--/1B Alkaline, sandy in chenopod scrub, playas, and valley and foothill grassland
Potential for occurrence within the
grasslands at the site.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Big tarplant
Blepharizonia plumosa
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcoveredDry slopes in grassland below 1,600 feet. Potential for occurrence in annual grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-3
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Round-leaved filaree
California (Erodium)
macrophylla
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Clay soils in cismontane woodland and
valley/foothill grassland <4,000 feet.

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Mount Diablo fairy lantern
Calochortus pulchellus
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Wooded slopes, generally northern
aspect; 600–2,700 feet.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Chaparral harebell
Campanula exigua --/--/1B Chaparral (rocky, usually serpentine).

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Congdon's tarplant
Centromadia parryi subsp.
congdonii
--/--/1B
Grazed and un-grazed annual grassland.

Alkaline or saline soils sometimes
described as heavy white clay (saline clay
soil).

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Mt. Diablo bird’s-beak
Cordylanthus nidularius --/--/1B Chaparral (serpentine).

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Hoover's cryptantha
Cryptantha hooveri --/--/1A Inland dunes, sandy soils in valley and foothill grassland
Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Hospital Canyon larkspur
Delphinium californicum ssp.
interius
--/--/1B
Within and beside chaparral, grassy
openings of cismontane woodland,
sometimes mesic areas in above habitats.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcoveredWet, alkaline areas, chenopod scrub Potential for occurrence in annual grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Norris’ beard moss
Didymodon norrisii --/--/2B
Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest/intermittently mesic,
rock.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Western leatherwood
Dirca occidentalis --/--/1B
Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,
closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland, north coast coniferous forest,
riparian forest, and riparian woodland.

Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat is
present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Mount Diablo buckwheat
Eriogonum truncatum
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCP –
no take
Sand; 600–1300 feet Unlikely to occur. project area is outside of this species elevational range. NA: Unlikely to occur.

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-4
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Diamond-petaled poppy
Eschscholzia rhombipetala --/--/1B Open areas and grasslands below 1,000 feet.

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Hogwallow starfish
Hesperevax caulescens --/--/4
Sometimes alkaline in valley and foothill
grassland (mesic, clay) and vernal pools
(shallow).

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Brewer’s western flax
Hesperolinon breweri
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Serpentine soils in woodland, grassland,
and chaparral habitats.

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Woolly rose mallow
Hibiscus lasiocarpos var.
occidentalis
--/--/1B Freshwater marshes and swamps, riprap
on sides of levees
Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat is
present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Contra Costa goldfields
Lasthenia conjugens
FE/--/1B,
HCP/NCCP-no
take
Vernal pools and wet meadows in valley
grasslands.

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Showy madia
Madia radiata
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Grassy or open slopes, generally clayey
soils or shale.

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Hall’s bushmallow
Malacothamnus hallii --/--/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat is present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Woodland woolythreads
Monolopia gracilens --/--/1B
Openings in broadleaf upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland, North
Coast coniferous forest, and valley and
foothill grassland/serpentine.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Lime Ridge navarretia
Navarretia gowenii --/--/1B Chaparral, clay and serpentine soils.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Shining navarretia
Navarretia nigelliformis subsp.
radians
--/--/1B,
HCP/NCCPcoveredValley and foothill grassland. Potential for occurrence in annual grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Antioch Dunes evening
primrose
Oenothera deltoides ssp.
howellii
FE/--/1B
Sandy bluffs, dunes below 100 meters in
the Deltaic Great Central Valley (Antioch
and Contra Costa Counties).

Unlikely to occur as no appropriate habitat
is present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-5
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Mt. Diablo phacelia
Phacelia phacelioides --/--/1B Chaparral and cismontane woodland/ rocky; strong indicator of serpentine soils.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex --/--/1B
Alkaline, vernally mesic; sinks, flats, and
lake margins in chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools.

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Rock sanicle
Sanicula saxatilis --/--/1B
Rocky ridges or tallus, broadleaved upland
forest, chaparral, valley and foothill
grassland.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis --/--/2B Drying alkaline flats in cismontane woodland and coastal scrub.

Unlikely to occur as no appropriate habitat
is present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Long-styled sand-spurrey
Spergularia macrotheca var.

Longistyla
--/--/1B Alkaline in meadows and seeps and
marshes and swamps.

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Most beautiful jewel-flower
Streptanthus albidus ssp.

Peramoenus
--/--/1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland, serpentine soils.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Mt. Diablo jewel-flower
Streptanthus hispidus --/--/1B Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland/ rocky.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Coastal triquetrella
Triquetrella californica --/--/1B Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub/soil. Unlikely to occur as no appropriate habitat is present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Caper-fruited tropidocarpum
Tropidocarpum capparideum
--/--/1B
HCP/NCCP-no
take
Alkaline clay soils in grassland and oak
woodland (valley and foothill grassland).

Potential for occurrence in annual
grasslands within the project area.

NA: Not found during reconnaissance
surveys conducted in appropriate period of
blooming.

Oval-leaved viburnum
Viburnum ellipticum --/--/2B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and lower montane coniferous forest.

Unlikely to occur. Project is outside of
species elevational range and no
appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Invertebrates
Conservancy fairy shrimp
Branchinecta conservatio FE/--/-- Vernal pools.

Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat
(vernal pools) is present in the project
area.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-6
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Longhorn fairy shrimp
Branchinecta longiantenna

FE/--/--,

HCP/NCCP
covered
Vernal pools.

Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat
(vernal pools) is present in the project
area.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi

FT/--/--,
HCP/NCCPcoveredVernal pools.

Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat
(vernal pools) is present in the project
area.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Midvalley fairy shrimp
Brachinecta mesovallensis
--/--/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Vernal pools and a variety of constructed
features. Often ponding is of shallow
duration but can occur in long-duration
ponds.

Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat
(vernal pools) is present in the project
area.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

San Bruno elfin butterfly
Callophrys mossii
bayensis

FE/--/--
Coastal mountainous areas with grassy
ground cover within fog belt. Associated
with host plant Sedum spathulifolium.

Unlikely to occur. The project site is not
located within the fog belt and is not
known for supporting the host plant of this
species.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus

FT/--/--
Occurs only in the Central Valley of
California, in association with blue
elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp.

Caerulea). Prefers to lay eggs in
elderberries 2-8 inches in diameter; some
preference shown for "stressed"
elderberries.

Unlikely to occur as there are no
elderberry shrubs in the project area. The
closest known occurrence is
approximately 19 miles east of the project.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi

FE/--/--,
HCP/NCCPcoveredVernal pools.

Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat
(vernal pools) is present in the project
area.

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Amphibians
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense

FT/ST/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Occurs primarily in annual grassland
habitat but is also found in the grassy
understory of valley-foothill hardwood
habitats, and uncommonly along stream
courses in valley-foothill riparian habitats
below 3,200 feet. Require vernal pools or
ponds for breeding. Can disperse up to
one mile from their breeding ponds.

Potential for occurrence. According to the
ECCCHCP, no modeled habitat is present
in the project area (Jones and Stokes
2006). However, there are CNDDB
occurrences in the project area vicinity
and species could potentially be present in
grassy areas where appropriate habitat is
present.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
habitat for California tiger salamander;
however, no breeding habitat is present
onsite. Pre-construction surveys and
conservation measures (if needed) would
minimize potential adverse effects. There
would be no operations effects to the
species.

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-7
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Foothill yellow-legged frog
Rana boylii
--/SE/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Streams with rocky or cobbly substrate
that flow at least to May.

Unlikely to occur as no appropriate habitat
is present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

California red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii

FT/SSC/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Breeds in aquatic areas with dense,
shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation
and a permanent source of deep (greater
than 2 1/3 feet deep) still or slow-moving
water below 4,000 feet elevation. Upland
dispersal within 1 mile of aquatic breeding
habitat with no impassable dispersal
barriers (suburban areas, suburban
developments, wide or fast flowing rivers
or streams, lakes greater than 50 acres,
and heavily traveled roads without
underpasses or culverts).

Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat is
present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Reptiles
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
--/SSC/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation.

Unlikely to occur. No appropriate habitat is
present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

Silvery legless lizard
Anniella pulchra pulchra
--/SSC/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Sandy or loose loamy soils with sparse
vegetation and high moisture content. Potential for occurrence.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
habitat for Silvery legless lizard. Preconstruction surveys and conservation measures (if needed) would minimize
potential adverse effects. There would be
no operations effects to the species.

Alameda whipsnake
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus

FT/ST/--,

HCP/NCCP
covered
Typically found in chaparral, such as
northern coastal sage scrub and coastal
sage. Mating and egg-laying occur in
grassland habitats adjacent to chaparral
habitats in the spring.

Unlikely to occur. project area does not
contain suitable habitat. NA: Unlikely to occur.

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-8
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii --/SSC/--
Chaparral, oak savannah, and grassland
habitat types with loose soils. Also in
lowlands, along sandy washes with
scattered low bushes.

Potential for occurrence in the project area
NLAA: Pre-construction surveys and
conservation measures (if needed) would
minimize potential adverse effects. There
would be no operations effects to the
species.

Giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas

FT/ST/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Uses a wide variety of habitats including
forests, mixed woodlands, grasslands,
chaparral, and agricultural lands. Often
occurs near aquatic habitat including
ponds, marshes, and streams where it
freely enters and retreats to when
alarmed.

Potential for occurrence in the project area
in and around lower Marsh Creek.

NLAA Pre-construction surveys and
conservation measures (if needed) would
minimize potential adverse effects. There
would be no operations effects to the
species.

Birds
Tricolored blackbird
(nesting colony)
Agelaius tricolor
--/SSC/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
(nesting
colonies)
Highly colonial species, most numerous in
the Central Valley & vicinity. Largely
endemic to California. Requires open
water, protected nesting substrate, and a
foraging area with insect prey within a few
miles of the colony. Nests in emergent
wetlands with dense vegetation. Forages
on ground in grassland or cropland
habitats.

Potential for foraging in the project area at
the WWTP where appropriate habitat is
present, and in the vicinity of lower Marsh
Creek.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
habitat. Pre-construction surveys and
conservation measures (if needed) would
minimize potential adverse effects. There
would be no operations effects to the
species.

Golden eagle
(nesting and wintering)
Aquila chrysaetos
--/FP/,--
HCP/NCCPcovered
Grasslands and early successional stages
of forest and shrub habitats for foraging at
elevations up to 11,500 feet. Secluded
cliffs with overhanging ledges or large
trees in open areas with unobstructed view
for nesting.

Potential for foraging in project area in
annual grassland habitats.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
habitat. Pre-construction surveys and
conservation measures (if needed) would
minimize potential adverse effects. There
would be no operations effects to the
species.

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-9
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Western burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
--/SSC/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts & scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground
squirrel.

Potential for foraging and nesting in the
project area. Several CNDDB records in
the direct vicinity of the WWTP and lower
Marsh Creek.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
habitat. Pre-construction surveys and
conservation measures (if needed) would
minimize potential adverse effects. There
would be no operations effects to the
species.

Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
--/ST/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Open grasslands and agricultural fields.

Nests in large trees such as valley oak,
cottonwood, or eucalyptus.

Potential for foraging and nesting in the
project area. Several CNDDB records in
the direct vicinity of the WWTP and lower
Marsh Creek.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
and nesting habitat. Pre-construction
surveys and conservation measures (if
needed) would minimize potential adverse
effects. There would be no operations
effects to the species.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
--/FP/--,

HCP/NCCP
no take
Grassland and savannah for foraging.

Large trees for roosting and nesting.

Project site provides suitable nesting and
foraging habitat.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
and nesting habitat. Pre-construction
surveys and conservation measures (if
needed) would minimize potential adverse
effects. There would be no operations
effects to the species.

American peregrine falcon
(nesting)
Falco peregrinus
--/FP/--,
HCP/NCCP-no
take
Breeds in woodlands, forests, coastal
habitats, and riparian areas near wetlands,
lakes, rivers, or other water on high cliffs,
banks, dunes, or mounds. Migrants
occur along the coast and the western
Sierra Nevada in spring and fall.

Potential forager or migrant in project
area. Unlikely to nest in the project area
as no appropriate habitat is present.

NA: Areas affected by project construction
unlikely to provide foraging habitat. There
would be no measurable operations
effects to the species.

California clapper rail
Rallus longirostris obsoletus FE/SE&FP/--
Forages in saline emergent wetlands and
along tidal creeks. Nests in saline
emergent wetlands near tidal sloughs.

Unlikely to occur as no appropriate habitat
is present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

California least tern
(nesting colony)
Sternula antillarum browni

FE/SE&FP/--
Breeding areas include abandoned salt
ponds and estuarine shores along the
southern San Francisco Bay. Feeds
primarily in shallow estuaries or lagoons.

Unlikely to occur as no appropriate habitat
is present. NA: Unlikely to occur.

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-10
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect Grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum --/SSC/-- Grasslands with coyote brush and other shrubs. Suitable habitat present.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
and nesting habitat. Pre-construction
surveys and conservation measures (if
needed) would minimize potential adverse
effects. There would be no operations
effects to the species.

Mammals
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus --/SSC/--
Usually, maternity roosts occur in
enclosed areas of buildings, caves, and
mines. Forages in a wide variety of open
habitats.

Project vicinity may provide suitable
roosting habitat for this species within the
buildings and large trees. Suitable
foraging habitat present.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
and roosting habitat. Pre-construction
surveys and conservation measures (if
needed) would minimize potential adverse
effects. There would be no operations
effects to the species.

Ringtail
Brassariscus astutus
--/FP/--
HCP/NCCP-no
take
Mixture of forest and scrub in close
association with rocky or riparian areas.

Nests in rocky areas and hollow trees and
logs.

Project site supports suitable foraging
areas.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
habitat. Pre-construction surveys and
conservation measures (if needed) would
minimize potential adverse effects. There
would be no operations effects to the
species.

Townsend’s big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
--/FP/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Usually, maternity roosts occur in
enclosed areas of buildings, caves, and
mines. Forages along habitat edges, often
gleaning insects from trees or shrubs.

Buildings in the project vicinity may
provide suitable roosting habitat. Suitable
foraging habitat present.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
and roosting habitat. Pre-construction
surveys and conservation measures (if
needed) would minimize potential adverse
effects. There would be no operations
effects to the species.

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA
B-11
Scientific and Common
Name
Status
(F/S/CRPR,

HCP/NCCP)
Habitat Potential for Occurrence in project area Potential for Project to Affect American badger
Taxidea taxus --/SSC/--
Open grassland areas with plentiful prey
such as pocket gophers and ground
squirrels. Suitable denning, foraging, and
movement habitat present.

Suitable habitat present. No dens were
observed during reconnaissance survey.

NLAA: Construction activities would
occur in areas that may provide foraging
and den habitat. Pre-construction surveys
and conservation measures (if needed)
would minimize potential adverse effects.

There would be no operations effects to
the species.

San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotus mutica

FE/ST/--,
HCP/NCCPcovered
Grasslands and shrubland areas in the
San Joaquin Valley with friable soils for
building underground dens. Denning
begins around September, mating occurs
from December to March, and pups are
born February through April.

Unlikely to occur. project area does not
contain suitable habitat and is not within
the modeled habitat distribution for the
species (Jones and Stokes 2006).

NA: Unlikely to occur.

Status
-- = not applicable
CRPR = California Rare Plant Ranking
1A = California Rare Plant Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere.
1B = California Rare Plant Rank 1B: Plants are threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere.
2B = California Rare Plant Rank 2B: Plants are rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
4 = Plants of Limited Distribution ‐ A Watch List.

F = Federal
FE = Federal endangered
FP = California fully protected
FT = Federal threatened
HCP/NCCP-covered = species is covered by the HCP/NCCP
HCP/NCCP-no take = no take species under the HCP/NCCP
NA = no effect
NLAA = not likely to adversely affect
S = State of California
SSC = California state species of special concern
SE = California state endangered
ST = California state threatened

Attachment 4
1 SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT – PHASE II EXPANSION PROJECT CIP PROJECT NO. 592-59140
City of Brentwood Public Works-Engineering
Adopted: November 14, 2023 (City Council Meeting)

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:

That the project described below has been reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code 21100, et seq.) and a determination has been made that it will not have a significant impact on the environment.

2. PROJECT NAME: Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:

The City initiated planning for the Phase II wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”) expansion project in 2016 to expand the treatment capacity from 5 million gallons per day (“MGD”) average dry weather flow (ADWF) to 7.5 MGD ADWF (“Project”) (actual expansion is to 6.4 MGD ADWF). The City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the Project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 9, 2016. As originally proposed, the Project involved construction of a biosolids dryer building and storage silo as a means of producing Class A biosolids, thus facilitating additional uses or disposal methods for the biosolids. The City has since decided to use different technology and place the biosolids drying facilities at a different location. The project modifications consist of the following main components.

1. Installation of a biosolids drying and pyrolysis system (“BDPS”) adjacent to the existing footprint of the WWTP.

2. Realignment of a paved connector path to the Marsh Creek trail.

3. Installation of new WWTP perimeter fencing around the BDPS.

4. Tree removal.

All project components would be constructed on 4 acres of City-owned property immediately adjacent to the east boundary of the current WWTP footprint.

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 2 4. LOCATION OF PROJECT:

The Project is located in the City of Brentwood.

5. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT PROPONENT:

City of Brentwood, Public Works-Engineering, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, California 94513

6. FINDINGS
In accordance with Section 15074(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project (Project), CIP Project No. 592-59140 in Resolution 2016-109, on August 9, 2016. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP included mitigation measures incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts of the Project to a less than significant level.

A Supplemental Initial Study has been prepared to assess the modified Project’s potential effects on the environment, and the significance of those effects. Based on the Supplemental Initial Study, the Project would not have any significant effects on the environment once mitigation measures are implemented. This conclusion is supported by the following findings.

1. The Project would have no impact to Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Public Services; and Utilities and Service Systems.

2. The Project would have less-than-significant impacts to Aesthetics; Air Quality; Energy; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation; and Wildfire.

3. Impacts of the Project would be less than significant with incorporation of the mitigation measures to Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; and Tribal Cultural Resources.

The mitigation measures identified in the Supplemental Initial Study that the City will implement to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts are provided below. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the environmental impacts of the Project to a less than significant level.

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 3 7. DOCUMENTATION
The attached Supplemental Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above Findings.

8. MITIGATION MEASURES:

The City will incorporate the following Mitigation Measures into the Project.

Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions.

B-1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

B-2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

B-3. All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

B-4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

B-5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

B-6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

B-7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

B-8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

B-9. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 4 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction Measures.

All contractors and equipment operators will be made aware of the ecological values of the site, and will be given instructions to comply with all mitigation measures.

Construction activities will be limited to a designated work area (including the work corridor and staging areas). The work area will be clearly identified and will be staked and flagged where necessary prior to initiation of construction activities.

This will include flagging of riparian and wetland habitats in the vicinity of work areas to ensure their avoidance and protection.

All construction activities, including site preparation and development, will be restricted to daytime hours between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays and nonholidays unless weekend work is unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Participation in the ECCCHCP.

The City will participate in the ECCCHCP for the Proposed Project, if applicable to the work sites, to mitigate any potential impacts to special-status species covered under the ECCCHCP. This coverage will allow the City to minimize and compensate for potential effects resulting from construction- and operation-related activities associated with the Proposed Project through implementation of all applicable conservation measures and compensation mechanisms of the ECCCHCP.

The City will conduct Planning Surveys, as necessary, according to the speciesspecific protocols contained in Section 6.3.1 of the ECCCHCP and will complete an Application Form and Planning Survey Report.

To compensate for unavoidable project-related effects the City will pay either the applicable fee or dedication of land in lieu of the fee as described in Chapter 9, Funding, and in Brentwood Ordinance number 850.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Special-Status Plants.

On suitable land cover types under the ECCCHCP, the City will conduct specialstatus plant surveys using approved CDFW/USFWS methods during the appropriate season for identification of covered and no-take plant species, as well as any additional special-status plant species not covered under the ECCCHCP.

If ECCCHCP-covered special-status plant species are found in the construction areas, the City would implement all applicable conditions on covered activities under the ECCCHCP including Conservation Measure 1.11 “Avoid Direct Impacts on Extremely Rare Plants” and Conservation Measure 3.10 “Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable.”
If special-status plant species that are not covered by the ECCCHCP are

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 5 discovered, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels would be developed in consultation with appropriate resource agencies.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Special-Status Amphibians and Reptiles.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys, as necessary per the ECCCHCP, for California tiger salamander, silvery legless lizard, western pond turtle, California horned lizard, giant garter snake, and San Joaquin whipsnake in annual grassland habitat for the construction areas at the WWTP.

Surveys will be implemented in accordance with methods described in Section

6.4.3 of the ECCCHCP.

If any ECCCHCP -covered species are found (California tiger salamander, silvery legless lizard, western pond turtle, and giant garter snake), all applicable avoidance and minimization measures, construction monitoring, conservation measures, and/or mitigation fees of the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

If any special-status species not covered by the ECCCHCP (California horned lizard and San Joaquin whipsnake) are discovered, measures to reduce impacts to lessthan-significant levels would be developed in consultation with CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Burrowing Owls.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls or burrows at proposed construction sites with potential habitat in accordance with methods described in Section 6.4.3 of the ECCCHCP.

If the burrowing owls nests or burrows are discovered in the work areas, all applicable avoidance and minimization measures, construction monitoring, conservation measures, and/or mitigation fees for this species in the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Other Special-Status Birds.

If construction activities are scheduled to occur between February 15 and September 15, preconstruction surveys will be conducted at proposed construction sites within 30 days prior to any such activities to determine whether any nests of special-status birds are present. A qualified biologist will search within 1000 feet of sites for raptor nests, and within 250 feet of sites for passerine nests.

Biologists will conduct a visual and aural search of the survey area on foot, using binoculars to scan tree tops for the presence of raptor nests.

If any nests are identified, measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, such as species-specific buffers, would be developed in consultation with appropriate resource agencies (CDFW and/or USFWS).

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 6 Mitigation Measure BIO-7: American Badger.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys for American badgers or burrows at proposed construction areas with potential habitat in conjunction with burrowing owl surveys.

If any American badgers or burrows are found, measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels would be developed in consultation with CDFW, and/or mitigation fees for this species in the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Bats.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys for bats roosts at proposed construction areas with potential habitat in conjunction with burrowing owl surveys.

If any bat roosts are found, measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels would be developed in consultation with CDFW, and/or mitigation fees for covered bat species in the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Ringtail.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys for ringtail and their burrows at proposed construction areas with potential habitat in conjunction with burrowing owl surveys.

If any ringtail or ringtail burrows are found, measures to reduce impacts to lessthan-significant levels would be developed in consultation with CDFW, and/or mitigation fees for this species in the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources.

Note: this mitigation measure has been revised to provide specificity regarding where work can and cannot occur in the event of discovery of potential archaeological resources.

If any prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of archaeological resources such as unusual deposits of stone, bone or shell, stone artifacts, or historic trash deposits or foundations are discovered once ground-disturbing activities are underway, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the find(s) and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist that meets the qualifications at 36 CFR Part 61) shall be retained to assess its potential significance. If the find is not significant, then no additional cultural resources investigations are necessary and Project work may resume in the area of the find. If the find is determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 7 allotment to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation shall be made available, as provided in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Work may continue on other parts of the project site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place on-site.

Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Accidental Discovery of Paleontological Resources.

A qualified professional paleontologist shall periodically monitor excavations to check for fossils that may be unearthed. If vertebrate fossils (e.g., teeth, bones) are unearthed by the construction crew anywhere on the project, the finds should be set aside and all excavation activity cease at the specific place of discovery until the paleontologist has assessed the find and, if deemed significant, salvaged the find in a timely manner. The decision to conduct paleontological salvage operations will be determined by the paleontologist in consultation with city staff.

Work may proceed on other parts of the project while assessment and/or salvage by the paleontologist is underway. Finds determined significant by the paleontologist shall be conserved and deposited with a recognized repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Mitigation Measure CULT-3: Accidental Discovery of Human Remains.

Note: this mitigation measure has been revised to provide specificity regarding where work can and cannot occur in the event of discovery of human remains.

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, all work within 100 feet of the find shall cease immediately until compliance with the provisions of §15064.5(e)(1) and (2) of the CEQA Guidelines has occurred. The CEQA Guidelines specify that in the event of the discovery of human remains other than in a dedicated cemetery, the Contra Costa County Coroner must be notified to determine if an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines that the remains are Native American, then, within 24 hours, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn will notify the most likely descendant who may recommend treatment of the remains and any grave goods. If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after notification by the Native American Heritage Commission, or the landowner or his authorized agent rejects the recommendation by the most likely descendant and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide a measure acceptable to the landowner, then the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the human remains and grave goods with appropriate dignity at a location on the property not subject to further disturbances.

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 8 Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Conduct Geotechnical Investigation and Implement Recommended Measures.

The City will conduct a geotechnical investigation for the Proposed Project that evaluates site-specific conditions related to the potential for ground rupture, risk to features due to ground shaking, risk of soil liquefaction, and risk of expansive soils. Based on subsurface conditions, the pipelines and appurtenances will be designed to withstand the effects of strong ground shaking and the effects of soil liquefaction.

Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation, the City and its contractor(s) will be responsible for implementing the design specification and performance criteria according to Uniform Building Code (UBC) the City’s Seismic Hazards policies for pipeline construction, trenching, backfill materials, and other recommendations.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Implement Construction BMPs for Water Quality Protection.

The City, or its designated general contractor, shall obtain authorization of project construction activities under the SWRCB’s NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ/NPDES Permit No. CAS000002, and any applicable amendments), for any activities not subject to exemption from the permit. The Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for permit will describe the BMPs that will be used to avoid and minimize potential constructionrelated contaminant discharges at construction sites. Compliance with this mitigation shall be included as a condition of the construction contract(s) between the City and applicable construction contractor(s), and as appropriate, shall additionally be included in final project designs and specifications that are prepared for the Proposed Project. The City will be responsible for ensuring that the construction is implemented in accordance with the Construction General Permit.

Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: Dissolved Oxygen Evaluation and Control Measures.

Upon initiation of increased recycled water deliveries for the Proposed Project, the City shall evaluate Marsh Creek for adverse DO-related effects to the fish community, and implement control measures, if necessary. During periods when recycled water is being distributed from the WWTP during the mid-summer months (i.e., July and August), and background Marsh Creek streamflow levels are low, the City will monitor receiving water DO to determine whether DO falls to

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 9 levels that may result in adverse effects to fish and invertebrates within lower Marsh Creek. If potentially adverse DO levels are observed from monitoring, the City will implement fish and invertebrate surveys upstream and downstream of the WWTP discharge to determine whether actual adverse effects (e.g., reduced species diversity, change in expected community structure, loss of sensitive organisms) are occurring. Should adverse effect be identified through field surveys that are determined to be attributable to the reduced effluent discharge, the City shall implement corrective measures to substantially reduce or eliminate the adverse effects. Such corrective measures include, but may not be limited to, reducing the amount of water used for recycled water irrigation.

Noise
Mitigation Measure NZ-1. Minimize Construction-Related Noise.

To reduce noise-related impacts to occupants of nearby residential land uses, the following BMPs will be incorporated into the plans and design of the Proposed Project:

Noise-generating construction activities will be limited to the weekday and weekend restrictions specified by the City’s Municipal Code. All construction equipment will be required to have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust system.

Additional noise-reduction measures will be implemented as appropriate and practical, including but not limited to: (a) locating staging areas and stationary construction equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as feasible and direct noise emissions away from receptors; (b) limiting equipment idling time; and (c) notifying nearby residents 48 hours in advance of starting construction in an area not previously affected by recent construction activities.

Require construction contractor to have a designated “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to noise complaints, determining the causes of the noise, and instituting reasonable measures (as warranted) to correct the problem.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure TCR-1. Incidental Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources.

Note: this is a new mitigation measure to address potential additional effects to tribal cultural resources.

If resources of Native American origin are discovered once ground-disturbing activities are underway, the City shall contact local Native Americans to consult on

Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regarding Environmental Impact
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project 10 the find. If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, contingency funding, and a time allotment to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation determined in consultation with local Native Americans shall be made available. Work may continue on other parts of the Proposed Project site while tribal cultural resource mitigation takes place.

9. FILING LOCATION:

A copy of the Supplemental Initial Study regarding the environmental effect of the Project is on file at City of Brentwood Department of Public Works, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513.

10. THIS STUDY WAS:
 Adopted as presented.
 Adopted with changes. Specific modifications and supporting reasons are attached.

The City Council of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 14, 2023, at 7:00 p.m.

11. DETERMINATION:

On the basis of the whole record, including the original Initial Study prepared in 2016 for the Project and the Supplemental Initial Study of environmental impact of the Project prepared in 2023, the Project could have a significant effect on the environment but will not in this case because of incorporation of additional mitigation measures described in Item 8 above that are by this reference made conditions of Project approval, along with the mitigation measures already incorporated into the Project by Resolution 2016-109. A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.

November 14, 2023
Date Tim Ogden, City Manager
City of Brentwood

Attachment 5
1 AMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT – PHASE II EXPANSION PROJECT CIP PROJECT NO. 592-59140
City of Brentwood Public Works-Engineering
Approved: November 14, 2023 (City Council Meeting)
In accordance with Section 15074(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the City of Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project (“Project”), CIP Project No. 592-59140 in Resolution 2016-109, on August 9, 2016. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP included mitigation measures incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts of the Project to a less-than-significant level.

Due to changes in the Project, addressed in a Supplemental Initial Study, the City is adopting a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and amending the MMRP to incorporate the following additional mitigation measures.  Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Basic Best Management Practices for ConstructionRelated Fugitive Dust Emissions.  Mitigation Measure BIO-8. Bats.
 Mitigation Measure BIO-9. Ringtail.
 Mitigation Measure TCR-1. Incidental Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources In addition, Mitigation Measures CULT-1, Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources, and CULT-3, Accidental Discovery of Human Remains, have been revised to provide specificity regarding where work can and cannot occur in the event of an accidental discovery.

The City’s Director of Public Works-Engineering will be responsible for ensuring that these mitigation measures are implemented for the Project. This includes ensuring that, where applicable, the appropriate mitigation measures are included in construction contracts and construction specifications and drawings that are prepared for the Project. The City will also be responsible for overseeing field inspections that are conducted (as necessary) on a timely basis to ensure that the specified mitigation measures are being implemented. The construction contractor(s) selected for the Project will be required to implement the specified measures in a timely manner.

The following measures shown in Table 1 have been adopted by the City Council as part of the approval of this Project. The following table provides the adopted mitigation measures, including the timing, implementing responsibility, and monitoring responsibility for each measure.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
2 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basic Best Management
Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust
Emissions.

Note: this is a new mitigation measure.

B-1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

B-2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

B-3. All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

B-4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

B-5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

B-6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

B-7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
3 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
B-8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

B-9. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction
Measures.

All contractors and equipment operators will be made aware of the ecological values of the site, and will be given instructions to comply with all mitigation measures.

Construction activities will be limited to a designated work area (including the work corridor and staging areas). The work area will be clearly identified and will be staked and flagged where necessary prior to initiation of construction activities. This will include flagging of riparian and wetland habitats in the vicinity of work areas to ensure their avoidance and protection.

All construction activities, including site preparation and development, will be restricted to daytime hours between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays and non-holidays unless weekend work is unavoidable.

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
4 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Participation in the ECCCHCP.

The City will participate in the ECCCHCP for the Proposed Project, if applicable to the work sites, to mitigate any potential impacts to special-status species covered under the ECCCHCP.

This coverage will allow the City to minimize and compensate for potential effects resulting from construction- and operationrelated activities associated with the Proposed Project through implementation of all applicable conservation measures and compensation mechanisms of the ECCCHCP.

The City will conduct Planning Surveys, as necessary, according to the species-specific protocols contained in Section 6.3.1 of the ECCCHCP and will complete an Application Form and
Planning Survey Report.

To compensate for unavoidable Project-related effects the City will pay either the applicable fee or dedication of land in lieu of the fee as described in Chapter 9, Funding, and in Brentwood Ordinance number 850.

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City
Activity: Retain
qualified biologist
to conduct planning
surveys, and
coordinate with the
East Contra Costa
Conservancy to
determine the
specific
requirements for
HCP participation.

The biologist will
report to the City’s
designated Project
manager.

Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Special-Status Plants.

On suitable land cover types under the ECCCHCP, the City will conduct special-status plant surveys using approved
CDFW/USFWS methods during the appropriate season for
identification of covered and no-take plant species, as well as any additional special-status plant species not covered under the ECCCHCP.

If ECCCHCP-covered special-status plant species are found in the construction areas, the City would implement all applicable Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
5 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
conditions on covered activities under the ECCCHCP including Conservation Measure 1.11 “Avoid Direct Impacts on Extremely Rare Plants” and Conservation Measure 3.10 “Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable.”
If special-status plant species that are not covered by the ECCCHCP are discovered, mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels would be developed in consultation with appropriate resource agencies.
specifications
issued to
contractors.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Special-Status Amphibians
and Reptiles.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys, as necessary per the ECCCHCP, for California tiger salamander, silvery legless lizard, western pond turtle, California horned lizard, giant garter snake, and San Joaquin whipsnake in annual grassland habitat for the construction areas at the WWTP.

Surveys will be implemented in accordance with methods
described in Section 6.4.3 of the ECCCHCP.

If any ECCCHCP -covered species are found (California tiger salamander, silvery legless lizard, western pond turtle, and giant garter snake), all applicable avoidance and minimization measures, construction monitoring, conservation measures, and/or mitigation fees of the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

If any special-status species not covered by the ECCCHCP (California horned lizard and San Joaquin whipsnake) are discovered, measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels would be developed in consultation with CDFW.

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
6 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Burrowing Owls.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls or burrows at proposed construction sites with potential habitat in accordance with methods described in Section 6.4.3 of the ECCCHCP.

If the burrowing owls nests or burrows are discovered in the work areas, all applicable avoidance and minimization
measures, construction monitoring, conservation measures, and/or mitigation fees for this species in the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Other Special-Status Birds.

If construction activities are scheduled to occur between February 15 and September 15, preconstruction surveys will be conducted at proposed construction sites within 30 days prior to any such activities to determine whether any nests of specialstatus birds are present. A qualified biologist will search within 1000 feet of sites for raptor nests, and within 250 feet of sites for passerine nests. Biologists will conduct a visual and aural search of the survey area on foot, using binoculars to scan tree tops for the presence of raptor nests.

If any nests are identified, measures to reduce impacts to lessthan-significant levels, such as species-specific buffers, would be developed in consultation with appropriate resource agencies (CDFW and/or USFWS).

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
7 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: American Badger.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys for American badgers or burrows at proposed construction areas with
potential habitat in conjunction with burrowing owl surveys.

If any American badgers or burrows are found, measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels would be developed in consultation with CDFW, and/or mitigation fees for this species in the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Bats.

Note: this is a new mitigation measure to address potential additional effects to bats.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys for bats roosts at proposed construction areas with potential habitat in conjunction with burrowing owl surveys.

If any bat roosts are found, measures to reduce impacts to lessthan-significant levels would be developed in consultation with CDFW, and/or mitigation fees for covered bat species in the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
8 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Ringtail.

Note: this is a new mitigation measure to address potential additional effects to ringtail.

The City will implement pre-construction surveys for ringtail and their burrows at proposed construction areas with potential habitat in conjunction with burrowing owl surveys.

If any ringtail or ringtail burrows are found, measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels would be developed in consultation with CDFW, and/or mitigation fees for this species in the ECCCHCP will be implemented.

Phase:

Preconstruction
and during
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Responsible
Party: City and
construction
contractors
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Accidental Discovery of
Archaeological Resources.

Note: this mitigation measure has been revised to provide specificity regarding where work can and cannot occur in the event of discovery of potential archaeological resources.

If any prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of archaeological resources such as unusual deposits of stone, bone or shell, stone artifacts, or historic trash deposits or foundations are discovered once ground-disturbing activities are underway, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the find(s) and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist that meets the qualifications at 36 CFR Part 61) shall be retained to assess its potential significance. If the find is not significant, then no Phase:

During
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
Construction
Contractors
Activity: Retain
qualified
archaeologist to
conduct survey if
resources are found
onsite and consult
on other
appropriate
avoidance and
Responsible
Party: City
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
9 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
additional cultural resources investigations are necessary and Project work may resume in the area of the find. If the find is determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment to allow for
implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate
mitigation shall be made available, as provided in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Work may continue on other parts of the Project site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place on-site.
mitigation actions.

Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Accidental Discovery of
Paleontological Resources.

A qualified professional paleontologist shall periodically monitor excavations to check for fossils that may be unearthed. If vertebrate fossils (e.g., teeth, bones) are unearthed by the construction crew anywhere on the Project, the finds should be set aside and all excavation activity cease at the specific place of discovery until the paleontologist has assessed the find and, if deemed significant, salvaged the find in a timely manner. The decision to conduct paleontological salvage operations will be determined by the paleontologist in consultation with city staff.

Work may proceed on other parts of the Project while
assessment and/or salvage by the paleontologist is underway.

Finds determined significant by the paleontologist shall be conserved and deposited with a recognized repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Phase:

During
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
Construction
Contractors
Activity: Retain
qualified
paleontologist to
conduct survey if
resources are found
onsite and consult
on other
appropriate
avoidance and
mitigation actions.

Responsible
Party: City
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
10 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Mitigation Measure CULT-3: Accidental Discovery of
Human Remains.

Note: this mitigation measure has been revised to provide specificity regarding where work can and cannot occur in the event of discovery of human remains.

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, all work within 100 feet of the find shall cease immediately until compliance with the provisions of
§15064.5(e)(1) and (2) of the CEQA Guidelines has occurred.

The CEQA Guidelines specify that in the event of the discovery of human remains other than in a dedicated cemetery, the Contra Costa County Coroner must be notified to determine if an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines that the remains are Native American, then, within 24 hours, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn will notify the most likely descendant who may recommend treatment of the remains and any grave goods. If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after notification by the Native American Heritage Commission, or the landowner or his authorized agent rejects the
recommendation by the most likely descendant and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide a measure acceptable to the landowner, then the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the human remains and grave goods with appropriate dignity at a location on the property not subject to further disturbances.

Phase:

During
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
Construction
Contractors
Activity: Retain
qualified
archaeologist to
conduct survey if
resources are found
onsite and consult
on other
appropriate
mitigation actions.

Responsible
Party: City
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
11 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Conduct Geotechnical
Investigation and Implement Recommended Measures.

The City will conduct a geotechnical investigation for the Proposed Project that evaluates site-specific conditions related to the potential for ground rupture, risk to features due to ground shaking, risk of soil liquefaction, and risk of expansive soils. Based on subsurface conditions, the pipelines and appurtenances will be designed to withstand the effects of strong ground shaking and the effects of soil liquefaction.

Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation, the City and its contractor(s) will be responsible for implementing the design specification and performance criteria according to Uniform Building Code (UBC) the City’s Seismic Hazards policies for pipeline construction, trenching, backfill materials, and other recommendations.

Phase: Prior
to
construction
Responsible
Party: City
Responsible
Party: City
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Implement Construction
BMPs for Water Quality Protection.

The City, or its designated general contractor, shall obtain authorization of Project construction activities under the SWRCB’s NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ/NPDES Permit No. CAS000002, and any applicable amendments), for any activities not subject to exemption from the permit. The Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan Phase: Prior
to and
during
Construction
Responsible
Party: Construction
Contractor
Activity: Prepare
and implement
appropriate water
quality protection
measures during
Responsible
Party: City
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
12 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
(SWPPP) prepared for permit will describe the BMPs that will be used to avoid and minimize potential construction-related contaminant discharges at construction sites. Compliance with this mitigation shall be included as a condition of the construction contract(s) between the City and applicable construction contractor(s), and as appropriate, shall additionally be included in final Project designs and specifications that are prepared for the Proposed Project. The City will be responsible for ensuring that the construction is implemented in accordance with the Construction General Permit.
construction. specifications
issued to
contractors.

Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: Dissolved Oxygen Evaluation
and Control Measures.

Upon initiation of increased recycled water deliveries for the Proposed Project, the City shall evaluate Marsh Creek for adverse DO-related effects to the fish community, and
implement control measures, if necessary. During periods when recycled water is being distributed from the WWTP during the mid-summer months (i.e., July and August), and background Marsh Creek streamflow levels are low, the City will monitor receiving water DO to determine whether DO falls to levels that may result in adverse effects to fish and invertebrates within lower Marsh Creek. If potentially adverse DO levels are observed from monitoring, the City will implement fish and invertebrate surveys upstream and downstream of the WWTP discharge to determine whether actual adverse effects (e.g., reduced species diversity, change in expected community structure, loss of sensitive organisms) are occurring. Should adverse effect be identified through field surveys that are determined to be attributable to the reduced effluent discharge, Phase:

During
Project
operations.

Responsible
Party: City
Responsible
Party: City

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
13 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
the City shall implement corrective measures to substantially reduce or eliminate the adverse effects. Such corrective measures include, but may not be limited to, reducing the amount of water used for recycled water irrigation.

Noise
Mitigation Measure NZ-1. Minimize Construction-Related
Noise.

To reduce noise-related impacts to occupants of nearby
residential land uses, the following BMPs will be incorporated into the plans and design of the Proposed Project:

Noise-generating construction activities will be limited to the weekday and weekend restrictions specified by the City’s Municipal Code. All construction equipment will be required to have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust system.

Additional noise-reduction measures will be implemented as appropriate and practical, including but not limited to: (a) locating staging areas and stationary construction equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as feasible and direct noise emissions away from receptors; (b) limiting equipment idling time; and, (c) notifying nearby residents 48 hours in advance of starting construction in an area not previously affected by recent construction activities.

Require construction contractor to have a designated “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding Phase:

During
Construction
Responsible
Party: Construction
Contractors
Responsible
Party: City
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Brentwood
Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project Amended November 14, 2023
14 Table 1. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant – Phase II Expansion Project
Measure Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
to noise complaints, determining the causes of the noise, and instituting reasonable measures (as warranted) to correct the problem.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure TCR-1. Incidental Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources.

Note: this is a new mitigation measure to address potential additional effects to tribal cultural resources.

If resources of Native American origin are discovered once ground-disturbing activities are underway, the City shall contact local Native Americans to consult on the find. If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, contingency funding, and a time allotment to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation determined in consultation with local Native Americans shall be made available. Work may continue on other parts of the Proposed Project site while tribal cultural resource mitigation takes place.

Phase:

During
construction
Responsible
Party: City and
Construction
Contractors
Activity: Retain
qualified
archaeologist to
conduct survey if
resources are found
onsite and consult
on other
appropriate
mitigation actions.

Responsible
Party: City
Activity: Include
the identified
measures in the
Project’s
construction
specifications
issued to
contractors.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
6 October 2023
Casey Wicheret
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94516
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL

STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CITY OF BRENTWOOD -

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE II EXPANSION PROJECT,
SCH#2016052031, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 7 September 2023 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Supplemental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Brentwood - Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project, located in Contra Costa County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore, our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has Attachment 6

City of Brentwood - Wastewater - 2 - 6 October 2023
Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project
Contra Costa County
adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the

City of Brentwood - Wastewater - 3 - 6 October 2023
Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project
Contra Costa County
State Water Resources Control Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources

City of Brentwood - Wastewater - 4 - 6 October 2023
Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project
Contra Costa County
Control Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/

City of Brentwood - Wastewater - 5 - 6 October 2023
Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project
Contra Costa County
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento

98 City of Brentwood 2023/24 – 2027/28 Capital Improvement Program Project Title: * MULTI-YEAR * Project #:

Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion - Phase II 592-59140 Description/Justification:

The existing 5 MGD tertiary treatment facility was planned and constructed to accommodate future expansions, of up to 10 MGD. The original facility was designed based on 100 GPD per capita flow but the average flow in the last several years has been 69 GPD per capita. The Phase II Expansion is designed to treat 6.4 MGD flow based on 69 GPD per capita, which will service the final buildout population of the City per the current General Plan. The project includes the addition of one diffused air oxidation basin, retrofit of existing oxidation ditches to diffused air, secondary clarifiers, converting chlorine contact facilities to free chlorine disinfection, solids dryer and pyrolysis system, Electrical Distribution System Upgrade and all related appurtenances. This project is necessary to keep the City in compliance with more stringent discharge requirements. The expansion will also accommodate the planned and approved development within the City.

Project Status:

The construction phase is under way and completion is anticipated for FY 2024/25.

Supplemental Information:

Funding is comprised of a deposit refund, Wastewater Development Impact Fees, Wastewater Enterprise Funds ($7,151,246), Wastewater Replacement Funds ($6,962,200) and an SRF loan of $61,246,000 which reflects principal forgiveness of $3,856,000 provided by a federal capitalization grant. The SRF loan is financed over a 30-year period with the debt service payment provided by the Wastewater Enterprise Fund and Wastewater Development Impact Fees. The Biosolids Drying and Pyrolysis System portion of the project is funded as follows: Wastewater Replacement ($6,962,200), Wastewater Enterprise ($6,221,246) and Wastewater Development Impact Fees ($12,334,221). The Future Annual O & M Impact estimates the total operating and maintenance costs associated with this new facility, including personnel, supplies, utilities, building maintenance, administration, etc. The project was included in the City’s Strategic Plan for FY 2016/17 - FY 2017/18.

PROJECT EXPENDITURES Prior 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 TOTAL 70239 Legal 35,000 100,000 $ 135,000
90040 Planning and Design 6,000,000 1,500,000 500,000 $ 8,000,000 90050 Construction 35,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 $ 75,000,000 90070 Project Administration 4,500,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 $ 10,500,000 TOTAL $ 45,535,000 $ 35,600,000 $ 12,500,000 $ 93,635,000 PROJECT FUNDING Prior 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 TOTAL 47255 Development Impact Fees 14,404,221 $ 14,404,221
47 - Var Enterprise 14,113,446 $ 14,113,446
44475 Federal/State/Agency 53,676,000 10,100,000 1,326,000 $ 65,102,000 Other 15,333 $ 15,333
TOTAL 82,209,000 $ 10,100,000 $ 1,326,000 $ $ 93,635,000

PROJECT FINANCING CURRENT PROPOSED
Project Category: Wastewater Improvements
Location: Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
site, east of Marsh Creek and north of
Sunset Road
Project Manager: A. Baquilar
Project Priority: 1A - Mandatory
Est. Completion Date: 2024/25
Future Annual
O & M Impact: $600,000
Public Art
Requirement: Exempt
General Plan Policy: IF 1-1, IF 1-3, IF 3-1
Attachment 7

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
11/14/2023
SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution amending the Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees to update mitigation fees implementing the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2023/24 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees to update mitigation fees implementing the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), and repeal and replace Resolution No. 2022-56, which updated the HCP/NCCP fees on April 26, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed fee update will result in the City collecting updated mitigation fees that are passed through to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy to be used only for public facilities related to the conservation of covered species, as set forth in the HCP/NCCP and the proposed resolution. The cost of City staff time to administer the ordinance is calculated in the Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees, and a fee for the costs is collected on a per project basis. The base flat fee per project is currently set at $1,844.67, with an option to collect a deposit of $3,000 for more complex projects. The proposed fee update will not impact the General Fund or other City funds, nor will any unreimbursed ongoing costs be incurred. Approval of this item would require an amendment to the FY 2023/24 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees, as well as the repeal and replacement of Resolution No. 2022-

56. BACKGROUND
In December 2006, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). Under the HCP/NCCP, the County and the other participating local agencies were issued state and federal permits for impacts to endangered species

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
11/14/2023
and their habitats, also referred to as “take permits.” This enables the County and the other participating local agencies to control endangered species permitting for activities and projects in the region that they perform or approve.

In February 2007, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) – a joint powers authority composed of the County and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg – was formed for the purpose of implementing the HCP/NCCP. Among other responsibilities, the Conservancy conducts periodic fee audits and refers the results to the participating cities and the County.

In October 2007, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2007-53 to establish the mitigation fees and procedures to implement the HCP/NCCP within the portion of the unincorporated County covered by the Plan. Two types of mitigation fees were established:

1. The Development Fee, which is calculated by multiplying the acreage of the site permanently disturbed by development projects subject to the fee by the fee rate applicable in the zone in which the projects are located; and

2. The Wetland Mitigation Fee, which is applicable to the wetland, aquatic, or riparian portions of a development project.

The Conservancy and participating cities each separately adopted the mitigation fees and procedures to implement the HCP/NCCP. This was accomplished in Brentwood through the adoption of Resolution No. 2007-234 in October 2007 and Ordinance No. 850 in November 2007.

The HCP/NCCP includes automatic annual adjustments to the mitigation fees based on economic indices. The HCP/NCCP also requires periodic audits in years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20, and 25 of the Plan’s implementation. The periodic audits are conducted to assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs over time require adjustment of the fees. Per HCP/NCCP requirements, the Conservancy hired an outside, independent financial auditor to conduct a fee analysis. The 2022 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (“Fee Study”) was prepared to comply with the requirement of a fully-funded mitigation strategy.

Other than the automatic annual adjustments approved for the fees (based on the Consumer Price Index and the Home Price Index), the County and the participating cities most recently updated the HCP/NCCP mitigation fees in the last two years. The

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
11/14/2023
most recent fee update was based on a 2017 Fee Study that was delayed due to litigation between the Conservancy and a private third party. That litigation was settled in January 2021. In February 2021, the Conservancy adopted the updated fee schedule based on the 2017 Fee Study. This triggered a need for the County and participating cities to take action to adopt the updated fee schedule. On August 3, 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2021-25, updating the mitigation fee schedule to reflect the 2017 Fee Study. The member cities of the joint powers subsequently undertook their own adoption of fee updates. It is now time for the next periodic audit, which the Conservancy adopted in February of this year, and the other member cities subsequently adopted within the last few months. 2022 MITIGATION FEE AUDIT AND NEXUS STUDY FEE RECOMMENDED

ADJUSTMENTS
The 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study determined there is a need to adjust the Mitigation Fees (Development Fee [and the associated Rural Road Fee, and Temporary Impact Fee] and the Wetland Mitigation Fee [and the associated Temporary Impact Fee]) based on the recent updated data.

Development Fee
Excerpted from the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, Table E.2 provides the recommended adjustments to the Development Fee. The proposed adjustment is a 1.2% increase to the current fee schedule.

Wetland Mitigation Fee
Excerpted from the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, Table E.3 provides the recommended adjustments to the Wetland Mitigation Fee. The Wetland Mitigation Fees for all wetland land cover types and streams are proposed to increase between

0.4% and 2.5% compared to the current fee schedule.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
11/14/2023
Determining Fee Amounts
The Conservancy, participating cities (Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg), and the County (“Co-Permittees”) have the responsibility and authority to adjust the fees in effect for their jurisdictions. The role of the Conservancy is to conduct the periodic fee audits, determine fees to be charged to Participating Special Entities, and refer the results of the 2022 Fee Audit and Nexus Study to the Co-Permittees.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
A 30-day notice of public hearing was published in the Brentwood Press on October 13, 2023. This was followed by a 14-day notice of public hearing that was published in the Brentwood Press on October 27, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This action has been found to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
11/14/2023
15378(b)(4), as it relates to the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Actions

2. ECCC HCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study – February 2023

3. Resolution

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the City Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.  On October 9, 2007, the City Council heard the first reading of Ordinance No. 850, establishing Chapter 16.168 (Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Implementation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code, and adopted Resolution No. 2007-234, Adopting Brentwood Habitat Conservation Fees Necessary to Implement the HCP/NCCP and Amending the 2007-2008 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees.  On November 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 850, establishing Chapter 16.168 (Habitat Conservation Plan /Natural Community Conservation Plan Implementation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.  On April 26, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-56 amending the FY 2021/22 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees to update mitigation fees implementing the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), and repealing and replacing Resolution No. 2007-234, which adopted the HCP/NCCP fees as established in 2007.

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD

AMENDING BRENTWOOD HABITAT CONSERVATION FEES NECESSARY

TO IMPLEMENT THE EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
AND AMENDING THE 2023/24 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND

SCHEDULE OF CITY FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted ordinances and resolutions establishing and revising fees required to be paid by sponsors of new development; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65104, 65909.5, 66014, and 66451.2 allow the City to establish fees to offset the City’s administrative costs in processing permits, licenses, subdivision maps, and other entitlements; and WHEREAS, Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 16.168 provides for the payment of Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) implementation fees and an administrative fee to review required applications and collect required fees; and
WHEREAS, Goal COS 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan calls for the protection and enhancement of Brentwood’s ecosystem and natural habitats; and
WHEREAS, Policy COS 3-1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan recognizes that sensitive habitats include creek corridors, wetlands, vernal pools, riparian areas, wildlife and fish migration corridors, native plant nursery sites, waters of the United States, sensitive natural communities, and other habitats designated by state and federal agencies; and WHEREAS, Policy COS 3-1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan looks to preserve and enhance those biological communities that contribute to Brentwood’s and the region’s biodiversity including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, and agricultural lands; and WHEREAS, Action COS 3a of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan requires new development, as well as infrastructure projects, long-range planning projects, and other projects, to comply with the requirements of the HCP/NCCP to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special-status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed; and
WHEREAS, in October 2006, a Final HCP/NCCP and Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) were released. Copies of both documents are on file within the Brentwood Community Development Department at 150 City Park Way in Brentwood, California; and

WHEREAS, the main element of the proposed HCP/NCCP conservation strategy is the creation of a Preserve System that would preserve approximately 23,800 acres of species habitat land with the initial urban development area, or approximately 30,300 acres of species habitat land under the maximum urban development area; and
WHEREAS, the proposed HCP/NCCP conservation measures address the landscape level, community-level (or habitat), and species-level impacts, and include measures to address the following objectives: design of covered activities to avoid or minimize impacts on covered species and covered vegetation communities; preservation of covered vegetation communities; preservation of covered species populations and habitats; restoration of covered species habitat and vegetation communities to compensate for direct and indirect impacts on specific species and vegetation communities; restoration of species habitat to contribute to the recovery of listed covered species and help prevent the listing of non-listed covered species, and management of preserves to maximize the functions of habitats for covered species; and
WHEREAS, by developing a plan that addresses natural resource issues comprehensively and proactively, the City would increase its control over local land use issues and benefit species and project proponents alike; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2006, the HCP Executive Governing Committee unanimously approved the final HCP/NCCP and the EIR/EIS as the lead agency and directed the HCPA staff to forward the documents to the plan participants for approval; and
WHEREAS, the City, as one of those plan participants, has acted and is continuing to act in the capacity of a responsible agency in its review of, and reliance upon, said EIR/EIS; and
WHEREAS, the final HCP/NCCP includes a comprehensive analysis of the cost to implement the HCP/NCCP including program administration, land acquisition, habitat restoration/creation, preserve management, and environmental compliance; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an analysis of the costs to review applications and collect applicable HCCP/NCCP fees required by Chapter 16.168; and WHEREAS, the fees established herein are adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the comprehensive studies that have been prepared for the HCP/NCCP and by the City; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2007, the City Council approved the HCP/NCCP, the implementing agreement, and a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating a conservancy to form the oversight agency for the Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2007, both the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and

California Department of Fish and Game approved the HCP/NCCP and issued regional permits to the local plan participants; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed implementing ordinance and the adoption of related fees for the implementation of the HCP/NCCP, and introduced Ordinance No. 850, and adopted Resolution No. 2007-234; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 850, codified at Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 16.168; and WHEREAS, BMC § 16.168.070 authorizes the collection of mitigation fees to offset impacts by development that disturbs open space, wetlands and waters, habitat, and sensitive special status species covered by the HCP/NCCP, with the fee amounts established by Resolution No. 2007-234; and
WHEREAS, BMC § 16.168.070 likewise provides for an automatic adjustment of mitigation fees according to market inflation or deflation as provided in the HCP/NCCP. A periodic audit and adjustment of the mitigation fees is required to be done in years three, six, 10, 15, 20, and 25 of Plan implementation to assess whether actual land costs and experience in implementing the HCP/NCCP since adoption of the Plan necessitate an additional adjustment of the mitigation fees; and WHEREAS, the fee audit for year 15 occurred in 2022 (the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study); and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2023, the HCP Conservancy Governing Board adopted the 2022 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, each of the participating agencies in the HCP/NCCP must take action to adopt the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study’s updated fees, as adjusted to include automatic annual adjustments that occurred in March 2023, to facilitate consistency in implementation of the HCP/NCCP across the participating agencies; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been noticed in accordance with state law; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed adoption of updated fees for the implementation of the HCP/NCCP; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and given consideration to all written material and oral testimony presented before and during the hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby:

Section 1. Findings:

The Council makes each of the following findings:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

B. The purpose of the habitat conservation mitigation fees is to help fund the HCP/NCCP conservation strategy, mitigate the impacts of development on covered species, and contribute to the recovery of these species in the plan area.

C. The habitat conservation mitigation fees help implement Brentwood’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, including, specifically, Goal COS 3, in that the fees will be used to help protect and enhance Brentwood’s ecosystem and natural habitats; Policies COS 3-1 and COS 3-2 in that the fees will be used to preserve and enhance biological communities that contribute to the biodiversity of Brentwood and the region; and Action COS 3a in that these fees will be required of qualifying new development to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed.

D. As reflected in the recitals set forth above, the City has historically followed the procedures set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.) in adopting and imposing the fees set forth herein, and the City is electing to continue to follow these procedures in the present Resolution, even though said fees do not meet the definition of development “fees” under Government Code section 66000, subdivision (b) and thus are not otherwise subject to the requirements set forth in many provisions of that Act.

E. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the updated HCP/NCCP implementation fees authorized by this Ordinance and the type of development projects subject to the fees. The fees updated herein are adopted and implemented by the Council in reliance on the comprehensive studies that have been prepared for the HCP/NCCP and by the City. The updated Development Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the acquisition of land, the enhancement and management of habitat and the other activities to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat and covered species caused by affected Development Projects. The updated Wetland mitigation fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the restoration, creation and management Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub and other actions in order to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian areas caused by affected Development Projects. The updated HCP/NCCP implementation fees will not apply to all types of development projects, but only those that impact open space, habitat suitable for one or more covered species, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas. In this way, the updated HCP/NCCP implementation fees will be used only for purposes reasonably related to the types of development projects that will be subject to the fees.

F. Based on the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study and the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public activities and facilities including land acquisition, management, restoration, and habitat creation and enhancement to be funded by the updated HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the type of development projects on which the updated fees are imposed in that the need for the activities and the facilities arise from the very development projects to which the updated fees will apply, i.e. development projects of all types that disturb open space, habitat, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas.

G. Based on the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study and the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the updated HCP/NCCP implementation fees authorized by Chapter 16.168 of the Brentwood Municipal Code and established in this resolution and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development projects on which the updated fees will be imposed. As reflected in the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City has reviewed the assumptions in the Nexus Study supporting the original fee and has evaluated the amount of fees collected under the original fee. The costs of the facilities needed to mitigate cumulative impacts from development projects subject to the updated fees were estimated by projecting the extent of future development impacts, calculating the open space or habitat acreage to be acquired, managed, enhanced, restored and created to offset these impacts and estimating the overall costs of acquiring and preserving this acreage for the 30- year term of the state and federal permits. The updated fees were then calculated based on these costs as follows:

1. The method of calculating the Development Fee amount for individual Affected Development Projects reflects the cost of the facilities attributable to individual Affected Development Projects based on:
a. Area of the Affected Development Project, as the cost of acquiring sufficient open space or habitat land to mitigate for the impacts of a particular development project is directly proportional to the acreage of that project; and
b. Location of the Affected Development Project, as the need for the facilities varies in proportion to the intrinsic habitat or open space value of the land impacted by the project. Thus, fees are tiered so that the highest fee amounts are imposed in Development Fee Zone II, deemed to have the highest intrinsic value per acre. A fee equal to 50 percent of the highest fee amount is imposed in Development Fee Zone I, deemed to have substantial but lower intrinsic value per acre, and a fee equal to 25 percent of the highest fee amount is required in Development Fee Zone III, deemed to have the lowest intrinsic value per acre.

2. The method of calculating the Wetland Mitigation Fee amount for individual Affected Development Projects reflects the cost of the facilities attributable to those individual Affected Development Projects based on:

a. Type of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be impacted by the Affected Development Project, as the type of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be restored or created must effectively replace the type being impacted by the particular project. The cost of restoring or creating Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub depends on (1) the specific construction tasks necessary to restore or create these areas and (2) the different mitigation ratios applicable to the restoration or creation of various types of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, such ratios having been established in the HCP/NCCP to require relatively more restoration or creation of those types of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub that have a higher habitat value and function for covered species and/or are more difficult to restore or create, and therefore must be restored or created in larger amounts to offset the anticipated failure of a portion of the acreage restored or created; and
b. Area of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be impacted by the Affected Development Project, as the cost of restoring or creating Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub is directly proportional to the acreage being restored or created, which in turn is directly proportional to the acreage being impacted by the project.

3. On October 9, 2007, prior to approving the HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance and fees, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2007-234 making findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving the HCP/NCCP. This update of the adopted schedule of fees is an administrative action that is not considered a “project” pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), and is thus exempt from CEQA.

H. Future individual affected development projects subject to this resolution will require separate project-specific CEQA review.

I. After considering the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, City staff reports, and the testimony received during the public hearing, the City Council approves and adopts said study, and incorporates such herein.

J. The 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, HCP/NCCP, staff reports, and the testimony establish:

1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the updated fee’s use and the type of development on which the updated fee is imposed; and

2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the updated fees and the cost of purchasing habitat to protect species covered under the

HCP/NCCP within the Brentwood Planning Area.

Section 2. Definitions:

For purposes of this Resolution, the terms defined in Chapter 16.168 of the Brentwood Municipal Code are incorporated by reference herein.

Section 3. Fees Imposed:

A. Chapter 16.168 of the Brentwood Municipal Code sets forth the requirements for certain development projects to pay the applicable HCP/NCCP implementation fees. The amounts of which are set forth herein.

B. Development Fee.

1. The Development Fee shall be based on each acre of land permanently disturbed and is set as follows:

Location of Affected Development
Project
Development Fee
Development Fee Zone I $19,871.91 per acre
Development Fee Zone II $39,743.83 per acre
Development Fee Zone III $9,935.96 per acre

2. The Development Fee Zones are set forth in Exhibit A.

C. Wetland Mitigation Fee

1. The Wetland Mitigation Fee is set forth in Exhibit B.

D. The Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee shall on March 15 of each year be automatically adjusted as follows:

1. The Development Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit C and based on the formula in Exhibit D, as explained in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. As shown in Exhibit C and Exhibit D, both of which are incorporated herein by reference, one portion of the Development Fee amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Annual Home Price Index for the Oakland-FremontHayward, California Metropolitan Division for the 12-month period ending December 31. The remaining portion of the Development Fee amounts shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San FranciscoOakland-San Jose Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the 12-month period ending December 31.

2. The Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit C. As shown

in Exhibit C, the Wetland Mitigation Fee amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the 12-month period ending December 31.

Section 4. Effective Date of Fees:

The fee increases provided in this Resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days after the adoption of this Resolution.

Section 5. Severability:

All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any provision of this Resolution be judged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the fees shall be fully effective except as to the portion that has been judged to be invalid.

Section 6. Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees Amendment:

The City of Brentwood 2023/24 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees is hereby amended to add the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and administration fees adopted by this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of November, 2023, by the following vote:

EXHIBIT ‘A’
Development Fee Zones
(adapted from Figure 9-1 of the HCP/NCCP)

EXHIBIT ‘B’
Wetland Mitigation Fee
(Figure 2-3 of the HCP/NCCP)

EXHIBIT ‘C’
2022 Wetland Mitigation Fee and Acreage Determination Methods (adapted from Table 9-5 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee amounts applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) Land Cover Type Fee per unit of Impact Method for Determining Fee Boundary
Riparian woodland/scrub $111,060.40/acre Limit of tree or shrub canopy (drip line)
Perennial wetlands $170,908.06/acre Jurisdictional wetland boundary of state or federal
government1, whichever is
greater
Seasonal wetland $401,479.18/acre Same as above
Alkali wetland $405,871.63/acre Same as above
Ponds $221,421.23/acre Jurisdictional waters
boundary of state or federal
government1, whichever is
greater
Aquatic (open water) $110,711.14/acre Wetted area during normal rainfall year or jurisdictional
waters boundary, whichever
is greater
Slough/channel $156,815.09/acre Area of impact within banks Streams
Streams 25 feet wide or
less
$580.00/linear foot Stream length measured
along stream centerline.

Stream width measured
between top of bank.

Streams greater than 25
feet wide2
$869.47/linear foot Stream length measured
along stream centerline.

Stream width measured
between top of bank.
1 Using methods for determining state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters at the time of HCP/NCCP approval.

2 Impact fee for wider streams is 1.5 times the base stream fee to account for higher construction costs on wider streams.

EXHIBIT ‘D’
Fee Adjustment Indices
(adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee adjustment procedures applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) Fee Annual Adjustment Index1
Annual
Average
Rate
(2006-
2022)
Example
Development Fee
Portion for Land
Acquisition2
(62.52% initially3)
Change in the annual Home Price Index
(HPI) for the Oakland-BerkeleyLivermore, CA Metropolitan Division (MSAD) for the prior calendar year
(Office of Federal Housing Finance
Agency)4

3.85%
Portion for Preserve
System Operation,
Restoration, and
Maintenance
(37.48% initially3)
Change in the Consumer Price Index for
the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
Combined Statistical Area for all urban
consumers for the prior calendar year
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)5

2.87%
Wetland Mitigation Fee Change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
Combined Statistical Area for all urban
consumers for the prior calendar year
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)5

2.87%
Note:
1 HCP/NCCP fees to be adjusted automatically by March 15 of every year based on the indices for the prior calendar year. See Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP for more details on methodology and sources.
2 Direct land acquisition costs only. Excludes costs associated with land transaction, site improvements, and due diligence (e.g., pre-acquisition surveys). 3 The portion of the Development Fee that will be adjusted according to the HPI and CPI will vary over time. For the first annual automatic adjustment following the

effective date of this Ordinance No. 2021-25, 62.52% of the initial fees will be adjusted according to the HPI and 37.48% will be adjusted according to the CPI. The apportionment in subsequent years will depend on the relative values of the indices, in accordance with the formula provided in Exhibit E.
4 See https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/House-Price-IndexDatasets.aspx#atvolData. Data for the prior calendar year are published in March.

To calculate automatic adjustments, the change in the HPI for the prior calendar year will be used.
5 Consumer Price Index, All Items, with base data year of 1982-1984 (i.e., 1982- 1984 = 100), for all urban consumers (CPI-U), not seasonally adjusted. See http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca _sanfrancisco_msa.htm.

Exhibit E
Automatic Development Fee Increase Formula
(adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee amounts applicable after the effective date of this Ordinance 2023-XX) Feen = [[Ln-1*(HPIn-1/HPIn-2)] + [Sn -1 *(CPIn-1/CPIn-2)]]*Z Where:
n = year of HCP/NCCP Implementation [year 1 (n=l) is 2007, the calendar year in which the HCP/NCCP implementation ordinance was adopted; year 2 (n = 2) is 2008; etc. Year 0 (n=0) is 2006. Year 17 (n=17) is 2023.] Feen = Development Fee for year n (the Development Fee for year n applies from March 15 of year n through March 14 of the following year) Fee17 = $39,743.83for Zone II; $19,871.91for Zone I; and $9,935.96 for Zone III
Ln = [Ln-1*(HPIn-1/HPIn-2)]*Z
Ln-1 = Land acquisition portion of development fee for the year prior to year n L17 = 59.53% of $39,743.83= $23,659.15
HPIn-1 = Home Price Index (HPI) for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore, CA Metropolitan Division
(MSAD) at the end of the calendar year prior to year n as published by the Office of Federal Housing Finance Agency
Sn = [Sn -1 *(CPIn-1/CPIn-2)]*Z
Sn-1 = Non-land acquisition portion of development fee for the year prior to year n S17 = 40.47% of $39,743.83= $16,084.67
CPIn-1 = Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area for all urban consumers at the end of the calendar year prior to year n as published by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Z = Fee zone factor (based on which fee zone the project is in (see Figure 9-1 in the HCP)). The fee zone factors for the three zones are as follows:

Z = l for Zone II, the Natural Lands Zone
Z = 0.5 for Zone I, the agricultural lands zone
Z = 0.25 for Zone III, the infill zone

EAST CONTRA COSTA

COUNTY HCP / NCCP

MITIGATION FEE AUDIT

AND NEXUS STUDY
Prepared For:

East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy
Prepared By:

Robert D. Spencer, Urban Economics
Sally E. Nielsen, Insight Data and Economic Analysis
February 2023

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fees ................................................................................................ 2 Audit Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................... 3

2. Impacts ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Urban Development Area (UDA) ........................................................................................ 9 Development Fee Zones ......................................................................................................10 Summary of Impacts to Date ..............................................................................................11 Remaining Permanent Impacts Under the HCP/NCCP ................................................11 Permit Term Extension ........................................................................................................14

3. Cost Model .......................................................................................................................................16 General Approach .................................................................................................................16 Land Acquisition Costs .........................................................................................................17 Habitat Restoration/Creation Costs ...................................................................................18 Updates to Other Cost Categories ......................................................................................20 Summary of Cost Model Results .........................................................................................22

4. Endowment Model .........................................................................................................................25 Endowment Creation ............................................................................................................25 Post-permit Term Costs .......................................................................................................26 Endowment Funding ............................................................................................................26 Endowment Model Results ..................................................................................................29

5. Wetland Mitigation Fee ..................................................................................................................30 Updated Fee Schedule ..........................................................................................................30 Mitigation Fee Act Findings ................................................................................................32

6. Development Fee ............................................................................................................................35 Updated Fee Schedule ..........................................................................................................35 Comparison with Original and Current Fee ......................................................................37 Mitigation Fee Act Findings ................................................................................................37

7. Rural Road and Temporary Impact Fees ....................................................................................40

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report ii
Rural Road Fee .......................................................................................................................40 Temporary Impact Fee .........................................................................................................42

8. Funding Plan ....................................................................................................................................45 Revenue Sources ....................................................................................................................45 Funding Plan Summary ........................................................................................................49 Appendix A: Development Impacts ............................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Land Acquisition Cost Analysis .............................................................................. B-1 Appendix C: Initial UDA Cost Model Update ............................................................................ C-1 Appendix D: Maximum UDA Cost Model Update ................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Endowment Model Update .................................................................................... E-1 Appendix F: Revenue Data .............................................................................................................. F-1

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report iii
List of Tables (excluding appendix tables)
Table E.1: Mitigation Fees ......................................................................................................... iv Table E.2: Development Fee Comparison ............................................................................... v Table E.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison .................................................................... vi Table 1.1: Mitigation Fees .......................................................................................................... 3 Table 2.1: Permanent Impacts, 2008 Through 2021 ............................................................ 12 Table 2.2: Permanent Impacts (acres) .................................................................................... 13 Table 2.3: Wetland Impacts ..................................................................................................... 14 Table 3.1: Wetland Mitigation Unit Costs (2021 $) .............................................................. 19 Table 3.2: Cost Model Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) .......... 23 Table 3.3: Cost Model Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) .. 24 Table 4.1: Investment Earnings .............................................................................................. 28 Table 4.2: Post-Permit Funding .............................................................................................. 29 Table 5.1: Wetland Mitigation Fee Schedule ......................................................................... 31 Table 5.2: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison ................................................................... 31 Table 5.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue ......................................................................... 32 Table 6.1: Development Fee Fair Share Analysis (2021 $) ................................................. 36 Table 6.2: Development Fee Schedule (2021 $ for 2022 Fee Schedule) .......................... 37 Table 6.3: Development Fee Comparison (fee per acre) .................................................... 38 Table 7.1: Rural Road Fee Revenue ....................................................................................... 40 Table 8.1: Future Local Operating Funds (Park District) (2022-2037) ............................. 48 Table 8.2: Funding Plan (2021 dollars) .................................................................................. 50 Table 8.3: Funding Plan Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) ....... 51 Table 8.4: Funding Plan Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) 52

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to present the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of an audit of mitigation fees that partially fund the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan). The purpose of this audit is to fulfill the requirements of the periodic audit requirements of the Plan. The audit also provides the basis for findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) related to the mandatory five-year review and any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee (commonly referred to as a “nexus analysis”).

Revenue sources to fund estimated HCP/NCCP costs during the 30-year permit term include four types of mitigation fees:
w Development fee w Rural road fee
w Wetland mitigation fee w Temporary impact fee.

Covered activities that cause permanent impacts to habitat pay the development fee (except rural transportation projects, see below). If the impact is to one of several wetland land cover types, then the wetland mitigation fee applies in addition to the development fee.

The rural road fee is a multiple of the development fee and applies to 18 identified rural transportation projects in the Plan. Covered activities that temporarily disturb habitat pay the temporary impact fee.

Table E.1 summarizes how the four types of mitigation fees are applied to covered activities based on the type of impact.

Table E.1: Mitigation Fees
Type of
Impact
Mitigation
Fee Applicability
Permanent
Development
fee
All permanent impacts except those subject to
the rural road fee.

Rural road
fee
Permanent impacts from rural road projects
specifically identified in Table 9-6 of the Plan.

Wetland
mitigation
fee
Permanent impacts to wetland land cover
types and streams, paid in addition to
applicable development or rural road fee.

Temporary Temporary
impact fee
All temporary impacts and based on the
associated development, rural road, or
wetland mitigation fee adjusted for the length
(in time) of the temporary impact and recovery.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report v
Funding for post-permit term costs in perpetuity is required by the HCP/NCCP. The Plan allowed this cost obligation to be deferred until year 15 of implementation, or when half of the impacts allowed under the permits occur, whichever comes first. The prior audit completed in 2017 included estimates for an endowment to fund post-permit term costs. The endowment was established with the Regional Parks Foundation in 2020, year 13 of Plan implementation.

This audit like prior audits assumes that all development impacts allowed under the permits will occur by the end of the 30-year permit term in 2037.

This approach is necessary to align funding sources to meet mitigation and conservation goals under the Plan, and to ensure sufficient funding for an endowment by the end of the permit term.

A significant finding of this audit is that only a minority of total development impacts allowed under the permits are likely to occur by the end of the 30-year permit term in 2037. This finding suggests that an extension to the permit term should be considered to align the term more closely with the timing of development impacts.

The audit was completed based on data through fiscal year 2021 so the calculated mitigation fees are comparable to the 2022 fee schedule. The audit results for the development fee are shown in Table E.2. The development fee is also the basis for the rural road and temporary impact fees so the same trends would apply to those fees as well.

Table E.2: Development Fee Comparison
Zone
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit Change
Zone 1 $18,938 $19,170 1.2%
Zone 2 $37,876 $38,340 1.2%
Zone 3 $9,469 $9,585 1.2%
Sources: Table 6.3.

The adjustment to the 2022 fee schedule is minor (1.2 percent). This indicates that the annual inflation adjustment process (since the prior 2017 audit) has been effective tracking the fee with changes in Plan costs. The fee includes necessary funding for the endowment.

The audit results for the wetland mitigation fees are shown in Table E.3. The wetland mitigation fees are also the basis for the wetland mitigation component of the temporary fee so the same trends would apply to the wetland component of that fee as well.

As shown in the table, the increase in the fee because of the audit is between

0.4 percent and 2.5 percent compared to the current fee, depending on the land cover type.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report vi

Table E.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison
Land Cover Type Fee Basis
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit Change
Riparian per acre $105,516 $105,891 0.4%
Perennial Wetland per acre $159,912 $162,953 1.9%
Seasonal Wetland per acre $374,220 $382,792 2.3%
Alkali Wetland per acre $378,310 $386,980 2.3%
Pond per acre $205,924 $211,115 2.5%
Aquatic (open water) per acre $102,962 $105,558 2.5%
Slough / Channel per acre $147,029 $149,516 1.7%
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per linear foot $543 $553 1.8%
Streams (>25 ft. wide) per linear foot $814 $829 1.8%
Sources: Table 5.2.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 1

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of an audit of mitigation fees that partially fund the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan). This introduction provides background on the Plan and the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA), the state enabling statute for mitigation fees. This chapter also describes the purpose and scope of this audit and explains the general approach taken to complete the audit.

Background
The HCP/NCCP was completed in 2006 after an extensive planning process initiated in 1999 that built on prior efforts begun in 1995.1 The HCP/NCCP enables the protection of natural resources in east Contra Costa County while streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on endangered species covered by the Plan. Adoption of the Plan allowed state and federal wildlife agencies to issue various permits for a 30-year term (the permits).

These permits allow the incidental take of endangered species by the projects and activities of the permittees under the Plan.2 Covered activities include all ground- or habitat-disturbing activities within the Plan’s urban development area (UDA), and other specifically named projects. These include, for example, urban development projects, public infrastructure projects, and ongoing infrastructure maintenance activities.

Implementation of the Plan preserves specified natural lands in eastern Contra Costa County in perpetuity (the Preserve System) to mitigate the impacts of covered activities on endangered species and contribute to their recovery.

The five local agencies responsible for implementing portions of the Plan that relate to the development entitlement process are the County of Contra Costa and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg. The City of Antioch chose not to participate in the Plan. These five participating local agencies formed a joint powers authority (JPA) known as the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (the Conservancy) to perform the many implementation duties assigned to the “Implementing Entity” by the Plan. 1 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 1, pp. 1-1 to 1-2.
2 The permittees include Contra Costa County, the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Contra Costa County Flood Control And Water Conservation District, and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 2
In late 2006 and through 2007 the local agencies formed the JPA, the Conservancy, permittees, and wildlife agencies executed the Implementing Agreement, and the wildlife agencies issued the permits. The local agencies and the Conservancy began collecting mitigation fees in 2008. The first full year of implementation was 2008. The Conservancy’s fiscal year (FY) is from January 1 to December 31.

Consistent with the financial planning presented in Chapter 9 of the HCP/NCCP, 2007 is year 0, 2008 is year 1, and the permit term would end in 2037, year 30. This audit is conducted in 2022 (year 15) as required by the Plan and is based on data through FY 2021 (year 14). The next audit required by the Plan is in 2027 (year 20).

HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fees
Revenue sources to fund estimated HCP/NCCP costs during the 30-year permit term include four types of mitigation fees:
w Development fee w Rural road fee
w Wetland mitigation fee w Temporary impact fee.

The type of mitigation fee paid by a covered activity depends on fee zone, land cover type affected, and type of impact (“impact” and “covered activity” are used interchangeably in this report). Most covered activities occur within the UDA. The UDA is defined as (1) the County of Contra Costa urban limit line, or (2) the boundaries of the four cities implementing the Plan, whichever is larger.3
Applicants can dedicate land for the Preserve System or generate alternative special taxes, fees, or charges in lieu of paying a portion of the full development fee, subject to approval by the Conservancy.

Covered activities that cause permanent impacts to habitat pay the development fee (except rural road projects, see below). If the impact is to wetland land cover types, then the wetland mitigation fee applies in addition to the development fee. This additional fee applies because of the greater mitigation requirements (restoration and creation) associated with wetland impacts.

The Plan includes a separate rural road fee based on a multiple of the development fee for specifically-identified rural transportation projects in the Plan. These projects generally have a greater per-acre impact than other types of development projects.
3 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 2, pp. 2-16 to 2-18, Figure 2-3. Excludes City of Antioch that is not covered under the Plan.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 3
Covered activities that temporarily disturb habitat pay the temporary impact fee. The fee is calculated based on the permanent fee that otherwise would apply (development, rural road, or wetland) adjusted for the length of time of the temporary impact and its recovery.

Table 1.1 summarizes how the four types of mitigation fees are applied to covered activities based on the type of impact.

Table 1.1: Mitigation Fees
Type of
Impact
Mitigation
Fee Applicability
Permanent
Development
fee
All permanent impacts except those subject to
the rural road fee.

Rural road
fee
Permanent impacts from rural road projects
specifically identified in Table 9-6 of the Plan.

Wetland
mitigation
fee
Permanent impacts to wetland land cover
types and streams, paid in addition to
applicable development or rural road fee.

Temporary Temporary
impact fee
All temporary impacts and based on the
associated development, rural road, or
wetland mitigation fee adjusted for the length
(in time) of the temporary impact and recovery.

Audit Objectives and Scope
The objectives of this audit are defined by the requirements of the HCP/NCCP. The audit also provides the basis for findings required by the MFA related to the mandatory five-year review and any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee.

Periodic Audit Requirements of the HCP/NCCP
The HCP/NCCP calls for periodic audits of the mitigation fees in the following years: 2010 (year 3), 2013 (year 6), 2017 (year 10), 2022 (year 15), 2027 (year 20), and 2032 (year 25). The purpose of the audit is “[t]o ensure that the fees generated by development and other covered activities are adequately covering their share of Plan costs.”4
Audits must compare current actual costs to the cost assumptions used in the current mitigation fee calculation. The audit must review actual land acquisition costs as well as costs to operate, manage, and maintain the Preserve System. The audit must recalculate fees based on this cost review. As with prior 4 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 4
audits, this audit uses the same approach as the HCP/NCCP to calculate the development fee based on a specified fair share of total Plan costs (see Chapter 6 for more explanation).

In between periodic audits the Plan calls for automatic annual adjustments to the Plan’s mitigation fees. Annual adjustments are based on two inflation indices weighted by the appropriate Plan cost component reflected by each index.5 A real estate cost index is used to update the land acquisition cost component reflecting more than half of total plan costs. The Consumer Price Index is used to update the share of fees funding the balance of Plan costs.

Mitigation Fee Act Requirements
The mitigation fees collected pursuant to the HCP/NCCP are authorized by California law under the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) found in Sections 66000 through 66025 of the California Government Code.

Section 66001
This audit provides a revised fee schedule based on updated cost data. If the audit results in an increase in fees, the audit must make the following four “reasonable relationship”, or “nexus” findings required by the MFA:

Sec. 66001(a) In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall do all of the following:
(1) Identify the purpose of the fee.
(2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.
(3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
(4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.
5 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-30.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 5
The following finding is not required though this audit makes this finding as well:

Section 66001(b) In any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Each of these findings are made in association with the analysis of each fee in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

Section 66016.5
Section 66016.5(a) of the MFA includes certain requirements for nexus studies completed on and after January 1, 2022. These requirements and how this audit meets these requirements are presented below.
(1) Before the adoption of an associated development fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted.

This audit constitutes a nexus study for the purposes of this section of the MFA.
(2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.

This section is not applicable because this audit does not result in a change in the existing level of service.
(3) A nexus study shall include information that supports the local agency’s actions, as required by subdivision (a) of Section 66001.

As mentioned above, section 66001(a) findings are included in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.
(4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.

This audit evaluates the amount of fees collected under the current fee schedule and the underlying cost assumptions and finds revenue insufficient to fully fund new development's fair share of the Plan costs. See Chapters 5 and 6.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 6
(5)(A) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

Application of the Plan’s mitigation fees on housing development by square foot is not an appropriate nexus based on the findings presented below. (B) A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development project.

As explained in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, the impact of development to species and natural habitats is measured in acres of disturbed land. Building square feet does not correlate with acres of disturbed land (or linear feet in the case of stream impacts) and therefore the amount of impacts.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

Mitigation fees are most appropriately imposed based on acres of disturbed land (or linear feet in the case of stream impacts) to have a reasonable relationship with the burden posed by (impacts from) development. (iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Because mitigation fees are imposed based on the amount of disturbed acres (or linear feet in the case of stream impacts) smaller developments pay a smaller fee.
(C) This paragraph does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.

Mitigation fees are imposed consistently across all types of development based on the amount of disturbed acres (or linear feet in the case of stream impacts). (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

The permittees (excluding the Conservancy) have adopted the HCP/NCCP that is a "capital improvement plan" as defined in section 66002(a).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 7
Funding Mitigation and Conservation Goals
A Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) under California law provides unique regulatory benefits in addition to those provided by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under federal law. An NCCP must not only mitigate impacts to the maximum extent practicable as required by an HCP. An NCCP must also contribute to the recovery and continued viability of species whether or not those species are protected under the California Endangered Species Act.6 This “conservation” component of the Plan is in addition to Plan “mitigation” requirements It is accomplished by protecting habitat, natural communities, and species diversity on a landscape or ecosystem level through the creation and long-term management of large habitat reserves.

A key objective of the nexus analysis in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 is to only allocate the mitigation share of total Plan costs to the development fees and other mitigation-related revenue sources. The updated funding plan presented in Chapter 8 ensures that other local, state, and federal funding is kept consistent with the Plan’s estimates for funding to achieve the Plan’s conservation goals.

Objectives and Scope
The findings required by the MFA described above are similar in intent to the HCP/NCCP’s objectives for periodic audits. Both suggest the need to update the fee amount based on recent data and confirm the role of fee revenues in a feasible funding plan. To address both the periodic audit requirements of the Plan and the findings required by the MFA, the objectives and scope of this audit are:

1. Update cost assumptions underlying the mitigation fees

2. Recalculate fee amounts based on a reasonable relationship (nexus) between new development and the need for the fee, the amount of the fee, and the use of fee revenues

3. Update local, state, and federal revenue estimates consistent with the Plan’s anticipated funding from these sources to achieve the Plan’s conservation goals (contribute to the recovery of species and habitats)

4. Update the funding plan including an endowment for post-permit term costs that demonstrates the continued financial feasibility of the HCP/NCCP.

This audit uses the most recently available data on financial transactions and covered activities through December 31, 2021.
6 California Fish & Game Code, Sections 2050 through 2089.25 and 2890 through 2835.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 8
This audit is not a comprehensive audit of the Conservancy’s finances. The Conservancy separately has an annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. The data and methods used by this audit are sufficient to achieve the objectives described above.

The HCP/NCCP states that the Conservancy will “hire an outside, independent financial auditor to conduct” the audit.7 The expertise required to complete the audit is more closely related to maintaining compliance with mitigation fee legal statutes than with accounting standards. Consequently, the Conservancy has elected to engage a professional services firm with direct experience developing and implementing mitigation fee nexus studies in the context of regional habitat conservation plans rather than a certified public accountant.

Organization of the Audit
Covered activities (impacts) under the HCP/NCCP to date are summarized in Chapter 2 as well as remaining impacts through the 30-year permit term. The update to the cost model used to estimate implementation costs of the Plan is presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes post-permit term costs and funding of an endowment.

Updates to the four fees are presented in Chapters 5 through 7. The wetland mitigation fee is presented first in Chapter 5 because it is calculated independently of the other fees. The development fee is presented next in Chapter 6 based on urban development’s fair share of total Plan costs net of the wetland mitigation fees and costs. The rural road and temporary impact fees are presented in Chapter 7 because they use the same rates as the development and wetland mitigation fees, adjusted for rural road or temporary impacts.

The updated 30-year funding plan based on revised cost and revenue estimates is presented in Chapter 8.

The appendices provide additional supporting documentation for the audit. 7 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 9

2. IMPACTS
This section of the audit describes the impacts that have occurred to date during from 2008 through 2021 (years 1-14). This section also identifies the remaining impacts based on the total amount of impacts permitted under the HCP/NCCP.

This chapter will show that only a small amount of development relative to permit term limits allowed under the permits has occurred through 2021. This finding is used to support an audit recommendation for the Conservancy to seek an extension of the permit term (see Permit Term Extension in this chapter, below).

The Plan uses the amount of acreage from development projects and other activities as the primary unit of measurement for impacts. The Plan uses linear feet to measure stream impacts subject to the wetland mitigation fee.

Urban Development Area (UDA)
The boundaries of the UDA are subject to change over time based on local land use policy decisions by the five agencies implementing the HCP/NCCP.

Thus, boundary changes could lead to changes in the land use capacity for, and eventual amount of, urban development.

To accommodate the uncertainty regarding the amount of urban development that would be covered under the Plan, the Plan uses two scenarios to “book end” the potential urban development levels:
w The initial UDA is defined by the County of Contra Costa urban limit line and the boundaries of the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg existing at the time the Plan was adopted.8
w The maximum UDA is the maximum development capacity for urban development under the terms of the permits. Although boundaries are not defined, the development capacity considers areas outside the initial UDA proposed for future development in the general plans of Brentwood, Clayton, Pittsburg, and the County.

The urban development area covered under the Plan at the end of the permit term could fall anywhere in the range defined by the initial urban development area and the maximum urban development area. The ultimate boundaries depend on local land use decisions occurring during the permit term. The conservation requirements of the Plan are greater for the maximum UDA 8 Excluding some areas within the County urban limit line surrounding the Byron Airport. See HCP/NCCP, p. 2-17.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 10
compared to the initial UDA to accommodate the greater impacts under the maximum UDA scenario.

Development Fee Zones
The development fee is implemented based on three fee zones defined by the HCP/NCCP.9 A map of the zones is provided in Figure 9-1 of the Plan. The zones represent varying levels of impacts on covered species and natural habitats caused by development projects and activities. The development fee is lowest in the zone where development would have the least impacts and highest in the zone where development would have the greatest impacts. The zones generally correspond to the dominant land cover type and habitat and open space values. Below is a summary of the zones:
w Zone I: Cultivated and disturbed lands, primarily areas in agricultural use and some undeveloped areas within existing urban areas. w Zone II: Natural areas where lands are dominated by natural land cover types.
w Zone III: Small vacant lots (less than 10 acres) within the initial UDA.

The lowest development fee is in Zone III because the habitat and open space value is lowest on vacant land within existing developed areas. As the Plan states in Chapter 4, “[d]evelopment of these areas will result in loss of open space and some habitat values, but impacts will be less than those in Zone I and substantially less than those in Zone II.”10 An acre of permanent impacts in Zone III is given a weight of one for the purposes of allocating the fair share of total plan costs to the development fee.

The highest fee is in Zone II because this predominantly natural area has the highest habitat value. The dominant land cover type is annual grassland and covers 34 percent of the land included in the Plan’s inventory area. The greatest impacts in Zone II are in this land cover type. Chapter 4 of the Plan references the importance of annual grassland throughout its detailed analysis of impacts on covered species and critical habitats.11 An acre of permanent impacts in Zone II is given a weight of four for the purposes of allocating the fair share of total plan costs to the development fee (four times the weight of impacts in Zone III).

The amount of the Zone I fee is between the fees in the other two zones because cultivated and other disturbed uses have greater habitat value than 9 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-20 to 9-21.
10 Ibid.
11 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 4, pp. 4-14 to 4-22.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 11
vacant lots but less value than natural areas. Chapter 4 of the Plan includes several findings to support this approach.12 An acre of permanent impact in Zone I is given a weight of two for the purposes of allocating the fair share of total plan costs to the development fee (twice the weight of impacts in Zone III and half the weight of impacts in Zone II).

The fee zone map in the Plan (Chapter 9, Figure 9-1) is the sole determination of the fee zone applicable to a project or other covered activity.13 Individual parcels within a zone will have greater or lesser impact on covered species, natural communities, and open space. An individual parcel in zone A, for example, may have characteristics like land cover types in zone B. However, the parcel’s location adjacent to lands within zone A combined with the benefits of contiguous open space to meeting the Plan’s objectives, provides reasonable justification to include the parcel in zone A. The mapping of the zones was completed at a level of detail sufficient to provide a reasonable relationship between all land within a specific zone and the relative weight of impacts assigned to that zone.14
Summary of Impacts to Date
Permanent impacts to date by zone are shown in Table 2.1. Temporary impacts are tracked by the Conservancy but not shown in Table 2.1 because they have no effect on the development or wetland fee calculations.

Temporary impact fee revenue is included in the funding plan in Chapter 8.

See Table A.1 in Appendix A for a detailed list of covered activities to date.

Remaining Permanent Impacts Under the HCP/NCCP
The HCP/NCCP allows for a fixed amount of permanent impacts. Permanent impacts are used to calculate and update the development fee. The remaining permanent impacts allowed under the Plan until the permit term (years 15-30) are summarized in Table 2.2 by subtracting impacts to date (Table 2.1) from the total impacts allowed for the 30-year permit term. The table applies the weighting factors by zone discussed above. The result is the total acreage of permanent impacts with the UDA remaining under the Plan weighted by the relative impact in each zone. Remaining impacts for the maximum and initial UDAs is used to allocate costs to the development fee in Chapter 6. 12 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 4, pp. 4-6, 4-15, and HCP/NCCP, Appendix D, Species Profiles. 13 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-20.
14 See, for example, HCP/NCCP, Chapter 3, pp. 3-2 to 3-5.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 12
Table 2.1: Permanent Impacts, 2008 Through 2021
Location Land Conversion
Urban Development Area (UDA)
Zone 1 931.44 acres
Zone 2 211.33 acres
Zone 3 34.05 acres
Subtotal UDA 1,176.82 acres
Rural (outside UDA)1 76.94 acres
Total Land Conversion 1,253.76 acres
Wetlands2
Wetlands (except streams) 4.32 acres
Streams (linear feet) 1,089.31 linear feet
1 Covered activities occurring outside the urban development area (UDA) could occur in either zones 1 or 2. Includes rural road projects as shown in Table 9-6 of the HCP/NCCP, plus rural infrastructure projects and activities, and activities within the Preserve System (see Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4 of the HCP/NCCP).
2 Wetland impacts are included in land conversion impacts. Wetland impacts pay wetland fees in addition to the applicable development fee or rural road fee.

Sources: Appendix A, Table A.1.

Table 2.2 shows 12,979 acres for the permit limit under the maximum UDA.

Table 4-3 in the Plan shows 13,029. There appears to be an addition error in the Table 4-3 that included an extra 50 acres. These 50 acres are excluded in Table 2.2. The Conservancy should consult with the permittees and the wildlife agencies to resolve this issue. The difference has no impact on any of the analyses for this audit, including the cost model update, the mitigation fee calculations, or other revenue estimates developed for the funding plan.

Remaining impacts to wetland land cover types (riparian, wetlands, ponds, and streams) are shown in Table 2.3. This audit contains the same adjustment made by prior audits to total acres of restoration/creation assumed in the Plan cost model to be consistent with Tables 5-16 and 5-17 in Chapter 5 of the Plan. Estimated compensatory restoration/creation acreage for seasonal wetlands under the maximum UDA scenario was adjusted to match the 2:1 mitigation ratio applied to the acres of impact shown in the tables. Also, consistent with Plan assumptions, a 30 percent reduction was made to the estimate of compensatory restoration/creation acreage (not contribution to recovery acreage) for the perennial, seasonal, and alkali wetlands to reflect overestimates due to mapping of these areas.15
15 For seasonal wetlands, the total restored acreage for the initial [maximum] UDA scenario equals 45.2 [53.6] acres based on: (42 [56] impact acres x 2:1 mitigation ratio x 30 percent adjustment for mapping overestimate) + 20 acres contribution to recovery. See Tables 5-16 and 5-17 and Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 13
Table 2.2: Permanent Impacts (acres)
Zone
11 Zone
2 Zone
3 Subtotal Share
Outside
UDA Total2 Share
Permit Limits (2008-2037)
Initial UDA 6,198 2,306 166 8,670 100.0% 1,126 9,796 100.0% Maximum UDA 7,507 4,180 166 11,853 100.0% 1,126 12,979 100.0% Actual Impacts to Date (through 2021)
Initial UDA 931 211 34 1,176 13.6% 77 1,253 12.8%
Maximum UDA 931 211 34 1,176 9.9% 77 1,253 9.7%
Remaining Impacts (2022-2037)
Initial UDA 5,267 2,095 132 7,494 86.4% 1,049 8,543 87.2% Maximum UDA 6,576 3,969 132 10,677 90.1% 1,049 11,726 90.3% Impact Weighting Factor3 2 4 1
Permit Limits - Equivalent Acres (2008-2037)
Not Available4
Initial UDA 12,396 9,224 166 21,786 100.0%
Maximum UDA 15,014 16,720 166 31,900 100.0%
Actual Impacts to Date - Equivalent Acres (through 2021) Initial UDA 1,862 844 34 2,740 12.6%
Maximum UDA 1,862 844 34 2,740 8.6%
Remaining Impacts - Equivalent Acres (2022-2037)
Initial UDA 10,534 8,380 132 19,046 87.4%
Maximum UDA 13,152 15,876 132 29,160 91.4%
Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.
1 The permit limits used to calculate the initial fees shown in Chapter 9, Table 9-4, and Appendix H of the HCP/NCCP are revised to control to the totals in Chapter 4, Tables 4-2 and 4-3 (corrected, see note 2), of the Plan (14 acres less for the Initial UDA and 26 acres less for the Maximum UDA). These adjustments are made to zone 1 though they could be allocated to any zone within the UDA. 2 Table 4-3 in Chapter 4 of the HCP/NCCP appears to have a mathematical error for the maximum UDA permit limit, showing 13,029 acres instead of 12,979.
3 Weighting factor reflects relative impacts by zone (see Plan, Appendix H). Equivalent acres for impacts outside the UDA not calculated because impacts occur in both zones 1 and 2.
4 The HCP/NCCP did not identify the location of all covered activities occurring outside the UDA by zone, except for rural road projects (see HCP/NCCP, Table 9-6). Includes rural infrastructure projects and activities, and activities within the Preserve System (see NCP/NCCP, Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4).

Sources: HCP/NCCP, Tables 4-2 and 4-2, Table 9-4 (revised), and Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum); Table 2.1 (this report).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 14
Table 2.3: Wetland Impacts
Estimated Impacts
(2008-2037)1
(acres or linear feet)
Actual
Wetland
Impacts
(2008-
2021)2
Remaining Impacts
(Years 2022-2037)
(acres or linear feet)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Impacts Based on Acres
Riparian 30.00 35.00 1.29 28.71 33.71
Perennial Wetland 22.20 22.50 0.07 22.13 22.43
Seasonal Wetland 12.60 16.80 1.61 10.99 15.19
Alkali Wetland 8.40 9.30 0.14 8.26 9.16
Pond 7.00 8.00 0.10 6.90 7.90
Aquatic (open water) ]12.00 12.00 0.47 11.53 11.53
Slough / Channel 72.00 72.00 0.65 71.35 71.35
Subtotal (acres) 164.20 175.60 4.32 159.88 171.28
Impacts Based on Linear Feet
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) 21,120 26,400 685 20,435 25,715 Streams (>25 ft. wide) 3,168 4,224 404 2,764 3,820
Subtotal (linear feet) 24,288 30,624 1,089 23,199 29,535 Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.

Impacts includes wetland impacts outside the UDA because these impacts are counted against the estimates of permanent impacts in the Plan (see Tables 5-16 and 5-17). 1 Perennial, Seasonal, and Alkali wetland impacts reduced by 70 percent to account for overestimates in mapping analysis (see Tables 5-16 and 5-17, footnote 2.
2 Assume ephemeral streams are equal to or less than 25 feet wide, and intermittent and perennial streams are greater than 25 feet wide.

Source: HCP/NCCP, Tables 5-16 and 5-17; Appendix A, Table A.1.

Permit Term Extension
As shown in Table 2.2, in terms of equivalent acres, 12.6 percent of impacts in the initial UDA allowed under the HCP/NCCP have occurred through 2021 (year 14). The comparable figure for the maximum UDA is 8.6 percent. Thus, with just over half of the permit term remaining (years 15 through 30), approximately 90 percent of the impacts have yet to occur. However, the HCP/NCCP does not provide a means to reduce estimated impacts and associated mitigation fee funding within the existing permit term.

The HCP/NCCP is a comprehensive plan that achieves both mitigation and conservation goals (see Funding Mitigation and Conservation Goals in Chapter 1).

The HCP/NCCP does not provide the detail needed to separate mitigation

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 15
from conservation costs.16 So the HCP/NCCP does not provide a basis to adjust conservation costs based on lower mitigation estimates and fee revenues without a reconsideration of Plan goals.

Moreover, the nexus analysis used to determine the mitigation share of total Plan costs is dependent upon achieving the Plan’s overall goals.17 Reducing estimated development impacts and associated mitigation fee funding would require significant reconsideration of the nexus analysis and the mitigation cost share used to calculate fees.

Thus, this audit like prior audits assumes that all development impacts allowed under the permits will occur by the end of the 30-year permit term in 2037.

This approach is necessary to align funding sources to meet the mitigation and conservation goals under the Plan at the end of the permit term.

The most effective way to address the slower pace of impacts without fundamentally altering the HCP/NCCP cost model and funding plan would be to extend the permit term. A permit term extension would enable the cost model and funding plan to:
w Incorporate the effects of a more realistic planning horizon on costs and revenues
w Continue to demonstrate a feasible funding plan that achieves all Plan goals w Avoid the need to reconsider Plan goals, costs, and funding based on a more constrained development scenario.

Based on this discussion, we recommend that the Conservancy work with members of the JPA, other permittees, and the wildlife agencies to extend the permit term.
16 Only in the case of wetland restoration does the Plan have specific conservation goals in addition to mitigation requirements and that are costed out separately in the cost model (see HCP/NCCP, Chapter 5, Tables 5-16 and 5-17).
17 HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 16

3. COST MODEL
This chapter presents a summary of the updated cost models for the 30-year permit term. As shown in Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP separate cost models are used for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios to account for the difference in Preserve System size and other differences in Plan requirements. The two models are identical in structure. The difference in cost between the two models is primarily related to the effect of greater land acquisition and restoration requirements for the Preserve System under the maximum UDA scenario.

General Approach
The cost model was updated based on provisions in the Plan for periodic audits. The original model is documented in Appendix G of the Plan. For this audit, cost model revisions were made to the latest version of the model developed for the prior audit. The model for each scenario (initial and maximum UDA) includes multiple linked spreadsheets (see Appendix C and Appendix D of this report). Total costs for the permit term are the sum of actual costs to date (through FY 2021) and estimated remaining costs through the end of the permit term. All costs are expressed in 2021 dollars to support calculation of the mitigation fees.

Actual costs through December 31, 2021 were adjusted to 2021 dollars using changes in the Conservancy’s mitigation fee schedule, thus replicating the same index used to reflect inflation in Plan costs. The Conservancy’s fees are adjusted annually based on published price indices and periodically based on prior audits, as discussed in Chapter 1, Periodic Audit Requirements of the HCP/NCCP.
18 Remaining costs through the end of the permit term were updated based on recent cost experience and application of appropriate inflation indices to assumptions in the prior audit cost model, as explained in more detail in the following section of this chapter.

The models provide budgets for the following nine cost categories related to Plan implementation:

1. Program administration

2. Land acquisition

3. Planning and design
18 See also HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 30-31 and Table 9-7, and Appendix F, Table F.1.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 17

4. Habitat restoration/creation

5. Environmental compliance

6. Preserve management and maintenance

7. Monitoring, research, and adaptive management

8. Remedial measures

9. Contingency.

Post-permit costs are analyzed separately as part of the endowment model and are presented in the following chapter (Chapter 4).

Land Acquisition Costs
Land acquisition is the Plan’s largest cost category representing about 65 percent of total costs excluding endowment costs. Substantial effort was expended during the audit to update costs to reflect current market conditions and recent Conservancy land acquisition experience. This audit uses an acquisition model developed and maintained by Conservancy staff to estimate the acres that need to be acquired to achieve the various habitat acquisition requirements of the Plan for both the initial and maximum UDA scenarios.

The Conservancy, working with East Bay Regional Park District (Park District), has been very successful in acquiring Preserve System lands since the Plan’s implementation. Through 2021 (year 14) the Conservancy has acquired approximately 12,050 acres, or 40 and 50 percent of the Preserve System required under the maximum and initial UDA scenarios, respectively. These totals exclude:
w Acquired lands that cannot be credited to the Preserve System because of existing conservation easements mitigating habitat impacts that occurred prior to Plan adoption19
w Parts of acquired parcels that lie outside plan acquisition zones.

A database of over 100 land transactions in East Contra Costa County, all within the past ten years, was compiled from a variety of sources to estimate costs per acre for future Preserve System acquisitions. This database included Park District acquisitions (most of which were performed in partnership with the Conservancy), plus acquisitions by the Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo (local nonprofit land trust organization), and land transactions identified in the County Assessor’s database. Land costs for developable parcels within the urban limit line that are part of the Conservancy’s acquisition strategy were 19 Unless those pre-Plan impacts were also counted against the Plan’s permit limits.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 18
updated based on current housing values. Detailed data on the transactions used to update the cost model land cost factors are provided in Appendix B.

As shown in Table B.2 in Appendix B estimated land costs per acre have generally increased since 2017. Since then, prices for the largest parcels outside the urban limit line have increased about 40 percent, while the prices for midsized parcels (40 to 120 acres) remain unchanged. Prices for parcels under 40 acres have increased 20 to 25 percent. Inside the urban limit line, where a small fraction of the acquisition will occur and where prices more closely track changes in the housing market, estimated land costs have increased about 25 percent.

Consistent with changes made in prior audits, due diligence costs are estimated based on a flat three percent charge on land acquisition costs. Pre-acquisition surveys are a Conservancy staff cost. There is no contingency applied to land acquisition costs. Total remaining land acquisition costs to meet Preserve System requirements were evenly spread across the remaining 16-year period of the 30-year permit term.

Habitat Restoration/Creation Costs
Habitat restoration/creation is the second largest cost category of Plan implementation, representing about 10 percent of total costs excluding endowment costs. Unit costs (costs per acre) for restoration of specific habitats are the basis for the wetland mitigation fee. Review of restoration project costs since 2017 indicated that no extraordinary adjustments were required. All unit cost factors were update by applying the California Construction Cost Index.

Habitat restoration/creation mitigation unit costs for wetland land cover types estimated for this audit are shown in Table 3.1. The cost for open water is the same as the cost for ponds because the Plan calls for open water impacts to be mitigated by the creation of ponds. The table includes two costs for stream restoration, one based on stream widths of 25 feet or less, and one based on steam widths of greater than 25 feet.

Unit costs for habitat restoration/creation construction are augmented by three types of soft costs:
w Construction-related costs including restoration design, plans and specifications, bid assistance, construction oversight, post-construction maintenance, environmental compliance, pre-construction surveys, and construction monitoring
w Conservancy staff and related costs
w Contingency.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 19
Table 3.1: Wetland Mitigation Unit Costs (2021 $)
Cost Category
Cost
Factor
Riparian
Perennial
Wetland
Seasonal
Wetland
Alkali
Wetland Pond
Aquatic
(open
water)
Slough/
Channel Stream
(per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per ln. ft.) Construction $51,800 $84,500 $100,800 $102,000 $112,100 $112,100 $76,800 $287 Construction-related costs
Plans, specs., allowance
for remedial measures1 33% $17,094 $27,885 $33,264 $33,660 $36,993 $36,993 $25,344 $95 Bid assistance1 1.5% $777 $1,268 $1,512 $1,530 $1,682 $1,682 $1,152 $4 Construction oversight1 10% $5,180 $8,450 $10,080 $10,200 $11,210 $11,210 $7,680 $29 Post-construction maint.1 10% $5,180 $8,450 $10,080 $10,200 $11,210 $11,210 $7,680 $29 Environmental compliance2,3 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $22 Pre-construction surveys2,4 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $5 Construction monitoring2,4 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $11 Staff and related costs2,5 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $15 Subtotal $95,531 $146,053 $171,236 $173,090 $188,695 $188,695 $134,156 $495 Contingency1 20% $10,360 $16,900 $20,160 $20,400 $22,420 $22,420 $15,360 $57 Total Unit Cost $105,891 $162,953 $191,396 $193,490 $211,115 $211,115 $149,516 $553 Adjustment Factor for Streams >25 Feet Wide 1.50
Total Unit Cost (Streams >25 feet wide) $829
1 Percentage applied to construction costs.
2 Stream costs per linear foot estimated based on the average percent of construction costs for the respective cost category across all the other wetland land cover types. 3 Based on CEQA, CWA 401, CDFG 1602, and other permit costs for "small" project, divided by two (assume a two-acre project). NHPA permit unlikely to be applicable. 4 Cost Model estimate divided by two (estimate based on a two-acre project). 5 Midpoint of staffing costs per acre (all costs except construction and contractors) between initial and maximum UDA cost models for habitat restoration/creation cost category.

Sources: Appendices C and D (Habitat Restoration/Creation table).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 20
Consistent with prior audits, four of the construction-related cost line items (plans and specifications, bid assistance, construction oversight, and postconstruction maintenance) are estimated as a percent of construction costs based on experience with how contractors structure their bids. Soft cost percentages remain the same as in the 2017 audit.

The remaining three line items (environmental compliance, pre-construction surveys, and construction monitoring) are estimated as dollar amounts per acre. These assumptions were updated for inflation and current environmental compliance fee schedules.

Conservancy staff and related costs are updated based on current hourly costs per position and experience with allocation of staff time for habitat restoration/creation projects. This update assigns some Conservancy staffing in the environmental compliance cost category to wetland fee costs to capture actual Conservancy experience with permitting restoration/creation projects.

The contingency of 20 percent on habitat restoration/creation construction costs remains unchanged from the Plan and prior audits. The contingency applies to habitat construction costs only and not soft costs or staff costs. The contingency is higher than the five percent rate applied to other Plan implementation activities because of the high degree of cost variation and uncertainty associated with habitat restoration/creation projects.

Updates to Other Cost Categories
Cost model changes to the other seven cost categories besides land acquisition and habitat restoration/creation are summarized in the following subsections.

Program Administration
The original 2006 model estimated staff costs based on direct salary costs plus benefits, and separately estimated overhead costs (human resources, information technology, office space, etc.). With the 2013 audit, staff costs were budgeted based on a fully burdened hourly rate that includes benefits and all overhead costs and this audit maintains that approach. The staffing plan is updated to reflect experience with staff allocation by function and the ability to rely on fractions of a full-time employee. Other overhead costs such as travel, insurance, legal, and financial analysis and audits that are not included in staff hourly rates are updated based on actual costs and projected needs.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 21
Planning and Design
Costs include Conservancy staff and overhead and contractor services. Costs are based on current Conservancy budgeting and expectations of management planning needs over the remainder of the permit term.

Environmental Compliance
Estimates of Conservancy staff time are based on actual experience with permitting Preserve System activities. Legal services and other technical support services are included in this cost category because of the need for legal assistance and other specialized consulting services to complete regional wetland permitting activities anticipated over the next 10 years of the permit term. Contractor costs are increased based on the Employment Cost Index and permit fees are updated based on current fee schedules and calculators.

Preserve Management and Maintenance
The schedule of land under management continues to reflect the fact that the pace of acquisition exceeds actual mitigation and conservation targets when compared to impacts.20 Costs to date are low reflecting land-banking of many acquired lands pending the level of impacts necessary to manage them as part of the Preserve System.

Future preserve management costs are based on preliminary estimates prepared by Park District staff in coordination with the Conservancy using the implementation activities outlined in the Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan.
21 Detailed cost categories include: invasive plant and invasive wildlife control; grazing and wildfire management; maintenance of fences, gates, roads, and trails; trash and debris removal; equipment, supplies, and infrastructure maintenance and replacement; and annual reporting. Recreation management costs and costs for security and patrol of recreational trails are not included.

This update shifts the cost of law enforcement for habitat and species protection from the program administration cost category to the preserve management cost category. Costs are based on the current contract between the Contra Costa Water District and the Contra Costa County Sheriff to provide law enforcement services at the 20,000-acre Los Vaqueros watershed. 20 See “Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Initial/Maximum Urban Development Area” tables in Appendix C and Appendix D.
21 Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan (draft), prepared by ICF for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, November 2018.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 22
Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management
Contractors are the most significant component of monitoring costs. Costs are based on review of current contracting and assumptions about how that activity will intensify over time. Monitoring activity is expected to increase with the completion of more restoration projects and with implementation of preserve management plans and associated monitoring protocols.

Remedial Measures
The total cost for remedial measures is based on (1) a percent of total cost of habitat restoration/creation costs, (2) a cost per acre for remedial measures applied to a percent of total Preserve System acres acquired, and (3) a lump sum cost for other remedial measures. No changes were made in these cost assumptions for this audit.

Contingency
Contingency costs reflect changes in other cost categories. The estimated rate remains at five percent and is applied to total Plan costs net of total land acquisition and total habitat restoration/creation costs.

Summary of Cost Model Results
Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 summarize changes in total costs by cost category for the Plan for the initial and maximum UDA, respectively. The tables compare the results of this audit to costs estimated in the HCP/NCCP costs and the prior 2017 audit in 2021 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, total costs are in the range of seven to nine percent lower than costs in the 2017 audit and nearly equal to costs estimated in the Plan.

Though costs have remained in line with the Plan’s original estimates there have been significant changes among cost categories:
w Habitat restoration/creation costs are higher because the unit cost (costs per acre) assumptions in the Plan were significantly lower than the Conservancy’s actual experience.
w Ongoing costs for (1) preserve management and maintenance and (2) monitoring, research, and adaptive management are significantly lower because costs to date are lower than estimated in the Plan. As discussed in Preserve Management and Maintenance above and Permit Term Extension in Chapter 2, impacts have occurred at a much slower pace than anticipated by the Plan.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 23
Table 3.2: Cost Model Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) Cost Category
2006
Plan
2017
Fee Audit
2022
Fee Audit
2022 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2022 Audit vs.
2017 Audit
Program Administration $27,590,000 $37,380,000 $35,240,000 $7,650,000 28% ($2,140,000) (6%) Land Acquisition $291,330,000 $305,380,000 $304,960,000 $13,630,000 5% ($420,000) (0%) Planning and Design $9,350,000 $10,960,000 $8,260,000 ($1,090,000) (12%) ($2,700,000) (25%) Habitat Restoration/Creation $31,000,000 $60,960,000 $50,020,000 $19,020,000 61% ($10,940,000) (18%) Environmental Compliance $3,560,000 $5,110,000 $3,650,000 $90,000 3% ($1,460,000) (29%) Preserve Management & Maintenance $50,230,000 $40,690,000 $37,320,000 ($12,910,000) (26%) ($3,370,000) (8%) Monitoring, Research, & Adaptive
Management $28,550,000 $18,090,000 $9,760,000 ($18,790,000) (66%) ($8,330,000) (46%) Remedial Measures $2,400,000 $4,320,000 $3,280,000 $880,000 37% ($1,040,000) (24%) Contingency $7,630,000 $6,010,000 $4,480,000 ($3,150,000) (41%) ($1,530,000) (25%) Total Plan Implementation $451,640,000 $488,900,000 $456,970,000 $5,330,000 1% ($31,930,000) (7%) Notes: HCP/NCCP and 2017 Fee Audit costs are inflated to 2021 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.

Sources: HCP/NCCP, Table 9-1; 2017 Audit, Table 3.2; Appendix C (Summary table).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 24
Table 3.3: Cost Model Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) Cost Category
2006
Plan
2017
Fee Audit
2022
Fee Audit
2022 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2022 Audit vs.
2017 Audit
Program Administration $27,710,000 $37,450,000 $37,990,000 $10,280,000 37% $540,000 1% Land Acquisition $358,290,000 $377,110,000 $367,260,000 $8,970,000 3% ($9,850,000) (3%) Planning and Design $9,470,000 $10,960,000 $8,260,000 ($1,210,000) (13%) ($2,700,000) (25%) Habitat Restoration/Creation $34,800,000 $72,640,000 $60,240,000 $25,440,000 73% ($12,400,000) (17%) Environmental Compliance $3,560,000 $5,110,000 $3,650,000 $90,000 3% ($1,460,000) (29%) Preserve Management & Maintenance $55,400,000 $50,040,000 $42,370,000 ($13,030,000) (24%) ($7,670,000) (15%) Monitoring, Research, & Adaptive
Management $32,050,000 $20,890,000 $10,860,000 ($21,190,000) (66%) ($10,030,000) (48%) Remedial Measures $2,580,000 $5,120,000 $3,950,000 $1,370,000 53% ($1,170,000) (23%) Contingency $8,290,000 $6,860,000 $5,100,000 ($3,190,000) (38%) ($1,760,000) (26%) Total Plan Implementation $532,150,000 $586,180,000 $539,680,000 $7,530,000 1% ($46,500,000) (9%) Notes: HCP/NCCP and 2017 Fee Audit costs are inflated to 2021 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.

Sources: HCP/NCCP, Table 9-1; 2017 Audit, Table 3.3; Appendix D (Summary table).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 25

4. ENDOWMENT MODEL
The HCP/NCCP requires funding for post-permit term costs in perpetuity for the management and monitoring of the Preserve System.22 Post-permit term costs would be funded by a portion of mitigation fee and other revenues transferred to an endowment over time. The endowment would grow with reinvested earnings through year 30. No withdrawals would be made from the endowment to fund 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.

The approach taken to estimate post-permit term costs and endowment funding is like that used in other recent Northern California regional habitat plans, including the San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Placer County Conservation Program. The approach fully complies with applicable statutes regarding investment of public funds for long-term stewardship of conservation lands.23 Endowment Creation
The Conservancy conducted a process to select an endowment manager in 2019 and engaged the Regional Parks Foundation (Foundation) for this purpose. The Foundation is an independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to support the Park District through fundraising. The Conservancy and the Foundation entered into an endowment agreement in 2020 that specifies the responsibilities of both parties.24
The Foundation will manage and invest endowment funds and use its best efforts to achieve a reasonable long-term rate of return on investment consistent with the endowment model assumptions discussed below (see Investment Earnings in this chapter). Before the HCP/NCCP permits expire, a separate agreement will be negotiated between the Conservancy and the Foundation to establish the terms and conditions for distribution of funds from the endowment for preserve management and monitoring in perpetuity.

For endowment management services, the Conservancy will pay the 22 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-40 to 9-42 and Table 9-9. 23 See Mitigation Lands: Nonprofit Organizations (California Government Code, section 65965-65968) and the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (Probate Code, section 18501 et seq.). 24 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Endowment Agreement, October 2020.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 26
Foundation a management fee of 0.55 percent of assets on deposits up to $10 million and 0.50 percent of assets on deposits above $10 million.

Post-permit Term Costs
Annual post-permit funding needs from the endowment were developed based on guidance provided in Chapter 9 of the HCP/NCCP. Total postpermit term costs were estimated based on a percent of annual costs in the final five-year period of the plan (years 26-30) for the following cost categories:
w 40 percent (maximum UDA) to 44 percent (initial UDA) of program administration costs
w 100 percent of preserve management and monitoring costs w 50 percent of monitoring, research, and adaptive management costs Endowment Funding
Four revenue sources build the endowment fund balance through year 30:

1. An opening balance as of December 31, 2021

2. Revenues from mitigation fees and other mitigation payments from development projects

3. Lease revenues from private activities on preserve lands

4. Re-invested earnings from endowment investments.

These funding sources are discussed in the subsections that follow.

Opening Fund Balance
The Conservancy started an endowment in 2020 with funds accumulated by:
w The California Wildlife Foundation from prior development project mitigation payments
w The Park District from revenues generated by residences, communication facilities, wind turbines, and agricultural leases on preserve lands.

See Table F.2 in Appendix F for details.

Investment earnings on those endowment contributions has resulted in a fund balance of $3.9 million by December 31, 2021.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 27
Development Project Revenue
Development project revenue, particularly mitigation fees generated by the HCP/NCCP, will provide the primary contributions to the endowment through the end of the permit term. Other types of development project revenue applied to the endowment include specific one-time and ongoing payments from development projects typically paid in lieu of the development fee (see Table F.3 in Appendix F for details).

Development project revenue is critical for the endowment because many other revenue sources such as state and federal sources are restricted to land acquisition, restoration/creation, or research. Though development project revenue will fund a larger share of endowment costs, state and federal sources will fund a larger share of land acquisition costs. This approach results in each type of funding (mitigation versus conservation funding) only contributing their appropriate share of total Plan costs (see Funding Mitigation and Conservation Goals in Chapter 1 for more discussion).

The endowment model assumes that the Conservancy will make contributions from development fee revenue at a constant rate on an annual basis through the end of the permit term. Fee revenues will fluctuate above and below this annual average from year to year depending on development market activity.

Periodic audits (such as this one) adjust the endowment funding plan as needed to ensure an adequate fund balance by the end of the permit term.

Lease Revenues
The Park District had 13 active leases on preserve lands as of the end of FY 2021 and generated $572,000 for 2021. Eight of these leases are for communication facilities that the endowment assumes will continue in perpetuity. The remaining leases are for wind turbines, residences, and agricultural uses that are assumed to expire at various intervals during the permit term based on the terms of the specific lease agreement. See Table F.4 in Appendix F for details.

The Conservancy and the Park District entered into a lease revenue allocation agreement in 2020 that allocates revenue to the following HCP/NCCP costs:
w Land acquisition
w Preserve management
w Endowment.25
25 Lease Revenues Allocation Agreement between the East Bay Regional Park District and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, October 2020.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 28
The endowment model assumes that at the end of the permit term all lease revenue will directly offset post-permit term preserve management costs.

Investment Earnings
The endowment model assumes a long-term average annual return on investment (ROI) of 7.25 percent. For comparison, other funds with similar long range investment horizons such as university endowments, pension funds, and hospital endowments, have average annual earnings objectives of six to nine percent.

Based on an ROI goal of 7.25 percent, the endowment model assumes that inflation is 3.00 percent and endowment manager fees are 1.00 percent. As shown in Table 4.1, this results in an annual real return on endowment fund balances of 3.25 percent. The real rate of return is also known as the “capitalization rate”. Thus, the endowment can be expected to generate funding for post-permit term costs, adjusted for inflation and management fees, at a constant rate of 3.25 percent of the fund balance that is achieved by the end of the permit term in 2037.

Table 4.1: Investment Earnings
Allocation of Annual Investment Earnings
on Endowment Fund Balance
Percent of Endowment
Fund Balance
Average Annual Return on Investment Goal1 7.25%
Reinvested Earnings to Offset Inflation 3.00%
Available for Annual Distributions 4.25%
Endowment Manager Fees2 1.00%
Average Annual Real Rate of Return to
Fund Post-Permit Term Costs

3.25%
1 Total average annual investment earnings are net of investment management fees (including custodial and audit costs) and are separate from endowment manager fees (see note 2).
2 The endowment model assumes that the Conservancy will engage an outside endowment fund manager instead of staffing this function in-house. Endowment manager fees would fund administration, accounting, and reporting costs directly associated with the Conservancy’s account.

These assumptions are based on a current habitat endowment management program operated by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) under agreements with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These programs assume a long-range real rate of return of 3.25 percent to 3.50 percent. The endowment model for this audit uses the more conservative rate of 3.25 percent. This rate is the same rate being used for endowment modeling by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan,

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 29
and the Placer County Conservation Program mentioned at the start of this chapter.

Lower investment earnings, higher inflation, or higher endowment manager fees would require increased endowment funding and higher mitigation fees.

Higher investment earnings, lower inflation, or lower endowment manager fees would require less endowment funding and lower mitigation fees. Future periodic fee audits will evaluate these assumptions and adjust mitigation fees and other revenues allocated to the endowment as needed to maintain adequate funding.

Endowment Model Results
A summary of the endowment models for the initial UDA and maximum UDA scenarios is shown below in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Post-Permit Funding
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Endowment Contributions (through FY 2021) $3,548,946 $3,548,946 Investment Earnings (through FY 2021)1 $368,684 $368,684 Endowment Opening Balance (2022) $3,917,630 $3,917,630
Development Project Revenue (2022-2037)2 $52,968,429 $64,960,541 Lease Revenue (2022-2037)3 $1,747,957 $1,747,957
Investment Earnings (2022-2037)4 $18,948,234 $22,365,352 Endowment Fund Balance (2037) $77,582,249 $92,991,480
Annual Distribution Rate (post-permit)4 3.25% 3.25%
Investment Earnings (post-permit)4 $2,521,423 $3,022,223 Development Project Revenue (post-permit)2 $366,571 $366,571 Lease Revenue (post-permit)3 $270,605 $270,605
Annual Preserve Management Costs (post-permit) $3,158,600 $3,659,400 1 Earnings net of fees for endowment manager (Regional Parks Foundation) and investment management. 2 Development project revenue primarily from Plan development fees during Plan implementation, plus several development mitigation payments that will continue in perpetuity. 3 Lease revenue from 13 leases as of 2021 with eight assumed to continue in perpetuity. 4 Investment earnings based on real return on investment equal to 3.25% that is net of inflation and all administrative and investment management fees.

Source: Appendix E, Tables E.1 and E.2; Appendix F, Table F.2.

See Table E.1 and Table E.2 in Appendix E for detailed output of the endowment model for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios, respectively.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 30

5. WETLAND MITIGATION FEE
This chapter presents the updated wetland mitigation fee schedule and the reasonable relationship findings required by the MFA and explained in Chapter 1. Unless the applicant chooses to perform their own restoration or creation dedicated to the Preserve System, the wetland mitigation fee is applied to covered activities that generate permanent impacts on wetland land cover types whether inside or outside the UDA.26 Wetland mitigation fees are calculated based on only the surface area of the wetland land cover type impacted, or by linear feet for stream impacts. The wetland mitigation fee is therefore typically applied to a small portion of the total impacts of a covered activity.

Updated Fee Schedule
The wetland mitigation fee is based on the unit costs (cost per acre or cost per linear foot for streams) presented in the prior chapter multiplied by a mitigation ratio established by the HCP/NCCP. The mitigation ratio represents the restoration area needed to mitigate one acre (or one linear foot in the case of streams) of impact. Most mitigation ratios are one-to-one, that is one acre of impact requires one acre of wetland restoration/creation to mitigate impacts. Several land cover types require a higher or lower mitigation ratio to adjust for the relative ability of restoration projects to mitigate the types of impacts associated with a given land cover type. The updated wetland mitigation fees based on mitigation ratios by land cover type are shown in Table 5.1.

Consistent with the habitat restoration/creation cost estimates explained in Chapter 3, above, the wetland mitigation fee is only related to the one-time activity of restoration or creation of wetland land cover types. The three other fees presented in the following two chapters of this report address the other Plan costs to mitigate the impacts of covered activities on wetland land cover types. These other costs include, for example, acquisition of sites for wetland, pond, and stream restoration/creation, preservation of existing wetland, pond, and stream habitat and long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of habitat restoration/creation sites.
26 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-23 to 9-24 and Table 9-5.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 31
Table 5.1: Wetland Mitigation Fee Schedule
Land Cover Type
Habitat Restoration /
Creation Cost
Mitigation
Ratio Wetland Mitigation Fee
Riparian $105,891 per acre 1:1 $105,891 per acre
Perennial Wetland 162,953 per acre 1:1 162,953 per acre Seasonal Wetland 191,396 per acre 2:1 382,792 per acre
Alkali Wetland 193,490 per acre 2:1 386,980 per acre
Ponds 211,115 per acre 1:1 211,115 per acre
Aquatic (open water) 211,115 per acre 0.5:1 105,558 per acre Slough / Channel 149,516 per acre 1:1 149,516 per acre
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) 553 per linear foot 1:1 553 per linear foot Streams (>25 ft. wide) 829 per linear foot 1:1 829 per linear foot Sources: HCP/NCCP, Tables 5-16 and 5-17; Table 3.1 (this report).

Table 5.2 compares the updated wetland mitigation fees to current fees.

Wetland mitigation fees increase slightly compared to current fees because of updates to the cost model discussed in Chapter 3. The automatic annual inflation adjustment since the prior audit has largely kept the fee in line with changing Plan costs.

Table 5.2: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison
Land Cover Type Fee Basis
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit Change
Riparian per acre $105,516 $105,891 0.4%
Perennial Wetland per acre $159,912 $162,953 1.9%
Seasonal Wetland per acre $374,220 $382,792 2.3%
Alkali Wetland per acre $378,310 $386,980 2.3%
Ponds per acre $205,924 $211,115 2.5%
Aquatic (open water) per acre $102,962 $105,558 2.5%
Slough / Channel per acre $147,029 $149,516 1.7%
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per linear foot $543 $553 1.8%
Streams (>25 ft. wide) per linear foot $814 $829 1.8%
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy, Annual Mitigation Fee Adjustment Summary (PDF); Table

5.1. Estimated restoration costs and revenues associated with wetland land cover impacts are shown in Table 5.3. The table multiplies the wetland land cover acreage impacts from Table 2.3 by the update fee schedule in Table 5.1. The 30-year revenue estimates in the table are used in the development fee calculation presented in Chapter 6.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 32
Table 5.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue
Land Cover Type
Wetland
Mitigation
Fee
Fee Revenue
(2022-2037)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Riparian $105,891 per acre $3,040,000 $3,570,000
Perennial Wetland $162,953 per acre $3,610,000 $3,660,000 Seasonal Wetland $382,792 per acre $4,210,000 $5,810,000 Alkali Wetland $386,980 per acre $3,200,000 $3,550,000
Ponds $211,115 per acre $1,460,000 $1,670,000
Aquatic (open water) $105,558 per acre $1,220,000 $1,220,000 Slough / Channel $149,516 per acre $10,670,000 $10,670,000 Subtotal $27,410,000 $30,150,000
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) $553 per ln. ft. $11,300,000 $14,220,000 Streams (>25 ft. wide) $829 per ln. ft. $2,290,000 $3,170,000 Total $41,000,000 $47,540,000
Fee Revenue
(2008-2037)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Actual (2008-2021) $1,570,000 $1,570,000
Estimated (2022-2037) $41,000,000 $47,540,000
Total (2008-2037) $42,570,000 $49,110,000
Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.

Sources: Tables 2.3, 5.1, and Appendix F, Table F.5.

Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter 1.

Section 66001(a)(1)
The wetland mitigation fee is intended to pay the full cost of restoration or creation of wetland land cover types, including design, implementation, postconstruction monitoring, and remediation. The development fee described in the next chapter will fund acquisition of the site for the restoration or creation and the management and monitoring after the wetland is fully functioning.

Restoration of oak savanna is also required by the HCP/NCCP, but the cost of this restoration is included in the development fee because it is not associated with jurisdictional wetlands and waters.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 33
Section 66001(a)(2)
The wetland mitigation fee will fund the capital costs associated with wetland restoration/creation the mitigate related wetland impacts. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP explains the conservation strategy for wetland restoration/creation, and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.

Section 66001(a)(3)
A reasonable relationship exists between the use of wetland mitigation fee revenue and covered activities that would pay the fee. Only covered activities that have wetland impacts (impacts on species and natural communities within wetland land cover types) pay the fee, and fee revenues fund implementation of the conservation strategy designed to mitigate those impacts. Specific elements of the strategy from Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP that relate to the restoration or creation of wetlands, ponds, and streams include:
w Conservation methods such as:
– Biological goals and objectives that include the restoration and creation of wetlands, ponds, and streams.
– Mitigation of impacts on state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters.
w Conservation measures such as:
– Conservation Measure 2.3. Restore Wetlands and Create Ponds – Conservation Measure 2.10. Restore Streams and Riparian Woodland/Scrub to Compensate for Habitat Loss and to Increase Biodiversity.

The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 and presented in detail in Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP explains the costs associated with the restoration or creation of wetlands, ponds, and streams. Updated costs are shown in Table 3.1 in Chapter 3 of this report and include:
w All costs associated with the habitat restoration/creation cost category (includes construction costs and staff-related costs)
w The share of environmental compliance costs associated with one-time costs for habitat restoration/creation

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 34
w Costs for pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring for restoration sites (costs included in the monitoring, research and adaptative management tab in the cost model).

Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the wetland mitigation fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP explains the relationship between the 17 animal and 11 plant species covered under the HCP/NCCP and wetland land cover types (see Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 of the Plan). Chapter 4 of the Plan explains the impacts of covered activities on these animal and plant species, and more broadly on natural communities. The importance of wetland land cover types is demonstrated by:
w The eight wetland land cover types provide habitats for all 17 animal species covered under the Plan.
w Individual wetland land cover types provide habitat for at least three and, in the case of seasonal wetlands, as many as 11 covered animal species. w Vernal pools are an essential habitat for four covered species and 11 covered plants.

Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the wetland mitigation fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs based on the fee schedule shown in Table 5.1. The fee schedule reflects the type of land cover that is affected because both mitigation ratios and per acre mitigation costs vary by land cover. The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres of wetland or pond, or linear feet of stream affected.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 35

6. DEVELOPMENT FEE
This chapter presents the updated development fee schedule and the reasonable relationship findings required by the MFA and presented in Chapter 1. The development fee is applied to covered activities that generate permanent impacts. The only exception are permanent impacts caused by a specified list of rural infrastructure projects that pay the rural road fee based on a multiplier applied to the development fee (see Chapter 7).27 Applicants can dedicate land for the Preserve System or generate alternative special taxes, fees, or charges in lieu of paying the mitigation fees subject to approval by the Conservancy.

Updated Fee Schedule
The development fee is based on all covered activities funding a fair share of total HCP/NCCP implementation costs. The fair share is based on the total amount of lands dedicated to habitat preservation in Eastern Contra Costa County, both lands existing prior to the HCP/NCCP and lands added by the Preserve System through implementation of the Plan. The Plan apportioned this total land area for habitat preservation between urban development existing prior to the Plan and urban development anticipated to occur during the 30-year permit term of the Plan. The fair share of costs allocated to the development fee under the maximum UDA scenario is 52 percent as documented in Appendix H of the Plan. The Plan requires that the periodic audit use this fair share amount to update the development fee, and that the fee cannot make up for shortfalls in revenue from other local, state, and federal sources.28
As explained in Chapter 1, all covered activities pay the development fee unless the applicant provides their own mitigation. In cases where wetland land cover types are affected, the wetland mitigation fee is also paid. As explained in Chapter 3, the wetland mitigation fee will fund costs of habitat restoration/creation associated with impacts on wetlands, ponds, and streams.

Therefore, total Plan costs subject to the fair share calculation are calculated net of wetland mitigation fee revenue. This approach avoids double-charging covered activities for the same Plan costs.

Table 6.1 shows that share of total HCP/NCCP costs allocated to the development fee. Costs are shown net of estimated wetland mitigation fee revenue drawn from Table 5.3 in the prior chapter. Development fee revenue 27 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-17 to 9-22, Figure 9-1, Table 9-4. 28 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 36
to date is deducted from the fair share allocated to the development fee to calculate the net revenue still required from the development fee for the remainder of the permit term. Using this approach ensures that at the end of the permit term covered activities would have paid the fair share of plan costs as determined by the nexus analysis in the Plan.

Table 6.1: Development Fee Fair Share Analysis (2021 $)

Maximum Urban
Development Area
Initial Urban
Development Area
Formula Amount Formula Amount
Plan Implementation Costs a $539,680,000 q $456,970,000 Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue b ($49,110,000) p ($42,570,000) Endowment Contribution1 c $70,260,000 d $58,270,000
Net Cost Subject to Fair Share Allocation d (sum) $560,830,000 m (sum) $472,670,000 Development Fair Share Allocation2 e 52% l = k / m 43%

Development Fair Share Costs f = d * e $291,630,000 k = m - i $203,470,000 Development Fee Revenue To Date g ($17,450,000) g ($17,450,000) Remaining Development
Fair Share Costs (2022-2037) h = f - g $274,180,000 j = k + g $186,020,000 Other Plan Funding i = d - f $269,200,000 i $269,200,000 Notes: This table does not show rural road fee revenue, as shown in the HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, because impacts and associated fee revenues are in addition to impacts mitigated by the development fee. Impacts from rural (outside UDA) projects and activities other than those covered by the rural road fee are included in the development fee. 1 Endowment contributions during permit term excluding investment earnings. 2 "Development Fair Share Allocation" factor for maximum UDA based on HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, Table 1, consistent with procedures required for periodic audit (HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31). Also, consistent with the HCP/NCCP, the initial UDA Development Fair Share Allocation factor is based on holding non-fee revenue sources constant with the maximum UDA scenario. This approach reasonably assumes that other federal, state, and local funding over the permit term will not be affected by the amount of urban development area impacts.

Sources: HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum); Tables 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 5.3, and 8.1 (this report).

A range of federal, state, and local sources fund the remaining costs for HCP/NCCP implementation, including rural road fees and temporary impact fees. Fair share costs allocated to the development fee under the initial UDA scenario are calculated by holding constant total funding from these other sources. It is reasonable to assume that the level of development under the Plan would not affect the level of funding from these other sources.

The updated development fee is shown in Table 6.2. The fee is based on the fair share costs calculated in Table 6.1 divided by the equivalent acres of impact remaining under each scenario from Table 2.2. The bottom of Table 6.2 shows the fee per acre by zone based on the weighting factors explained in Chapter 2.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 37
Table 6.2: Development Fee Schedule (2021 $ for 2022 Fee Schedule) Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
MidPoint
Fee per Equivalent Acre (based on remaining costs & impacts, 2022-2037) Remaining Development Fair Share Costs $186,020,000 $274,180,000 Remaining Development Impacts (equivalent acres) 19,046 29,160 Development Fee (per equivalent acre) $9,767 $9,403 $9,585 Fee Schedule (per acre of impact) Weight
Zone 1 2 $19,534 $18,806 $19,170
Zone 2 4 $39,068 $37,612 $38,340
Zone 3 1 $9,767 $9,403 $9,585
Source: Tables 2.2 and 6.1.

Table 6.2 also shows the average fee for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios. Use of the average development fee for the two scenarios was approved by the Conservancy Board when adopting the 2013 Audit recommendations (June 27, 2013).

Consistent with the prior audits, these equivalent acres do not discount for lands within the UDA that remain undeveloped during the permit term, as was done in the Plan to calculate the original development fee. Doing so would make the nexus analysis inconsistent with allowable permit term impacts.

Comparison with Original and Current Fee
In Table 6.3 the updated fee based on the average of the two scenarios is compared with the current adopted fee. As shown in the table, the recommended development fee is just over one percent higher than the current fee schedule. The automatic annual inflation adjustment since the prior audit has been able to keep the fee in line with changing Plan costs without any significant revision needed based on the current audit.

Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter 1.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 38
Table 6.3: Development Fee Comparison (fee per acre)
Zone
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit1 Change
Zone 1 18,938 19,170 1.2%
Zone 2 37,876 38,340 1.2%
Zone 3 9,469 9,585 1.2%
1 Uses average development fee of initial and maximum
UDA scenarios as approved by Conservancy Board when
adopting the 2013 Audit recommendations (June 27,
2013).

Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy, Annual Mitigation
Fee Adjustment Summary (PDF); Table 6.2.

Section 66001(a)(1)
The development fee is intended to pay the fair share cost of the HCP/NCCP associated with permanent impacts except impacts from a specified list of rural transportation projects (see Chapter 7) and excluding habitat restoration/ creation costs for wetland land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee.

Section 66001(a)(2)
The development fee will fund a fair share of all HCP/NCCP costs except costs funded by the wetland mitigation fees. Chapter 5 of the Plan explains the conservation strategy for the Plan and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.

Section 66001(a)(3)
A reasonable relationship exists between the use of development fee revenue and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP explains the conservation strategy and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.

The conservation strategy in Chapter 5 of the Plan identifies biological goals and objectives that are supported by specific conservation measures: five measures related to landscape-level conservation, nine measures related to natural community-level conservation (excluding two measures related to wetland, pond, and stream restoration/creation discussed in the prior chapter of this report), and nine measures related to species-level conservation.

The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 of the Plan and presented in detail in Appendix G of the Plan explains and estimates the costs associated with implementation. Updated costs are shown in Chapter 3 of this report and include nine cost categories necessary to implement the Plan: program

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 39
administration, land acquisition, planning and design, habitat restoration/creation, environmental compliance, preserve management and maintenance, monitoring, research, and adaptive management, remedial measures, and contingency fund. As explained in the Chapter 3 of this report costs related to wetland, pond, and stream habitat restoration/creation are not included in the development fee.

Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the development fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP explains the relationship between the 17 animal species, 11 plant species, and associated habitats covered under the Plan and terrestrial land cover types (see Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 of the Plan). Chapter 4 of the Plan explains the impacts of covered activities by land cover type on these animal and plant species, and more broadly on their habitats and natural communities.

Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the development fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs based on the fee schedule shown in Table 6.2 for three reasons:
w The fee is based on a fair share of HCP/NCCP costs as determined by the share of development occurring under the Plan compared to total development (existing plus new) under the maximum UDA scenario. As stated in the Plan: “this analysis considers the pace of open space acquisition relative to the pace of development before and after adoption of the HCP/NCCP and assigns the land acquisition requirements of the HCP/NCCP according to the premise that future development should mitigate impacts in the inventory area proportionate to its share of the overall habitat impacts in the inventory area (i.e., impacts in the past and the future).”29
w As explained in detail in Chapter 2, Development Fee Zones, the fee is adjusted for three zones that reflect the relative amount of impact from urban development on natural habitats and covered species. The mapping of the zones was completed at a level of detail sufficient to provide a reasonable relationship between all land within a specific zone and the relative weight of impacts assigned to that zone.
w The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres affected.
29 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 5, p. 5-51.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 40

7. RURAL ROAD AND TEMPORARY IMPACT FEES
This chapter presents the updated fee schedule for the rural road fee and the temporary impact fee, and the reasonable relationship findings for each fee required by the MFA and explained in Chapter 1.

Rural Road Fee
The rural road fee is applied to 18 specified rural transportation projects.30 These projects pay a multiple of 1.00 to 2.25 of the development fee. These projects fragment habitat, create substantial barriers and hazards to wildlife movement, and generally have a greater per-acre impact than other types of development projects. The extent of these additional impacts depends on whether the proposed facility is new or expanded, on the length of the facility, on the type of habitat traversed by the road, and other factors. The fee multiple is lower if the project implements wildlife-friendly design measures.

Funding from the rural road fee is shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Rural Road Fee Revenue
Year Amount
HCP/NCCP Estimate 2006 $7,431,600
Inflation Index 0.6578
Current Estimate (2021 $) 2021 $11,300,000
Rural Road Fee Revenue To Date ($2,510,000)
Remaining Rural Road Fee Revenue $8,790,000
Notes: Revenue estimate assumes that all wildlife-friendly design measures are implemented.

Appendix H of the HCP/NCCP also includes a revenue estimate of $1,500,000 for unspecified "rural infrastructure fees" from the development fee applied to projects and activities outside the UDA such as flood protection projects, utility projects, and related maintenance activities. Revenue from these projects and activities are included in the development fee (see Chapter 6).

Sources: HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, Table 9-6 and Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum); Appendix F, Table F.1.

Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter 1.
30 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-24 to 9-25, Table 9-6.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 41
Section 66001(a)(1)
The rural road fee is intended to pay the costs of the HCP/NCCP associated with mitigating permanent impacts from specified transportation projects outside the urban development area, excluding habitat restoration/creation costs for wetland land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee.

Section 66001(a)(2)
The rural road fee will fund HCP/NCCP costs to mitigate permanent impacts from specified transportation projects outside the urban development area, excluding habitat restoration/creation costs for wetland land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee. Chapter 5 of the Plan explains the conservation strategy for the Plan and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.

Section 66001(a)(3)
A reasonable relationship exists between the use of rural road fee revenue and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP explains the conservation strategy and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.

The conservation strategy in Chapter 5 of the Plan identifies biological goals and objectives that are supported by specific conservation measures: five measures related to landscape-level conservation, nine measures related to natural community-level conservation (excluding two measures related to wetland, pond, and stream restoration/creation discussed in the prior chapter of this report), and nine measures related to species-level conservation.

The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 and presented in detail in Appendix G of the Plan explains the costs associated with implementation.

Updated costs are shown in Chapter 3 of this report and include nine cost categories: program administration, land acquisition, planning and design, habitat restoration/creation, environmental compliance, preserve management and maintenance, monitoring, research, and adaptive management, remedial measures, and contingency fund. As explained in the prior chapter of this report costs related to habitat restoration/creation on wetland land cover types are not included in the development fee.

Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the rural road fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP explains the relationship between the 17 animal species, 11 plant species, and