Brentwood City Council
November 14, 2023

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 42
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 rural road fee and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs for the following reasons:
w The fee is based on the development fee discussed in Chapter 6 and applied to the permanent disturbance of land associated with a specific list of transportation projects.
w The fee is adjusted by a multiplier applicable to each specified transportation project to reflect each project’s level of additional effects on the fragmentation of habitat and creation of barriers and hazards to wildlife movement.
w The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres affected.

Temporary Impact Fee
The temporary impact fee is applied to all temporary impacts from covered activities both inside and outside the UDA. The temporary impact fee is based on the development fee described in the prior chapter and shown in the fee schedule in Table 6.2. Where applicable the fee is also based on the wetland mitigation fee described in Chapter 5 and shown in the fee schedule in Table 5.1.

As described in Chapter 2 of the HCP/NCCP there are many covered activities that are short duration or intermittent and result in temporary impacts on natural land cover types. As described in Chapter 4 of the Plan some covered activities are expected to have substantial temporary impacts on covered species due to their large footprint, linear nature, location in the inventory area, effect on local soils or hydrology, or a combination of these factors. Temporary impacts are defined as any impact on vegetation or habitat that does not result in permanent habitat removal.

Chapter 9 of the Plan provides a detailed explanation of the calculation of the temporary impact fee. Covered activities with temporary impacts pay a fee based on the development fee. In addition, covered activities with temporary impacts on wetland land cover types also pay a fee based on the wetland mitigation fee. The temporary impact fee is calculated based on the frequency of the temporary impact and habitat recovery over the 30-year permit term;

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 43
the amount of the fee is equal to the applicable development or wetland mitigation fee multiplied by the proportion of the Plan’s 30-year term affected by the temporary impact.

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

Section 66001(a)(1)
The temporary impact fee is intended to pay for costs of the HCP/NCCP associated with mitigating temporary impacts.

Section 66001(a)(2)
The temporary impact fee will fund HCP/NCCP costs to mitigate temporary impacts. 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 temporary impact 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, 11 measures related to natural community-level conservation, and nine measures related to specieslevel 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.

Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the temporary impact fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 44
explains the relationship between the 17 animal and 11 plant species covered under the Plan and all 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.

Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the temporary impact fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs based on the fee schedules shown in Table 5.1 and Table 6.2 for three reasons:
w As explained in Chapter 5 regarding the wetland mitigation fee and Chapter 6 regarding the development fee, the fees are based only on Plan costs associated with permanent impacts. Temporary impacts are reasonably like permanent impacts when adjusted for the duration of the temporary impact, so it is reasonable to establish the temporary fee based on the wetland mitigation and development fees.
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.
w The total fee is proportional to the duration of the temporary impact.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 45

8. FUNDING PLAN
This chapter provides an updated funding plan for the HCP/NCCP based on the HCP/NCCP cost and mitigation fee revenue analysis presented in the prior chapters. This chapter provides the remaining two findings required by the MFA and explained in Chapter 1:
w Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of improvements to be funded by the fee.
w Designate the approximate dates when funding is expected to complete financing of improvements to be funded by the fee.

Revenue Sources
The funding plan tracks total revenues to date and estimates revenue for the remaining permit term. All amounts are shown in 2021 dollars. This section reviews the assumptions used to estimate each revenue source in the funding plan for the remaining 16 years of the permit term.

Mitigation Fees
w Development fee revenue for the remaining permit term is based on the “Remaining Fair Share Development Costs” shown in Table 6.2. All other mitigation payment revenue associated with specific agreements between land developers and the permittees is allocated to the endowment (see Chapter 4).
w Wetland mitigation fee revenue for the remaining permit term is based on the amounts shown in Table 5.3.
w Rural road fee revenue for the remaining permit term is based on the amount shown in Table 7.1.
w Temporary impact fee revenue for the remaining permit term equals the prior five-year annual average.

Consistent with prior audits, mitigation fee revenues assume that total impacts allowed under the permit occur by the end of the 30-year permit term. The permit term likely will need to be extended because impacts are occurring at a slower pace than anticipated by the HCP/NCCP. The funding plan will continue to use a 30-year planning horizon for occurrence of all allowable impacts until a permit term extension is approved by the permittees and the wildlife agencies. See Chapter 2, Permit Term Extension, for more discussion.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 46
Other Fees and Exactions
w Administrative charges are for costs associated with processing mitigation fees paid by participating special entities. Participating special entities generate impacts covered by the Plan but are not one of the permittees.31 Revenue for the remaining permit term equals the prior fiveyear annual average. w Payments for non-covered activities are reduced to zero over the permit term because this revenue cannot be used for impacts under the Plan and must be used for additional conservation measures.
w Other development exactions are primarily from participating special entities and are for conservation beyond the mitigation requirements of the Plan (“contribution to recovery”). Revenue for the remaining permit term equals the prior five-year annual average.

State and Federal Funds and Local Capital Funds
The HCP/NCCP anticipated that state and federal funds and local capital funds would be used for land acquisition to build the Preserve System.

Through 2021 state and federal funds have been used nearly exclusively for land acquisition along with a limited amount of funding for activities such as the planning and design of restoration projects. Local capital funds are comprised mostly of foundation grants and land acquisition funding from the Park District. A limited amount of funding from foundation grants and other local sources has been used for research. Park District funding comes from voter-approved tax measures and lease revenues (see Chapter 4, Lease Revenues, and Table F.4 in Appendix F). Over 90 percent of the funding from these sources combined through 2021 has been used for land acquisition.

The HCP/NCCP converted estimated funding from these sources into estimates of acres acquired.32 The Plan states that state and federal funding must be measured in terms of acreage rather than dollars.33 The audit applies this same acreage approach for measuring funding from local capital funds.

These funding sources have declined substantially in the past five years. The 10-year average for these sources combined is more than double the five-year average (see Table F.5 in Appendix F). Funding for the remainder of the 31 Entities not subject to the jurisdiction of the permittees under the Plan may request coverage under the Plan for covered activities. Such organizations may include, for example, school districts, water districts, other utilities or special districts, or private companies. These entities, known as participating special entities, can receive coverage under the HCP/NCCP during Plan implementation on a case-by-case basis and by paying the appropriate fees as determined by the Conservancy.
32 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-33 and 9-36.
33 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-37.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 47
permit term is estimated to be more than the prior five-year average and less than the 10-year average (130 and 160 percent of the five-year average for state and federal funds and local capital funds, respectively). This level of funding is estimated such that:
w The Plan remains fully funded based on total plan resources (total revenues plus FY 2021 ending fund balance) versus total plan costs w Total funding from each source over the permit term for land acquisition, when converted to acreage based on average costs per acre, does not exceed the land acquisition estimates for each source included in the Plan.

To balance total plan revenues against total plan costs, the funding plan for this audit was able to hold funding from these sources to between 87 and 90 percent of the amount estimated in the Plan, based on acreage acquired and average cost per acre, depending on the funding source and scenario (initial or maximum UDA).

Local Operating Funds
The Plan anticipated that the Park District would be a significant funding partner not only in land acquisition but also in preserve management.34 Indeed, the Park District holds title to all but one of the acquisitions completed through 2021 to build the Preserve System.35 In addition to land purchase costs, the Park District has funded a share of due diligence and closing costs for land acquisitions and a share of costs for preserve management. Park District funding sources include an allocation of lease revenues on preserve lands (see Table F.4 and Table F.5 in Appendix F).

The Conservancy and the Park District are currently negotiating a cost sharing agreement for preserve management. Guiding principles for this agreement are the Park District fund land management at a level sufficient “to achieve its internal management standards”. Other sources (such as the Conservancy) would fund “those costs related to implementing the HCP/NCCP that would not otherwise be incurred by the Park District to manage its lands.”36 Applying these principles, local operating funds from the Park District are estimated based on the Park District funding 41 percent of total preserve management costs for the remainder of the permit term. This estimate is based on a preliminary estimate provided by Conservancy and subject to negotiation between EBRPD and the Conservancy.
34 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-33 to 9-34 and Appendix H (first memorandum). 35 The only acquisition that is not held by the Park District is the 165-acre Viera North Peak parcel. 36 Implementing Agreement for the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, January 22, 2007, p. 22.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 48
The Park District has also funded a share of due diligence and closing costs for land acquisitions. Based on funding and costs to date (through 2021), the District’s funding has equaled one percent of total land acquisition costs. The funding plan assumes that the District will continue to fund these costs at this same level through the remainder of the permit term.

Future local operating funds from the Park District are shown in Table 8.1.

Total funding is between $14 million and $17 million, depending on the scenario. Net funding after deducting lease revenues is $6 million to $8 million.

Table 8.1: Future Local Operating Funds (Park District) (2022-2037)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Preserve Management & Maintenance
2022-2026 Costs (yrs. 15-19) $7,430,000 $7,990,000
2027-2031 Costs (yrs. 20-24) $9,340,000 $10,820,000
2032-2037 Costs (yrs. 25-30) $13,900,000 $16,910,000
Total $30,670,000 $35,720,000
Park District Share1 41.0% 41.0%
Park District Preserve Management Funding $12,570,000 $14,650,000 Due Diligence & Closing (funded by Park District)2 $1,520,000 $2,120,000 Total Park District Funding $14,090,000 $16,770,000
Lease Revenue Subject To Allocation Agreement3 ($5,100,000) ($5,100,000) Grazing Lease Revenue4 ($2,960,000) ($3,470,000)
Net Additional Park District Funding (yrs. 15-30) $6,030,000 $8,200,000 1 EBRPD share based on preliminary estimate provided by Conservancy and subject to negotiation between EBRPD and the Conservancy.
2 Equal to one percent of total future land acquisition costs. The one percent factor is based on Park District share of funding for those costs to date ($1.5 million of District funding and $139 million of land acquisition costs through 2021).
3 The Conservancy and EBRPD have entered into a lease revenue allocation agreement that allocates revenue from leases (primarily from communication and wind power facilities) on preserve lands. The amount shown here represents the share of those revenues allocated to preserve management and maintenance costs excluding grazing leases.
4 Based on cost model estimates of grazing management costs. Costs are assumed equal grazing lease revenue.

Sources: Appendices C and D (Summary, Land Acquisition, and Preserve Management & Maintenance tables); Appendix F, Tables F.4 and F.5.

Other Funds
Other funds include interest earnings and miscellaneous revenue. Revenue from these sources for the remaining permit term equals the prior five-year annual average.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 49
Funding Plan Summary
Table 8.2 presents the updated funding plan under the initial and maximum UDA scenarios. Actual revenues for 2007 through 2021 are inflated to 2021 dollars and added to estimates of remaining revenues for each scenario to calculate total revenues for the 30-year permit term. The ending fund balance for 2021 is included to calculate total resources available to fund the Plan. Plan costs are drawn from Chapters 3 and 4.

Tables 8.3 and 8.4 compare the updated funding plan with the HCP/NCCP and the 2017 audit for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios, respectively, in 2021 dollars. Three revenue sources, development fees, state and federal funds, and local capital funds, continue to fund over 80 percent of the Plan.

The share of total revenue provided by each of these sources continue to remain constant across the three funding plans (+/- two percent).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 50
Table 8.2: Funding Plan (2021 dollars)
Initial UDA Maximum UDA
2007-2021 2022-2037 Total 2022-2037 Total
Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate

PLAN FUNDING
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $17,450,000 $186,020,000 $203,470,000 $274,180,000 $291,630,000 Wetland Mitigation Fee $1,570,000 $41,000,000 $42,570,000 $47,540,000 $49,110,000 Rural Road Fee $2,510,000 $8,790,000 $11,300,000 $8,790,000 $11,300,000 Temporary Impact Fee2 $3,710,000 $3,520,000 $7,230,000 $3,520,000 $7,230,000 Subtotal $25,240,000 $239,330,000 $264,570,000 $334,030,000 $359,270,000 Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges2 $990,000 $1,460,000 $2,450,000 $1,460,000 $2,450,000 Non-Covered Activities3 $5,070,000 ($5,070,000) $0 ($5,070,000) $0 Other Mitigation Fees2 $4,740,000 $1,870,000 $6,610,000 $1,870,000 $6,610,000 Subtotal $10,800,000 ($1,740,000) $9,060,000 ($1,740,000) $9,060,000 Local, State & Federal Funds
State & Federal Funds4 $106,530,000 $50,150,000 $156,680,000 $50,150,000 $156,680,000 Local Capital Funds4 $39,110,000 $16,610,000 $55,720,000 $16,610,000 $55,720,000 Local Operating Funds $10,270,000 $14,090,000 $24,360,000 $16,770,000 $27,040,000 Subtotal $155,910,000 $80,850,000 $236,760,000 $83,530,000 $239,440,000 Other Funds
Interest Earnings2 $540,000 $650,000 $1,190,000 $650,000 $1,190,000 Miscellaneous2 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 $30,000 $60,000
Subtotal $570,000 $680,000 $1,250,000 $680,000 $1,250,000 Total Revenue $192,520,000 $319,120,000 $511,640,000 $416,500,000 $609,020,000 Fund Balance5 $3,960,000 $0 $3,960,000 $0 $3,960,000
Total Resources $196,480,000 $319,120,000 $515,600,000 $416,500,000 $612,980,000

PLAN COSTS
Plan Implementation (Permit Term) $456,970,000 $539,680,000 Endowment Fund Contribution $58,270,000 $70,260,000
Total Costs $515,240,000 $609,940,000
Surplus / (Deficit) $360,000 $3,040,000
1 Total years 0-30 revenue estimated based on adjusting HCP/NCCP estimate of $8,930,000 by the inflation index for 2006. 2 Future year estimates based on annual average actual revenue for prior five years (2017-2021), except Other Mitigation Fees prior annual average excludes extraordinary CWF 2020 endowment contribution (see Table F.4), 3 Prior year revenue deducted from future years because funding must augment and not substitute for Plan obligations (see Chapter 9 of the Plan).
4 Future year estimate used to balance total resources with total costs while ensuring that total revenue does not exceed HCP/NCCP estimates of preserve acquisition funded by these sources, tracked based on acres acquired and average cost per acre. 5 As of December 31, 2021.

Sources: Tables 3.2, 3.3, 5.3, 6.1, 7.1, and 8.1, Appendix F, Table F.5, ECCC Habitat Conservancy (fund balance).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 51
Table 8.3: Funding Plan Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) 2006
Plan
2017
Fee Audit
2022
Fee Audit
2022 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2022 Audit vs.
2017 Audit
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $179,660,000 40% $212,450,000 38% $203,470,000 39% $23,810,000 13% ($8,980,000) (4%) Wetland Mitigation Fee $33,810,000 7% $51,310,000 9% $42,570,000 8% $8,760,000 26% ($8,740,000) (17%) Rural Road Fee $13,580,000 3% $13,570,000 2% $11,300,000 2% ($2,280,000) (17%) ($2,270,000) (17%) Temporary Impact Fee $0 0% $6,570,000 1% $7,230,000 1% $7,230,000 NA $660,000 10% Subtotal $227,050,000 50% $283,900,000 51% $264,570,000 51% $37,520,000 17% ($19,330,000) (7%) Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges $0 0% $1,670,000 0% $2,450,000 0% $2,450,000 NA $780,000 47% Non-Covered Activities $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 NA $0 NA
Other Mitigation Fees $0 0% $4,910,000 1% $6,610,000 1% $6,610,000 NA $1,700,000 35% Subtotal $0 0% $6,580,000 1% $9,060,000 2% $9,060,000 NA $2,480,000 38% Local, State & Federal Funds
State & Federal Funds $143,660,000 32% $176,870,000 32% $156,680,000 30% $13,020,000 9% ($20,190,000) (11%) Local Capital Funds $53,210,000 12% $64,810,000 12% $55,720,000 11% $2,510,000 5% ($9,090,000) (14%) Local Operating Funds $30,400,000 7% $25,180,000 5% $24,360,000 5% ($6,040,000) (20%) ($820,000) (3%) Subtotal $227,270,000 50% $266,860,000 48% $236,760,000 46% $9,490,000 4% ($30,100,000) (11%) Other Funds
Interest Earnings1 $0 0% $670,000 0% $1,190,000 0% $1,190,000 NA $520,000 78% Miscellaneous1 $0 0% $30,000 0% $60,000 0% $60,000 NA $30,000 100% Subtotal $0 0% $700,000 0% $1,250,000 0% $1,250,000 NA $550,000 79% Fund Balance $0 0% Not Included 0% $3,960,000 1% $3,960,000 NA $3,960,000 NA Total Funding $454,320,000 100% $558,040,000 100% $515,600,000 100% $61,280,000 13% ($42,440,000) (8%) Total Costs $451,640,000 $556,470,000 $515,240,000 $63,600,000 14% ($41,230,000) (7%) Surplus / (Deficit) $2,680,000 $1,570,000 $360,000 ($2,320,000) ($1,210,000) Note: HCP/NCCP and 2017 Audit revenues are inflated to 2021 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.

Sources: HCP/NCCP, Table 9-8 and Appendix H; 2017 Fee Audit, Table 8.2, p. 51; Table 8.2 (this report).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 52
Table 8.4: Funding Plan Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) 2006
Plan
2017
Fee Audit
2022
Fee Audit
2022 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2022 Audit vs.
2017 Audit
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $258,010,000 48% $317,110,000 47% $291,630,000 48% $33,620,000 13% ($25,480,000) (8%) Wetland Mitigation Fee $36,500,000 7% $59,240,000 9% $49,110,000 8% $12,610,000 35% ($10,130,000) (17%) Rural Road Fee $13,580,000 3% $13,570,000 2% $11,300,000 2% ($2,280,000) (17%) ($2,270,000) (17%) Temporary Impact Fee $0 0% $6,570,000 1% $7,230,000 1% $7,230,000 NA $660,000 10% Subtotal $308,090,000 58% $396,490,000 59% $359,270,000 59% $51,180,000 17% ($37,220,000) (9%) Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges $0 0% $1,670,000 0% $2,450,000 0% $2,450,000 NA $780,000 47% Non-Covered Activities $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 NA $0 NA
Other Mitigation Fees $0 0% $4,910,000 1% $6,610,000 1% $6,610,000 NA $1,700,000 35% Subtotal $0 0% $6,580,000 1% $9,060,000 1% $9,060,000 NA $2,480,000 38% Local, State & Federal Funds
State & Federal Funds $143,660,000 27% $176,870,000 26% $156,680,000 26% $13,020,000 9% ($20,190,000) (11%) Local Capital Funds $53,210,000 10% $64,810,000 10% $55,720,000 9% $2,510,000 5% ($9,090,000) (14%) Local Operating Funds $30,400,000 6% $25,180,000 4% $27,040,000 4% ($3,360,000) (11%) $1,860,000 7% Subtotal $227,270,000 42% $266,860,000 40% $239,440,000 39% $12,170,000 5% ($27,420,000) (10%) Other Funds
Interest Earnings1 $0 0% $670,000 0% $1,190,000 0% $1,190,000 NA $520,000 78% Miscellaneous1 $0 0% $30,000 0% $60,000 0% $60,000 NA $30,000 100% Subtotal $0 0% $700,000 0% $1,250,000 0% $1,250,000 NA $550,000 79% Fund Balance $0 0% Not Included 0% $3,960,000 1% $3,960,000 NA $3,960,000 NA Total Funding $535,360,000 100% $670,630,000 100% $612,980,000 100% $77,620,000 14% ($57,650,000) (9%) Total Costs $532,140,000 $669,060,000 $609,940,000 $77,800,000 15% ($59,120,000) (9%) Surplus / (Deficit) $3,220,000 $1,570,000 $3,040,000 ($180,000) $1,470,000 Note: HCP/NCCP and 2017 Audit revenues are inflated to 2021 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.

Sources: HCP/NCCP, Table 9-8 and Appendix H; 2017 Fee Audit, Table 8.3, p. 52; Table 8.2 (this report).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-1
APPENDIX A: DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
The following tables provide detail for impacts from covered activities for 2008 through 2021 of the HCP/NCCP.

Table A.1 provides detail for permanent land conversion impacts Table A.2 provides detail for wetland impacts.

Temporary impacts are not shown because they do not affect audit calculations of the development fees.

Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2009 CCC LP07-2033: Verizon Wireless Martin Cell Tower Project 1.39 2009 CCC LP09-2002: US Coast Guard/SBA Cell Tower Project 1.158 2009 PSE: State Route 4 Bypass, Segment 4, Phase 2 24.69 23.81 2010 PSE: CalTrans SR4 Median Buffer & Shoulder Widening Project 7.34 2010 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Safety Improvements 6.201
2010 CCC LP09-2033: Horizon Cell Tower Project 1.19
2010 PSE: eBart Phase 1 Project 0.3
2011 CCC LP10-2070: Morgan Territory Rd Telecommunications Facility Project 0.901
2011 CCC LP09-2037: Camino Diablo Vasco Telecommunications Facility Project 2.35
2011 CCC LP10-2082: J4 Byron Hot Springs Communications Facility 0.8 2011 CCC PWD: Balfour Rd Culvert Repair Project 0.01
2011 CCC PWD: Byron Hwy Shoulder Widening Project-Phase 1 0.44 2011 CCC PWD: Vasco Camino Diablo Intersection 1.94
2011 PSE: ConocoPhillips Line 200 Repair & Anode 0.003
2011 City of Oakley: Stonewood III-Unit #1 Sub #9183 2.21 2011 City of Pittsburg: Trash Capture Demonstration Project 0.02 2011 City of Brentwood: New Meetinghouse Brentwood 3.4
2012 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Safety Improvement Project 0.53 2012 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Should Widening near Round Valley Regional Preserve Project 2.79
2012 CCC BIG12-0004598: EBRIX Los Vaqueros Communication Facility 0.026
2012 CCC LP10-2009: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park
Emergency H2O Pipeline Extension 0.5

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-2
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2012 EBRPD Round Valley Pedestrian Bridge Project 0.15
2012 City of Oakley: iPark Oakley Project 9.14
2012 PSE: eBart Phase II Extension 37.91
2012 PSE: eBart Phase II Extension-1st & 2nd Amend 2.56 2012 Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin Expansion 6.89
2013 City of Brentwood: AutoZone Store 4136 0.9
2013 City of Oakley: Emerson Ranch 138.25
2013 CCC: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park Stormdrain Outfall 0.2 2013 PSE: SR160/SR4 Bypass Phase II Connectors 18.01
2013 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM Site 1357 Repair 0.007
2014 City of Brentwood: Ferro/Ronconi 42.23
2014 CCC PWD: Pacifica Ave Sidewalk 0.204
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Bridge Scour Repair 0.003
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek 142 Wingwall Repair 0.009
2014 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Shoulder Widening 1.77
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Detention Center Bridge Replacement 0.18 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements 1.3
2014 CCC LP13-2097: Verizon Wireless Bethel Island 0.036 2014 CCC LP13-2111: AT&T Co-location Marsh Creek Monopine 0.000226 2014 CCC LP13-2069: Marsh Creek Cell Tower 0.019
2015 City of Brentwood: Bella Fiore 13.5
2015 City of Brentwood: Celebration Preschool 0.87
2015 City of Brentwood: Mangini 9.77
2015 CCC LP14-2044: Mariner's Discovery Church 3.49
2015 City of Oakley PW: Marsh Creek Pedestrian Bridge 0.02 2015 City of Brentwood: Mission Grove 15.6
2015 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase I 20.64
2015 Duane Martin Jr. Vasco Caves 0.1
2015 City of Pittsburg: Greystone Place 4.9
2015 Hess Water Trough Installation 0.01
2015 City of Brentwood PW: John Muir Parkway-Phase II 0.33 2.36 2015 Vaquero Farms S. Wetland Creation & Repair 0.01
2015 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Embankment Repair 0.02
2015 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Safety Improvement Project (Fed. No.

HRRL-5928 (095)) 0.76
2016 City of Brentwood: Maffeo 9.1
2016 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase II 38.7
2016 City of Brentwood: Sparrow at Marsh Creek 6.71
2016 City of Brentwood: Cornerstone Church 4.51
2016 City of Brentwood: Elite (Pacific Union) Self Storage 4 2016 City of Oakley: Verizon Wireless Empire Oakley Road 0.33

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-3
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2016 City of Pittsburg: Sonic Drive-In Project 1.22
2016 City of Brentwood: Tractor Supply Project 2.8
2016 City of Pittsburg: Delta Gateway Pad No. 12 1.8
2016 CCC PWD: Port Chicago Hwy-Willow Pass Sidewalk
Improvements 0.156 0.143
2016 CCC PWD: Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lanes Project 0.4709 2016 CCC LP15-2029: Timber Rd Communication Facility 0.05 2016 CCC TP12-0026: Moita Road Improvement Project 0.36 0.9 2016 PSE: Oakley Generating Station (Original-3rd Amendment) Project 16.72 [see footnote 2]
2016 PSE: SR4/Balfour & First Amendment 29.58 [see footnote 2] 2017 Canal Road Bridge Replacement Project 0.01
2017 Morgan Territory Road Slide Repair and Temporary Access Road Alignment 0.03
2017 Palermo Subdivision 18.84
2017 Sellers Pointe Subdivision 13.82
2017 Verna Way 1.96
2017 Oakley Recreation Center 4.294
2017 Gilbert Property Phase I 51.91
2017 Oakley Gateway 3.63
2017 iPark Oakley Phase 2: Executive RV and Boat Storage 0.67 2017 PG&E Walnut Crossover Rebuild Project 0.1
2018 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing Lane - Inside 3.12 2018 Marsh Creek Road Bridge #141 Replacement Project 0.09 2018 Sciortino Ranch Development 51.94
2018 Bella Verde Development 6.1
2018 Tri-City Plaza - Parcel D 0.87
2018 Shops at Lone Tree (Center Pointe Commercial Development) 7.64 2018 City of Brentwood Recycled Water Project - Phase 1 0.9 2018 Cypress Self Storage Project 3.24
2018 Bay Point Family Apartments (DP15-3023) 7.61
2018 Shell Pipeline AC Mitigation Site at Valve 158 0.03 2018 Empire Ave Development - Hovnanian Homes Project 8 2018 30 Technology Court 1.46
2018 PG&E RMSCC15-303 Project 0.48
2018 Gilbert Property Phase 2 70.626
2019 Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements Project 0.00015 2019 Alicante (The Village at Main) 20.06
2019 The Vines at Oakley 9.9
2019 Liberty Residential Subdivision 4.24
2019 Praxair Pittsburg Cylinder Storage Facility - Phase 1 0.16

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-4
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2019 Praxair Pittsburg Cylinder Storage Facility - Phase 4.93 2019 eBART Phase II Extension - 4th Amendment 0.21
2019 EBRPD FEMA Pond Repair Projects 2019 0.002
2020 Quick Quack Car Wash and 7-11 2.64
2020 Brentwood Goddard School 0.86
2020 The Groves 19.47
2020 Silvergate Condominium Community 8.35
2020 City of Brentwood Recycled Water Project Phase 2 - NonPotable Water Distribution System 0.17 2020 Oakley Logistics Center 66.046
2020 Acacia Development 12.56
2020 Twin Oaks Senior Residence 6.06
2020 Diablo Energy Storage 10.41
2020 Tuscany Meadows 168.86
2020 Department of Water Resources Old Banks Landfill Cap Project 6.49 2020 CCTA Mokelumne Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project 1.85 2021 Tuscany Estates Project- at the Baldocchi Property 23.26 2021 Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery Park 10.26
2021 Diablo Meadows Residential Development 8.28
2021 Byron Highway Solar Project 34.13
2021 Byron Highway/Byer Road Safety Improvements Project 0.18 2021 Rotten Robbie Brentwood 2.11
2021 Amber Lane Apartments 13.91
2021 Orchard Trails (Walnut Villas) 27.88
2021 Zip Thru Car Wash 1.42

Total 931.44 211.33 34.05 76.94
Notes: Only includes impacts subject to permit limits.
"PSE" is participating special entity. "CCC" is Contra Costa County. 1 Includes covered activities outside the urban development area (UDA) that pay either the zones 1 or 2 fee. Includes rural road projects as shown in Table 9-6 of the 2006 Plan.
2 These covered activities occurred over multiple years. Total impacts and last year of impacts are shown here.

Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-5
Table A.2: Permanent Wetland Impacts, 2008 Through 2021 Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Wetlands Streams
Total
Riparian/
Woodland
Permanent
Wetland
Seasonal
Wetland
Alkali
Wetland Pond Aquatic Slough ≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
(acres) (linear feet)
2008 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Emergency
Bridge Repair Project 0.3096
2009 PSE: State Route 4 Bypass, Segment 4,
Phase 2 0.19 0.19
2010 PSE: CalTrans SR4 Median Buffer &
Shoulder Widening Project 0.41 0.05 0.29 0.07 6
2010 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Safety
Improvements 0.007 0.006 0.001 110 22
2011 CCC PWD: Balfour Rd Culvert Repair
Project 12
2011 CCC PWD: Byron Hwy Shoulder Widening
Project-Phase 1 47
2011 City of Pittsburg: Trash Capture
Demonstration Project 0.02 0.02
2012 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Safety
Improvement Project 0.13 0.13
2012
CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Should Widening
near Round Valley Regional Preserve
Project

0.064 0.064 29
2012 Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin
Expansion 0.17 0.11 0.04 0.02 295
2013 CCC: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park
Stormdrain Outfall 0.1 0.1
2013 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM Site 1357
Repair 0.007 0.007
2014 CCC PWD: Pacifica Ave Sidewalk 0.044 0.044 36
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Bridge Scour
Repair 0.003 0.003 23
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek 142 Wingwall
Repair 0.009 0.009
2014 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Shoulder
Widening 0.1 0.1
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Detention Center
Bridge Replacement 0.132 0.132 60

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-6
Table A.2: Permanent Wetland Impacts, 2008 Through 2021 (continued) Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Wetlands Streams
Total
Riparian/
Woodland
Permanent
Wetland
Seasonal
Wetland
Alkali
Wetland Pond Aquatic Slough ≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Safety
Improvements 148
2015 City of Oakley PW: Marsh Creek
Pedestrian Bridge 15
2015 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase I 25
2015
CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Safety
Improvement Project (Fed. No. HRRL-5928
(095)

0.02 0.02 29
2016 CCC PWD: Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike
Lanes Project 0.0039 0.0034 0.0005 21
2016 CCC TP12-0026: Moita Road Improvement 45
2016 PSE: SR4/Balfour & First Amendment 0.42 0.42
2017 CCC PWD: Garin Ranch Basin and Heron
Park Basin Improvements 0.469 0.469
2017 City of Oakley: Gilbert Property Phase I 0.703 0.126 0.577 2018 CCC PWD: Kirker Pass Road Northbound
Truck Climbing Lane 0.046 0.046
2018 CCC PWD: Morgan Territory Road Bridges

4.30 and 4.40 Scour Repair 0.002 0.002 65
2018 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Bridge #141
Replacement 0.16 0.16 93
2018 City of Oakley: Gilbert Property Phase 2 0.124 0.124 2019 EBRPD FEMA Pond Repair Projects 2019 8
2020 City of Oakley: Oakley Logistics Center 0.984 0.984

Total 4.32 1.29 0.07 1.61 0.14 0.10 0.47 0.65 685.00 404.31 Notes: Only includes impacts subject to permit limits.
"PSE" is participating special entity. "CCC" is Contra Costa County.

Wetland impacts are included in land conversion impacts (Table A.1). Wetland impacts are subject to the additional wetland fee.

Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report B-1
APPENDIX B: LAND ACQUISITION COST ANALYSIS
The following tables provide detail for the land acquisition cost analysis update.

Appendix B - page 1
Table B.1
REMAINING LAND ACQUISITION BY COST CATEGORY, Acres and Estimated Total Cost

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Acquisition Cost
Category Parcel Size Acres % of Total Estimated Cost % of Total Acres % of Total Estimated Cost % of Total

OUTSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
1 120 + acres 9,389 70% $85,441,820 56% 13,778 72% $125,376,779 59% 2 40 - 120 acres 1,822 14% 20,445,821 13% 3,074 16% 34,461,669 16% 3 10 - 40 acres 322 2% 8,852,800 6% 459 2% 12,612,600 6% 4 5 - 10 acres 15 0% 726,620 0% 33 0% 1,538,498 1%
5 < 5 acres - 0% - 0% 4 0% 288,420 0%
6 ALL, steep slopes 480 4% 2,016,000 1% 489 3% 2,055,480 1% INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE 1,342 10% 34,513,035 23% 1,385 7% 35,559,843 17% TOTAL 13,371 100% $151,996,096 100% 19,222 100% $211,893,289 100% Source: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Initial Urban Development Area Maximum Urban Development Area Note: includes acres that may be acquired outside the Inventory Area and outside Acquistion Analysis zones that do not count towards preserve targets but are part of larger preserve parcels.

Appendix B - page 2
Table B.2

LAND ACQUISITION COST FACTOR

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update

OUTSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
Acquisition Cost
Category Parcel Size
Slope
Characteristics
(percent of parcel)
2003
Valuation
2005
Valuation
2006
Valuation
2012
Valuation
2017
Valuation
2022
Valuation
Change
from 2017
1 120 + acres < 26% $3,500 $4,800 $5,600 $5,300 $6,400 $9,100 42% 2 40 - 120 acres < 26% $6,000 $8,200 $9,600 $7,500 $11,200 $11,200 0% 3 10 - 40 acres < 26% $20,000 $27,400 $31,900 $18,600 $22,000 $27,500 25% 4 5 - 10 acres < 26% $35,000 $48,000 $56,000 $49,000 $38,000 $47,000 24% 5 < 5 acres < 26% $50,000 $68,600 $80,000 $70,000 $55,000 $66,000 20% 6 ALL > 26% $3,000 $3,300 $3,800 $4,200 $4,500 $4,200 -7%

INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
Acquisition Cost
Category
Currently
Designated for
Development
(Yes/No)
Slope
Characteristics
(percent of parcel)
2003
Valuation
2005
Valuation
2006
Valuation
2012
Valuation
2017
Valuation
2022
Valuation
Change
from 2017
7 No <15% $14,500 $18,300 $21,300 $11,000 $19,000 $24,000 26% 8 No 15-26% $10,100 $12,700 $14,800 $6,600 $11,400 $14,400 26% 9 No >26% $3,600 $4,500 $5,200 $2,800 $4,800 $6,000 25% 10 Yes <15% $45,000 $56,800 $66,200 $35,000 $60,000 $74,000 23% 11 Yes 15-26% $31,500 $39,760 $46,400 $21,000 $36,000 $44,400 23% 12 Yes >26% $11,300 $14,263 $16,600 $8,800 $15,000 $18,500 23%

INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE - BYRON AIRPORT
13 na na $8,000 $8,800 $10,300 $6,200 $10,700 $13,200 23% Source: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Per Acre Land Value Factor
Per Acre Land Value Factor
Note: The 2022 land cost factor for the Byron Airport Area is based on the $8,000 per acre value estimated in 2003, adjusted by the 2022 percentage change from values originally estimated in 2003 for Cost Category 10--about 65 percent.

Appendix B - page 3
Table B.3
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels > 120 acres (nominal dollars)

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years 19 Vaquero Farms Central 2012 319.9 $1,855,700 $5,800
23 Thomas North 2012 135.0 $863,900 $6,400
26 Smith 2014 960.0 $5,376,000 $5,600
27 Roddy Ranch (part) 2014 994.5 $13,500,000 $13,575
28 Viera/Perley 2015 260.0 $1,950,000 $7,500
30 Nunn 2016 646.0 $6,072,000 $9,400
32 Coelho 2016 199.4 $1,495,750 $7,500
34 Viera North Peak 2017 165.0 $1,080,000 $6,545
36 Casey 2017 320.0 $2,400,000 $7,500
37 Roddy Ranch Golf Course 2018 230.0 $1,955,000 $8,500 Weighted Average $8,641
Save Mount Diablo
SMD 23 Curry Canyon Ranch 2013 1,080.5 $7,173,800 $6,639 Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2016 181.32 $1,250,000 $6,894
2014 155.76 $1,200,000 $7,704
2014 251.00 $1,824,840 $7,270
2014 640.00 $4,500,000 $7,031
2015 400.00 $3,140,000 $7,850
2014 188.77 $950,000 $5,033
2014 205.55 $2,450,000 $11,919
2016 158.40 $455,000 $2,872
2010 139.83 $1,294,500 $9,258
2017 343.82 $2,063,000 $6,000
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Agricultural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 1 Brentwood 2018 1,566.25 $20,000,000 $12,769
Assessor 2 Knightsen 2017 411.56 $3,900,000 $9,476
Assessor 3 Antioch 2021 400.00 $2,720,000 $6,800
Assessor 4 Byron 2019 291.82 $1,400,000 $4,797
Assessor 5 Byron 2020 251.31 $3,945,000 $15,698
Assessor 6 Knightsen 2017 141.53 $2,820,000 $19,925
Assessor 7 Byron 2020 135.96 $3,711,500 $27,298
Overall Weighted Average $9,070
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $9,100
Notes:

Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Marciel Road, San Ramon
Patterson Pass Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

Bollinger Canyon Road, Moraga
Chadbourne Road, Brentwood Road
Off Marsh Creek Road, Antioch
Christensen Road, Livermore
Byron Hot Springs Road, Byron
Tesla Road, Livermore
Altamont Pass Road, Livermore1
Morgan Territory Road, San Ramon

1. This is a relatively old sale but is included as a comparable because it was an abandoned golf course in an "agricultural" area in the same region, purchased for mitigation.

Appendix B - page 4
Table B.4
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels > 40 - 120 acres (nominal dollars)

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value per
acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years 20 Galvin 2012 61.7 $370,000 $5,999
25 Adrienne Galvin 2013 112.0 $884,400 $7,900
31 Hanson Hills 2016 76.5 $730,000 $9,547
33 Campos 2017 80.0 $520,000 $6,500
38 Poppi/Halstead (Lucas) 2018 72.0 $725,000 $10,071
39 Olesen/Duke 2019 120.0 $1,080,000 $9,000
42 Civic Rancho Meadows 2021 80.0 $1,500,000 $18,750
Weighted Average $23,229
Save Mount Diablo
SMD 20 Highland Springs 2012 105.0 $495,000 $4,714
SMD 22 Marsh Creek 8 2013 51.1 $690,684 $13,506
Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2015 110.70 $262,500 $2,371
2014 79.02 $550,000 $6,960
2016 68.76 $760,000 $11,053
2012 105.00 $495,000 $4,714
2015 76.46 $690,000 $9,024
2015 41.04 $470,000 $11,452
2014 60.00 $500,000 $8,333
2017 100.21 $900,000 $8,981
2016 50.25 $375,000 $7,463
2017 50.25 $490,000 $9,751
2017 95.41 $800,000 $8,385
2020 48.48 $1,154,000 $23,804
2019 118.00 $1,225,000 $10,381
2019 50.81 $1,650,000 $32,474
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Agricultural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 8 Byron 2020 115.34 $2,700,000 $23,409
Assessor 9 Byron 2021 87.37 $1,589,500 $18,193
Assessor 10 Byron 2020 70.45 $1,450,000 $20,582
Assessor 11 Byron 2021 65.61 $1,100,000 $16,766
Overall Weighted Average $11,228
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $11,200
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Altamont Pass Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

North Vasco Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

N Bruns Road, Byron Highway, Byron
Morgan Territory Road/Highland Springs, Livermore
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
Wirthman Lane, Clayton
Crane Ridge Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

Ruess Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

Deer Valley Road, Brentwood
Deer Valley Road, Brentwood
Whispering Pines Road, Clayton
Alhambra Valley Road, Martinez
Franklin Canyon Road, Martinez
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton

Appendix B - page 5
Table B.5
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 10 - 40 acres (nominal dollars)

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value per
acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years 21 Moss Rock 2012 20.5 $410,000 $20,010
22 Fan 2012 21.0 $220,000 $10,476
35 Roddy Home Ranch 2017 40.0 $1,536,000 $38,400
Weighted Average $26,580
Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2016 14.45 $490,000 $33,910
2014 20.30 $625,000 $30,788
2015 22.86 $650,000 $28,434
2017 10.00 $500,000 $50,000
2017 16.77 $599,000 $35,719
2017 17.00 $220,000 $12,941
2017 18.27 $875,000 $47,893
2018 36.24 $295,000 $8,140
2018 38.54 $558,000 $14,478
2018 40.00 $680,000 $17,000
2019 10.04 $425,000 $42,331
2020 13.66 $525,000 $38,433
2020 25.55 $600,000 $23,483
2019 10.00 $425,000 $42,500
2020 28.73 $650,000 $22,624
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Agricultural and Vacant Rural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 12 Brentwood 2020 38.80 $850,000 $21,907
Assessor 13 Clayton 2019 21.78 $500,000 $22,957
Assessor 14 Brentwood 2021 13.22 $530,000 $40,091
Assessor 15 Byron 2021 12.78 $400,000 $31,299
Assessor 16 Knightsen 2021 11.35 $600,000 $52,863
Assessor 17 Livermore 2020 10.64 $349,000 $32,801
Assessor 18 Brentwood 2017 10.00 $550,000 $55,000
Assessor 19 Knightsen 2018 10.00 $252,500 $25,250
Assessor 20 Knightsen 2018 10.00 $302,500 $30,250
Assessor 21 Knightsen 2020 10.00 $399,000 $39,900
Assessor 22 Brentwood 2021 10.00 $425,000 $42,500
Overall Weighted Average $27,452
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $27,500
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Byron Hwy, Brentwood
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
Crow Canyon Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

Knightsen Avenue, Oakley
Willow Way, Byron
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
Camino Diablo, Byron
Altamont Pass Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

Bragdon Way, Clayton
Deer Valley Road & Balfour Road, Antioch
Sunset Road, Knightsen
Kellogg Creek Road, Byron
Briones Valley Road, Brentwood
Silver Hills Drive, Byron
Morgan Territory Road, Clayton

Appendix B - page 6
Table B.6
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 5 - 10 acres (nominal dollars)

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years (none in this size category) Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2015 6.42 $295,000 $45,950
2015 5.01 $220,000 $43,912
2017 5.32 $360,000 $67,669
2016 5.00 $350,000 $70,000
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Rural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 23 Byron 2020 9.99 $200,000 $20,020
Assessor 24 Knightsen 2018 9.88 $370,000 $37,449
Assessor 25 Knightsen 2018 9.88 $370,000 $37,449
Assessor 26 Knightsen 2018 9.84 $370,000 $37,602
Assessor 27 Brentwood 2019 9.60 $475,000 $49,479
Assessor 28 Knightsen 2018 9.51 $460,000 $48,370
Assessor 29 Brentwood 2020 8.21 $75,000 $9,135
Assessor 30 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $400,000 $80,000
Assessor 31 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $350,000 $70,000
Assessor 32 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $350,000 $70,000
Assessor 33 Brentwood 2021 5.00 $480,000 $96,000
Overall Weighted Average $47,165
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $47,000
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Bragdon Way, Clayton
Bragdon Way, Clayton
Leon Drive, Clayton
Morgan Territory Road, Clayton

Appendix B - page 7
Table B.7
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels less than 5 acres (nominal dollars)

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years 24 Alaimo 2013 2.31 $185,000 $80,087
29 Clayton Radio LLC 2015 2.02 $75,000 $37,129
40 Bloching 2020 3.25 $210,000 $64,615
Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2018 4.00 $225,000 $56,250
Overall Weighted Average $60,017
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $66,000
Note: Only a small number of parcels less than 5 acres might be acquired as part of the acquisition strategy to fill gaps between larger parcels. Following the rationale presented in "NCCP/HCP Land Cost Data", Technical Memorandum to John Kopchik, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, August 3, 2006 and included in Appendix G: HCP/NCCP Cost Data, the value assumption is based on a peracre premium above the average value for the 5 - 10 acre parcels ($47,000 for this 2022 update). In the 2006 analysis, the premium was about 40 percent. This 2022 analysis assumes a similar premium, resulting in the $66,000 per acre land cost factor for parcels less than five acres.

Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Bollinger Canyon Road, Moraga

Appendix B - page 8
Table B.8
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Basis for price per acre calculation for parcels inside the Urban Limit Line

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Item Value Source
Average Sales Price (placeholder estimate) $680,000 a New Home Sales 2021 Per Single Family Unit Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg Units per acre (gross) 5.0 b Average Lot Size of 7,000 sqft and net to gross ratio of 80 percent
Total Development Value $3,385,234 c=a*b Calculated
Raw Entitled Land Value 9.0% d Based on standard 10 percent ratio, as % of Development Value adjusted down slightly based on real estate broker conversations
Raw Entitled Land Value $304,671 e=c*d Calculated
Discount Rate 12% f Average land speculator
discount rate
Category 10 - 12.5 years to $73,893 g=e/(1+f)^12.5 Calculated entitlement/ development
Category 7 - 22.5 years to $23,792 h=e/(1+f)^22.5 Calculated entitlement/ development
Note: This table updates the cost factors in the calculations for this land cost factor as established in the August 3, 2006 Technical Memorandum from Economic & Planning Systems, "NCCP/HCP Land Cost Data". The average sales price for new single family units is updated to reflect current market conditions.

This table calculates the average values for cost categories 7 and 10, Following the methodology established in 2006, the values for categories 8 and 11 are discounted 40 percent from the value for a level site and the values for categories 9 and 12 are discounted 75 percent from the average for the level site.

Sources: "Annual New Home Sale Data for Selected Contra Costa County Cities ," Contra Costa Association of REALTORS® MLS (CCAR); Insight Data & Economic Analysis

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report C-1
APPENDIX C: INITIAL UDA COST MODEL UPDATE
The following tables provide comprehensive documentation for the cost model update based on estimated impacts for the initial urban development area.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Initial Urban Development Area

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary (rounded) Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total (2021)
Program Administration $220,000 $14,590,000 $6,660,000 $6,260,000 $7,500,000 $35,240,000 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,240,000 $48,440,000 $48,440,000 $58,060,000 $294,180,000 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $250,000 $4,390,000 $1,920,000 $1,920,000 $2,300,000 $10,780,000 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $820,000 $8,260,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,050,000 $13,430,000 $13,430,000 $16,110,000 $50,020,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,410,000 $1,220,000 $1,020,000 $0 $3,650,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,650,000 $7,430,000 $9,340,000 $13,900,000 $37,320,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,200,000 $1,710,000 $2,340,000 $3,520,000 $9,760,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $260,000 $210,000 $2,810,000 $3,280,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,370,000 $1,840,000 $4,480,000 Total $470,000 $180,080,000 $83,800,000 $85,780,000 $106,860,000 $456,970,000 Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix C - page 1

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary table Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program Administration $223,698 $14,594,336 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,495,644 $35,236,418 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,241,000 $48,437,737 $48,437,737 $58,059,276 $294,175,751 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,919,403 $1,919,403 $2,303,284 $10,783,217 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,853 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,051,220 $13,427,192 $13,427,192 $16,112,631 $50,018,236 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,411,927 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,648,120 $7,429,960 $9,336,250 $13,902,207 $37,316,537 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,195,918 $1,710,132 $2,335,132 $3,520,011 $9,761,193 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Contingency $0 $0 $1,276,931 $1,370,752 $1,835,652 $4,483,335 Total $476,864 $180,081,334 $83,792,958 $85,763,202 $106,855,569 $456,969,927 Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix C - page 2

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
BLS Data CPI_ECI_CCI_2021 Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 NOTE: Original unit cost estimates for the 2006 HCP/NCCP were in 2005 dollars, inflated to 2006 dollars for use in the plan document.

Series Id:

Data extracted on: August 2, 2022
Series Title:

Area:

Item:

Base Period:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2021 dollars 2005 201.2 202.5 201.2 203.0 205.9 203.4 202.7 201.5 203.9 0.6545 2006 207.1 208.9 209.1 210.7 211.0 210.4 209.2 207.9 210.6 0.6754 2007 213.688 215.842 216.123 216.240 217.949 218.485 216.048 214.736 217.361 0.6976 2008 219.612 222.074 225.181 225.411 225.824 218.528 222.767 221.730 223.804 0.7193 2009 222.166 223.854 225.692 225.801 226.051 224.239 224.395 223.305 225.484 0.7245 2010 226.145 227.697 228.110 227.954 228.107 227.658 227.469 226.994 227.944 0.7344 2011 229.981 234.121 233.646 234.608 235.331 234.327 233.390 232.082 234.698 0.7535 2012 236.880 238.985 239.806 241.170 242.834 239.533 239.650 238.099 241.201 0.7738 2013 242.677 244.675 245.935 246.072 246.617 245.711 245.023 243.894 246.152 0.7911 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 0.8136 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 0.8349 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 0.8599 2017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.542 0.8877 2018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.435 0.9220 2019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.859 0.9525 2020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.059 0.9689 2021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.718 1.0000 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 323.408
Data extracted on: August 2, 2022 (8:36:09 PM)
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 2021 dollars
Series Id: 2005 98.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 0.6974
2006 101.0 101.8 103.1 103.9 0.7245
Series Title:
2007 104.9 105.9 106.7 107.3 0.7483
Ownership: 2008 108.3 109.0 109.9 110.3 0.7692
Component: 2009 111.0 111.1 111.4 111.4 0.7768
Occupation: 2010 112.2 112.6 113.3 113.5 0.7915
Industry: 2011 114.6 115.1 115.4 115.7 0.8068
Subcategory: 2012 116.8 117.3 117.7 118.2 0.8243
Area: 2013 118.9 119.5 120.2 120.5 0.8403
Periodicity: 2014 121.0 121.9 122.5 122.9 0.8570
Years: 2015 123.7 124.1 124.5 124.9 0.8710
2016 125.7 126.2 126.7 126.7 0.8835
2017 127.8 128.7 129.1 129.6 0.9038
2018 130.8 131.6 132.3 132.8 0.9261
2019 133.7 134.4 135.1 135.6 0.9456
2020 136.8 137.0 137.8 138.4 0.9651
2021 139.7 140.5 142.2 143.4 1.0000
California Construction Cost Index, Department of General Services Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2021 dollars 2006 4620 4603 4597 4600 4599 4593 4609 4616 4619 4867 4891 4877 4,674 0.60878 2007 4869 4868 4871 4872 4886 4842 4849 4851 4942 4943 4978 4981 4,896 0.63766 2008 4983 4983 4999 5004 5023 5065 5135 5142 5194 5393 5375 5322 5,135 0.66876 2009 5309 5295 5298 5296 5288 5276 5263 5265 5264 5259 5259 5262 5,278 0.68739 2010 5260 5262 5268 5270 5378 5394 5401 5401 5381 5591 5599 5596 5,400 0.70331 2011 5592 5624 5627 5636 5637 5643 5654 5667 5668 5675 5680 5680 5,649 0.73568 2012 5683 5683 5738 5740 5755 5754 5750 5778 5777 5780 5779 5768 5,749 0.74872 2013 5774 5782 5777 5786 5796 5802 5804 5801 5802 5911 5903 5901 5,820 0.75799 1.24% 2014 5898 5896 5953 5956 5957 5961 5959 5959 5959 5969 5981 5977 5,952 0.77520 2.27% 2015 6073 6077 6069 6062 6069 6055 6055 6055 6113 6114 6109 6108 6,080 0.79185 2.15% 2016 6106 6132 6248 6249 6240 6238 6245 6244 6267 6343 6344 6373 6,252 0.81432 2.84% 8.49% 2017 6373 6373 6373 6461 6455 6470 6474 6620 6620 6596 6596 6596 6,501 0.84664 3.97% 2018 6596 6596 6596 6596 6596 6598 6643 6613 6674 6679 6679 6684 6,629 0.86339 1.98% 2019 6684 6700 6616 6841 6852 6854 6854 6823 6814 6851 6895 6924 6,809 0.88681 2.71% 2020 6995 6945 6947 6955 6958 7041 6984 6988 7036 7120 7123 7120 7,018 0.91399 3.06% 2021 7090 7102 7130 7150 7712 7746 7892 8122 7900 8080 8141 8072 7,678 1.00000 9.41% 21.14% The ENR BCI reports cost trends for specific construction trade labor and materials in the California marketplace.

Accessed 8/2/2022
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI The California Construction Cost index is developed based upon Building Cost Index (BCI) cost indices for San Francisco and Los Angeles produced by Engineering News Record (ENR) and reported in the second issue each month for the previous month. This table is updated at the end of each month.

All items
1982-84=100
2005 to 2022
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Current dollar index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
Professional and related, Index
Private industry workers
All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all
Total compensation
Professional and related occupations
All workers
Employment Cost Index (NAICS)
Original Data Value
CIU2010000120000I
Not seasonally adjusted
Appendix C - page 3

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Legend Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Legend
red numbers are assumptions or data entered directly into the worksheet blue numbers are links from other worksheets in the workbook black numbers are calculations based on the above numbers Cost factors are colored coded by primary source considered:

EBRPD (for HCP)
CCWD (for HCP)
Average of CCWD/EBRPD
ECCC Habitat Conservancy
J&S and EPS (for HCP)
AECOM, 2012
Updated by Insight Data & Economic Analysis, 2022
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 14
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-14 Summary actuals supercede model detail
Appendix C - page 4

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
ReserveAcresAcquiredRestored Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
Initial UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 24,250 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
Total preserve acres acquired per period - 12,050 3,813 3,813 4,575 24,250 Total preserve acres managed, cumulative - 12,050 15,862 19,675 24,250 24,250 Assumptions:

Actual acquisition accounted for in years 1-5, 6-9 and 10 - 14; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the remaining 16 years of the permit term.

Management and monitoring on acquired land has not kept pace with actual acquisition. 14,463.76 Total acres acquired through 2021
1,681.1 Already conserved acres (no credit acres) on parcels acquired through 2021 (Annual Report Table 8a) 732.93 Other acres (outside acquisition zones) not credited to preserve system through 2021 12,049.7 Total acres acquired and credited toward preserve system Land Cover Type Restored/Created by Time Period
Land Cover Type (acres except where noted) 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year
period) Total
oak savanna - - 13.1 13.1 15.8 42.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 5.40 13.9 13.9 16.7 50.0
perennial wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 0.16 10.0 10.0 12.0 32.2 seasonal wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 10.70 10.8 10.8 12.9 45.2 alkali wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 2.40 6.1 6.1 7.3 21.8 slough/channel - - 22.5 22.5 27.0 72.0
open water - - - - - -
ponds - 0.61 6.4 6.4 7.6 21.0
streams (miles) - 2.16 0.8 0.8 0.9 4.6
Total (acres) - 20.58 83.3 83.3 99.9 287.0
Assumptions:

Total restoration requirements based on assumptions in the HCP/NCCP. Actual restoration will depend on actual impacts to these features.

Actual restoration accounted for in years 1-14; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the next 16 years of the permit term.

For total acre calculation, streams are assumed to be 5 feet wide 30% % of perennial, seasonal or alkali wetland complex acreage assumed to be jurisdictional wetland; for compensatory restoration only.

USED IN WETLAND FEE CALCULATION
average acres/site
or linear feet/site
(streams)
% requiring
substantial soil
disturbance
riparian/woodland scrub sites by acreage conversion: 3 20%

2.0 80%
1,000 90%
Restoration sites that require significant soil disturbance by land-cover type USED IN WETLAND FEE CALCULATION Land Cover Type Restoration Sites 0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
riparian woodland/scrub - 0.4 0.9 0.9 1.1 3.3
perennial wetland - 0.1 4.0 4.0 4.8 12.9
seasonal wetland - 4.3 4.3 4.3 5.2 18.1
alkali wetland - 1.0 2.4 2.4 2.9 8.7
ponds - - 9.0 9.0 10.8 28.8
streams (miles/acres converted to sites) - 10.2 3.6 3.6 4.4 21.9 Total sites for monitoring cost estimate - 15.9 24.3 24.3 29.2 93.7 Assumptions:

Average acres/site and percent of sites requiring substantial soil disturbance calculated in table above.

Seasonal, perennial, and alkali wetland acreages in Tables 5-16 and 5-17 are for wetland complexes; for cost estimates and revenue projections the wetted acres of these complexes are assumed to be 30% of the total acres.

Implementation Period (Years)
Defining sites:
wetlands and pond sites by acreage conversion
stream sites by linear feet conversion:

Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix C - page 5

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Personnel Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel (Conservancy Staffing)
2022 Update

POST PERMIT

STAFFING
Number of FTEs
0-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Administrative staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50
Senior Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.25
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.25
Assistant Planner 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.25
Planning Technician 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10
Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20
Admin – Secretary -
IT Support Staff -
Total 3.70 3.70 3.70 1.60
Land acquisition staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Total 0.30 0.30 0.30 -
Management planning and design staffing lower in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.10 0.10 0.05 -
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.05 0.05 0.02 -
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.02 -
Total 0.25 0.25 0.14 -
Habitat restoration and creation staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner 0.10 0.10 0.10 -
Total 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
Environmental compliance staffing no change except 0 in last period Principal Planner 0.02 0.02 - -
Senior Planner 0.05 0.05 - -
Associate Planner - wetland fees 0.05 0.05 - -
Assistant Planner - wetland fees 0.10 0.10 - -
Total 0.22 0.22 - -
Preserve management and maintenance staffing higher in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10
Assistant Planner 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15
Preserve Maintenance Staff -
Total 0.20 0.20 0.32 0.32
Monitoring and research staffing higher in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.05
Total 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.10
Overall Staffing Plan
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62
Senior Planner 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.25
Principal GIS Planner 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40
Assistant Planner 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.40
Planning Technician 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10
Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20
Admin – Secretary -
IT Support Staff -
Preserve Maintenance Staff -
Total 4.90 4.90 4.77 2.02
included in per acre cost factors

UPDATE STAFFING
2022 UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
included in per acre cost factors
Included in overhead rates
Included in overhead rates
Appendix C - page 6

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Program Administration for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Contractor assistance with administration $400,000 $400,000 $480,000 Other administrative costs $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Vehicle / mileage allowance $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Travel $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Insurance $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Legal assistance $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Other permitting costs $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Financial analysis assistance $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Financial audit (annual) $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Public relations and outreach $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Total $223,698 $4,671,472 $3,168,141 $6,754,723 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,495,644 $35,236,418 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.70 0.70 0.70
Senior Planner and support $156 0.70 0.70 0.70
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $132 0.70 0.70 0.70
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.80 0.80 0.80
Planning Technician and support $119 0.35 0.35 0.35
Accountant and support $157 0.40 0.40 0.40

3.70 3.70 3.70
$1,031,274 $1,031,274 $1,031,274
$5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year
All Costs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Position
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
Appendix C - page 7

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 Contractor Assistance with Administration
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $400,000 $400,000 $480,000
Assumption:
$80,000 annual contractor cost per 2022 budget: for assistance with database, annual report, and permitting Other Administrative Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Memberships $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 Cost per period $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Assumption:
$10,000
$1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Assumption:
$7,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Insurance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Assumption:
$23,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
annual cost for Institute for Ecological Health (state and national), Bay Area Open Space Council, and East County Water Management Agency, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix C - page 8

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 Legal Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Assumptions:
$115,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 15 - 19 $50,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 19 Note: The legal assistance category covers legal assistance required for program administration and (for years 6 - 10) the environmental compliance category.

Legal assistance for land acquisition included in the due diligence cost factor in the land acquisition category.

Legal assistance is also estimated for the environmental compliance category.

Other Permitting Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Assumptions:
$3,000 Annual cost per 2022 Budget
Financial Analysis Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Assumptions:
$75,000 Cost per period for financial analysis assistance $15,000 Annual cost years 15 - 19 for assistance with endowment and EBRPD cost sharing agreement Financial analyst review will occur periodically over the life of the Plan (years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20 and 25).

Note: The financial analysis assistance category covers the periodic assistance of a financial analyst to review the program's cost/revenue balance, ensure that charges are adjusted in line with changing land costs and ensure compliance with State requirements on collection of fees.

Annual Financial Audit
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Assumptions:
$20,000 Cost per year for financial audit services based on Conservancy experience through 2021 Annual financial audit of the Conservancy's financial statements by an independent auditor are required by the JPA agreement and Government Code.

Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per year $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Cost per period $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix C - page 9

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Acquisition $0 $139,241,000 $47,498,780 $47,498,780 $56,998,536 $291,237,096 Site improvements $0 $0 $938,957 $938,957 $1,060,740 $2,938,655 Staff and overhead na na $494,440 $494,440 $593,328 $1,582,208 Due diligence $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,424,963 $1,424,963 $1,709,956 $9,201,009 Total $253,166 $143,628,960 $50,357,141 $50,357,141 $60,362,560 $304,958,967 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 14 + Projections Years 15 - 30 (2021 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year period) Total Remainder 15-30 Zone 1 $0 $12,711,000 $4,470,888 $4,470,888 $5,365,065 $27,017,841 $14,306,841 Zone 2 $0 $52,222,000 $19,210,120 $19,210,120 $23,052,144 $113,694,384 $61,472,384 Zone 3 $0 $3,553,000 $356,768 $356,768 $428,121 $4,694,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $10,748,000 $13,557,880 $13,557,880 $16,269,455 $54,133,214 $43,385,214 Zone 5 $0 $42,738,000 $7,909,303 $7,909,303 $9,491,163 $68,047,769 $25,309,769 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $8,523,000 $1,444,275 $1,444,275 $1,733,130 $13,144,680 $4,621,680 Outside Inventory Area $0 $0 $546,523 $546,523 $655,828 $1,748,873 $1,748,873 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $8,746,000 $3,024 $3,024 $3,629 $8,755,677 $9,677 Total $0 $139,241,000 $47,498,780 $47,498,780 $56,998,536 $291,237,096 $151,996,096 Assumptions: 48% 52%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.

Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year period)
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior Planner and support $156 0.20 0.20 0.20
Principal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Total FTEs 0.30 0.30 0.30
Total cost per year $98,888 $98,888 $98,888
Total cost per period $494,440 $494,440 $593,328
Notes/Assumptions:

Actual staff costs for years 0 - 14 are included in the due diligence actuals below. 1,880 hours per year
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE with
Overhead & Support
Number of FTEs
All Costs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Actual acquisition cost through year 14, in 2021 dollars. Updated 2021 land cost factors by cost category applied to remaining acquisition targets. Total remaining cost allocated evenly over remaining 16 years of the permit term.

Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Appendix C - page 10

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.

The 2006 cost model used more detailed unit costs. The result of applying those cost factors in the 2006 model was that due diligence represented about 4% of land acquisition costs. 0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
Due Diligence $253,166 $2,296,923 $1,479,004 $612,033 $1,424,963 $1,424,963 $1,709,956 $9,201,009 Assumptions:

3.0% Due diligence costs as a percentage of land acquisition cost.

Planning Surveys (Pre-Acquisition)
Based on Conservancy and EBRPD experience to date, initial property evaluation and planning is included in staff and consultant time.

Most significant field biological work is done post acquisition and is included as a monitoring cost.

Site Improvements
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year period)
Demolition of old facilities $75,152 $75,152 $90,183
Repair of boundary fence $330,043 $330,043 $330,043
Repair and replacement of gates $251,631 $251,631 $301,957 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) $156,316 $156,316 $187,579 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) $125,815 $125,815 $150,978 Total $938,957 $938,957 $1,060,740
Assumptions:

Most demolition to date is a condition of the transaction and assigned to the seller. Other site improvement costs included in EBRPD operations and maintenance costs to date. $9,856 Demolition of old facilities per 500 acres
$6,600 Repair and replacement of gates per 100 acres
$4,100 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) per 100 acres
$3,300 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) per 100 acres 120 Estimated number of parcels acquired years 15 - 30 assuming 100 acres per parcel 15,000 Average parcel boundary length in linear feet (from GIS analysis, grouping adjacent parcels with the same landowner) $6.11 Average cost per linear foot for boundary fence repair 15% Proportion of boundary fence that needs repair
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
For the 2012, 2016, and 2022 updates the model is simplified to assume due diligence costs (not including Conservancy staff costs) at 3% of land acquisition costs, roughly consistent with the experience of the Conservancy and EBRPD through 2021, during which time more than 50 percent of the preserve system goals for land acquisition took place. For years 10-30, Conservancy staff time costs are separately estimated and included in Program Staff line item above.

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix C - page 11

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Management Planning and Design for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $433,340 $433,340 $306,365
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total $0 $1,772,511 $938,155 $1,840,187 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.10 0.10 0.05
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 0.02
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.02

0.25 0.25 0.14
$86,668 $86,668 $51,061
$433,340 $433,340 $306,365
1,880 hours per year
Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per period $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Assumption:
$2,500 annual cost based on Conservancy 2022 budget
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies, .

Number of FTEs
Appendix C - page 12

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Management planning $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total per period $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Assumptions:

Restoration planning and designs included in habitat restoration/creation cost category. $1,000,000 per-period budget for management planning, through year 24 $500,000 per-period budget for management planning, years 25 - 30 The management planning and design staff and contractors will conduct the following activities:

Management plans for cropland/pasture preserves
Management plans for natural area preserves
Grazing plans
Mapping work for management plans
Exotic plant control program (for the entire preserve system) Fire management/control plan (for the entire preserve system) Contractor category
Contract value per period
Appendix C - page 13

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Habitat Restoration/Creation (including planning and design) for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Restoration/Creation Construction Cost $8,539,671 $8,539,671 $10,247,606 Staff and overhead $220,900 $220,900 $265,080
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $4,654,121 $4,654,121 $5,584,945
Total $0 $3,424,071 $2,063,773 $1,563,376 $13,427,192 $13,427,192 $16,112,631 $50,018,236 creation/restoration per acre $102,574 $102,574 $102,574 Land Cover Type Restored/Created
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
oak savanna - - 13.1 13.1 15.8 42.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 5.4 13.9 13.9 16.7 50.0
perennial wetland - 0.2 10.0 10.0 12.0 32.2
seasonal wetland - 10.7 10.8 10.8 12.9 45.2
alkali wetland - 2.4 6.1 6.1 7.3 21.8
slough/channel - - 22.5 22.5 27.0 72.0
open water - - - - - -
ponds - 0.6 6.4 6.4 7.6 21.0
streams (miles) - 2.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 4.6
Total (acres) - 20.6 83.3 83.3 99.9 287.0
Cost of Restoration/Creation Construction
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
oak savanna acres $18,420 $290,119 $290,119 $348,143
riparian woodland/scrub acres $51,822 $866,717 $866,717 $1,040,060 perennial wetland acres $84,544 $1,015,797 $1,015,797 $1,218,956 seasonal wetland acres $100,838 $1,304,598 $1,304,598 $1,565,518 alkali wetland acres $102,041 $742,345 $742,345 $890,814 slough/channel acres $76,798 $2,073,533 $2,073,533 $2,488,240 open water acres $112,058 $0 $0 $0
ponds acres $112,058 $856,821 $856,821 $1,028,185
streams linear feet $287 $1,389,742 $1,389,742 $1,667,690 $8,539,671 $8,539,671 $10,247,606
Assumptions:
20%
For 2017 and 2022 updates, unit costs increased based on change in the California Construction Cost Index published by the State of California Department of General Services. Available at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI Construction costs are highly variable and depend mostly on the amount, depth, and linear extent of earthwork expected, and whether water control structure are required. Plant propagation, seeding, and watering also included.

All Costs Total
Land Cover Type (acres)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Cost per unit
Total
Land Cover Type Units
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Contingency factor for restoration projects; assumed higher than the standard contingency because of the higher degree of uncertainty in this portion of the conservation program.
2017 update:

Revised cost per unit for oak
savanna to $15K based on
review/input from H.T. Harvey
Revised cost per LF for stream
restoration by eliminating the low
cost outlier from the list of
example projects. Also did not
reduce unit cost by applying a
10% discount to be more
conservative.

Appendix C - page 14

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $132 0.10 0.10 0.10

0.15 0.15 0.15
$44,180 $44,180 $44,180
$220,900 $220,900 $265,080
1,880 hours per year
Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per period $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Assumption:
$2,500 annual cost based on Conservancy 2022 budget
Contractors for restoration planning, design, construction oversight, and post-construction maintenance 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Design, plans, specifications, and engineering $2,818,092 $2,818,092 $3,381,710 Bid assistance $128,095 $128,095 $153,714
Construction oversight $853,967 $853,967 $1,024,761
Post-construction maintenance $853,967 $853,967 $1,024,761 Cost per period $4,654,121 $4,654,121 $5,584,945
Assumptions:
33%

1.50% percent of total construction cost required for bid assistance 10% percent of total construction cost required for construction oversight 10% percent of total construction cost required for post construction maintenance Restoration plans and designs of all types included in habitat restoration/creation cost category.

Design, plan, specification, and engineering work, bid assistance, and construction oversight will be conducted in the period in which construction takes place.

Monitoring of restoration sites covered in the Monitoring cost category.

Habitat Conservancy staff select sites, hire and oversee consultants for plans, specifcations, and implementation.

Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Two years of post-construction maintenance will be conducted in the period after construction takes place to maintain irrigation systems, conducting weeding, etc. Management costs after success criteria are met are included in development fee paid for same site (wetland mitigation fee is in addition).

Contractor category
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Cost includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
percent of total construction cost required to complete restoration design and plans, specifications, engineering and provide allowance for remedial measures Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix C - page 15

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $276,548 $276,548 $0
Legal assistance $250,000 $50,000 $0
NEPA/CEQA $558,300 $558,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $11,000 $11,000 $0
CDFG 1602 $23,500 $23,500 $0
NHPA $60,200 $60,200 $0
Other $41,800 $41,800 $0
Total $0 $887,562 $194,053 $330,312 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Note: Detail is not intended to be prescriptive; it is used as a means to generate an overall environmental compliance cost estimate.

Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.02 0.02 -
Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 -
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 -

0.22 0.22 -
$55,310 $55,310 $0 $32,900 $32,900
$276,548 $276,548 $0 $164,500 $164,500
1,880 hours per year
Legal Assistance and Technical Support for Coordinated Regional Wetland Permitting 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Cost per period $250,000 $50,000 $0 $300,000
Assumptions:
$25,000 Annual cost for legal assistance with wetland permitting, years 15 - 20 $25,000 Annual cost for technical support with wetland permitting, years 15 - 20 Number of Projects Requiring Environmental Compliance
0 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total over
Permit Term
Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles 4 4 - 20
Medium/more complex

10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles 4 4 - 20
Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles 2 2 - 10
10 10 - 20
Assumptions:

Details are not prescriptive but are a reasonable means of generating an overall cost for the environmental cost category.

Of the total of approximately 50 projects that would require environmental compliance, 1/5 would require compliance in each 5-year period between years 1 and 25.

Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
include in wetland fee
calculation
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Total projects remainder of permit term
Project size Size Range
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE with
Overhead & Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Appendix C - page 16

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2021 dollars) Minimum Maximum CEQA CWA 404 CWA 401 CDFG 1602 NHPA Other Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles $ 2,000 $ 25,000 0.001 0.01 $7,346 $0 $968 $1,130 $3,673 $3,482 Medium/more complex

10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles $ 25,001 $ 100,000 0.0121 0.07 $58,767 $0 $1,130 $2,425 $5,142 $4,179 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles $ 100,001
$500,000 or
more 0.073 0.30 $146,918 $0 $1,291 $4,654 $12,488 $5,572 Assumptions:

Details are not prescriptive but are a reasonable means of generating an overall cost for the environmental cost category.

For NEPA/CEQA, 401/404 and 1602 compliance, varying costs have more to do with project complexity than with project size.

Clean Water Act 401 and 1602 permits will be done on a per-project basis Cultural compliance permits will be done on a per-project basis.

Permitted projects would be completed within the time limit allotted for the permits; no extensions or re-application would be required.

The "other" compliance category could include county grading permits, road encroachment permits, or other local approvals.

NEPA/CEQA
Depending on the level of detail that is provided for specific projects, they may or may not be able to be covered under the HCP EIR/EIS.

For those without sufficient detail, additional environmental documentation may need to be prepared.

It is likely that the majority of those would be in the form of mitigated negative declarations.

Because it is difficult to provide a cost estimate for a project without knowing details such as location, size, etc., the following are some rough numbers based on level of controversy:

Small scale non-controversial projects = Cat Excl/Cat Exemp Medium scale more controversial projects = IS MND/EA FONSI Larger scale more controversial projects = EIR/EIS
All land acquisitions would be a categorical exemption under CEQA as well as under NEPA, when NEPA applies. 401/404
The cost of conducting wetland delineations is not included under CWA 404/401 compliance; it is expected that delineation would be covered under land acquisition costs.

Each project implemented under the HCP will qualify for compliance under the USACE 404 regional permit program for the inventory area; there is no fee for 404 permit applications.

Tasks associated with Section 402 compliance are not included in this cost estimate.

NHPA
Archaeological surveys can be conducted at an intensive level at a rate of 40 acres per person per day.

No more than one cultural resource will be identified per 40 acres or part thereof.

This scope of work and cost estimate does not include tasks necessary for significance evaluations and resolution of adverse effects.

CDFG 1602
CWA 401 fee cost estimate assumes all projects qualify for flat fees in Category D Ecological Restoration and Enhancement Projects, as allowed under State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materials to Waters of the State, adopted by the State Water Board on April 2, 2019. FY 21/22 Water Quality Certification Dredge and Fill Application Fee Calculator (Effective 11/8/21) Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/ DFG 1602 costs are estimated based on the assumed cost of project activities within DFW jurisdiction per Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616, and the fee schedule corresponding to the project costs. Average cost based on mean of minimum and maximum fee amounts for standard agreements. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements and Fees, Effective January 1, 2022. Available:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA#55227743-fees Project Impacts to Wetlands
for CWA 401
Project size Size Range
Estimate Project Cost within DFG
jurisdiction
Assumed wetland impact determined by AECOM based experience with typical projects that would be expected to be implemented by the Conservancy. For example wetland restoration/creation projects, stream restoration projects, adaptive management measures for existing wetland features and facilities improvements. In general, it is expected that impacts to wetlands and streams would be avoided if at all possible. Of the stream length indicated, assumed only 10% of that length would be impacted and an average stream width of 10 feet.

Contra Costa Conservancy staff will prepare permit applications and notification for the 401, 404 and 1600 applications, thereby resulting in no consultant cost for permit preparation. This table also assumes that the permits for Water Quality Certification (CWA 401) and Streambed Alteration Agreement (DFG 1602) will not be secured under programmatic or Master permit processes.

Compliance Category
Appendix C - page 17

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program staff and overhead $261,320 $261,320 $495,982
Invasive Plant Control $1,433,728 $1,814,986 $2,681,245 Invasive Wildlife Control $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Grazing Management $716,864 $907,493 $1,340,622
Wildfire Management $1,218,669 $1,542,738 $2,279,058
Security $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Roads and Trails $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Maintenance and Support $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Annual Reporting $71,686 $90,749 $134,062
Law Enforcement $1,075,296 $1,361,240 $2,010,934
Administrative and General Expense $1,648,787 $2,087,234 $3,083,432 Total $0 $548,525 $2,478,883 $3,620,712 $7,429,960 $9,336,250 $13,902,207 $37,316,537 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and Support $206 0.05 0.05 0.07
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.10
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 0.15

0.20 0.20 0.32
$52,264 $52,264 $82,664
$261,320 $261,320 $495,982
1,880 hours per year, excluding vacation
NOTE: Costs for years 1 - 14 include expenditures by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on land maintenance activities on Conservancy properties (staff costs, maintenance supplies, maintenance services from inception throught 2021). Details provided by the EBRPD and East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.

Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Position
Hourly Cost per
FTE with
Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Appendix C - page 18

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Preserve Acres Managed
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Total preserve acres acquired per period 12,050 3,813 3,813 4,575 Acres acquired and managed by end of period 12,050 15,862 19,675 24,250 Assumptions:

Total costs related to habitat and species protection on preserve system lands whether or not costs incurred by EBRPD or Conservancy.

Invasive Plant Control
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $1,433,728 $1,814,986 $2,681,245
Assumptions:
$20 annual cost per acre for invasive plant control
Patrol, work planning, cultural, manual, mechanical, chemical control.

Invasive Wildlife Control
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Assumptions:
$4 annual cost per acre for invasive wildlife control
Observation, recording, and controlling bullfrog, fish, and feral mammals.

Grazing Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $716,864 $907,493 $1,340,622
Assumptions:
$10 annual cost per acre for grazing management
Data collection, administration, infrastructure repair, permitting, grazing management, reporting.

Wildfire Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $1,218,669 $1,542,738 $2,279,058
Assumptions:
$17 annual cost per acre for wildfire management
Fire suppression planning and wildfire management; fuels coordinator. Fuel reduction included in invasive plant control cost category.

Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
All work (except law enforcement) performed by EBRPD staff including Park Rangers, Supervisors, Stewardship staff, Heavy Equipment Operators, and Fire Department. Law enforcement cost assumes contract with Contra Costa County Sheriff.

Costs per acre (except law enforcement) based on estimates prepared by EBRPD staff for implementation of the Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan prepared for the Conservancy (2018 draft).

Cost estimates assume preserve system land is acquired and managed in equal annual increments over the remainder of the implementation period and that cost increases incrementally as acreage under management increases.

Appendix C - page 19

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Security
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for security maintenance and repair Gate and fence installation, inspection, and repairs.

Roads & Trails
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for roads and trails maintenance and repair Road grading, maintenance, and tree and brush removal.

On-going Maintenance and Support
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Assumptions:
$4 annual cost per acre for on-going maintenance and support Equipment maintenance, service yard, (including support). Trash and debris removal from non-recreation areas.

Annual Reporting
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $71,686 $90,749 $134,062
Assumptions:
$1 annual cost per acre for annual management reporting Internal EBRPD reporting (Red Book) and Annual Report to ECCCHC.

Law Enforcement
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $1,075,296 $1,361,240 $2,010,934
Assumptions:
$15 annual cost per acre for law enforcement
Administrative and General Expense
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $1,648,787 $2,087,234 $3,083,432
Assumptions:
$23 annual cost per acre for administrative and general expense Covers the following General and Administrative Expenses: fuel, tools, equipment, and other supplies used in the course of preserve land management and services (utility fees, contractors, and other costs) incurred in the course of reserve land management. Also covers internal services costs for equipment replacement and infrastructure renovation and replacement. Does not include indirect and direct EBRPD overhead costs.

Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Law enforcement primarily for habitat and species protection. Based on annual cost of Contra Costa County Sheriff contract to provide law enforcement services to the Contra Costa Water District Los Vaqueros Watershed (18,500 acres of protected watershed lands and 1,900 acres reservoir). Includes a level of cost related to public access commensurate with the level of service required at the Los Vaqueros Watershed.

Implementation Period
Appendix C - page 20

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $120,132 $120,132 $305,011
Contractors $875,000 $1,500,000 $2,400,000
Directed research $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive management $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Total $0 $654,741 $604,793 $936,384 $1,710,132 $2,335,132 $3,520,011 $9,761,193 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.03 0.03 0.08
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.08

0.08 0.08 0.16
$24,026 $24,026 $50,835
$120,132 $120,132 $305,011
1,880 hours per year
Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Monitoring contractors $875,000 $1,500,000 $2,400,000
Total per period $875,000 $1,500,000 $2,400,000
Metrics for gross annual budget estimate==> Preserve Acres (end of period)
Restored Acres
(per period)
Rough annual cost
per preserve acre
$175,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 15-19 15,862 83 $11 $300,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 20-24 19,675 83 $15 $400,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 25-30 24,250 100 $16 Assumptions:

Contractor activities include field data collection, analysis, and reporting. Costs include travel.

Note that planning, preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring for covered activities outside of preserves will be paid for by developers. These costs are not included here.

Species-response monitoring is covered in the restoration category when contractors will monitor restoration, creation, and enhancement sites during the 5-year period following the restoration activity.

Post-acquisition biological inventories will build on planning surveys. Inventory will include mapping of weeds and invasive plants.

Status and trends monitoring will occur after preserve land is purchased through year 30. Status and trend monitoring will build on planning surveys and post-acquisition inventories, when appropriate.

Some preserve covered activities and conservation measures require pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring. This work will be done by contractors. Contractors will conduct pre-construction surveys prior to construction as well as construction monitoring periodically during the construction period. All covered activities require compliance with HCP/NCCP pre-construction avoidance and minimization measures.

Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Number of FTEs
Contract value per period
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Appendix C - page 21

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Directed Research
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average cost per year to fund directed research $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total cost per period $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average Independent Conservation Assessment
Team cost per period $36,000 $36,000 $36,000
Average Science Advisors cost per period $179,000 $179,000 $179,000 Total cost per period $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Assumptions:

Adaptive management experiments are covered under the monitoring staff and directed research categories.

As of this 2022 update, this type of periodic scientific review is conducted by the Conservancy's on-call biologist contractors.

The Conservancy convened a Science Advisory Panel in year 10 and plans to do the same in year 20.

The Conservancy's Preserve Monitoring Plan remains in the draft stage.

The following assumptions generate a scientific review budget to inform adaptive management:

An Independent Conservation Assessment Team meets once every 4 years and has:
5 members
$7,200 stipend per member per 5-year period
Science Advisors Panel consists of:
10 members
$17,900 stipend per member per 5-year period
Appendix C - page 22

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Remedial Measures Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Remedial Measures for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation and preserve management cost categories.

Remedial Measures
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost of created/restored habitat per
period $2,063,773 $1,563,376 $8,539,671 $8,539,671 $10,247,606 Cost for remedial measures for
created/restored habitat per period $206,377 $156,338 $2,732,695 Area of new preserve not including
created/restored habitat per period - 7,578 3,488 962 3,729 3,729 4,475 Cost for remedial measures for
preserves per period $6,666 $1,839 $22,805
Cost for other remedial measures per
period $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Total cost per period $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500
Assumptions:
2% Percent of annual preserve management and maintenance cost assumed to be needed for preserve remedial actions. 10% Percent of created/restored habitat for which remedial measures will be required. $96 Cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30. 63% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 1 - 5 29% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 6 - 9 8% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 10 - 14 Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Remedial actions are assumed to occur in the second 5-year period after habitat is created/restored or preserve land is purchased, with the exception of remedial actions for habitat created/restored in years 20-30. The cost for these remedial actions is included in years 25-30 so that it can be captured in this cost estimate.

The remedial cost for preserve lands is assumed to be a percentage of the cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 25-30, and is assumed to be needed once, in the second 5-year period after the preserve land is purchased. The costs for preserves areas acquired in years 20 - 30 is included in years 26-30 so that it can be captured in this cost estimate.

The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire.

Appendix C - page 23

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Contingency Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Contingency for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition/site improvements and habitat
restoration/creation construction costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,538,618 $27,415,041 $36,713,036 $89,666,695 Contingency fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,276,931 $1,370,752 $1,835,652 $4,483,335 Assumptions:

5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency Appendix C - page 24

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Post Permit Costs Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $548,300 Reduced staffing and no legal and financial contractor costs Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Environmental Compliance $0 Not required, post permit
Preserve Management and Maintenance $2,317,000 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $293,300 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $3,158,600
Total preserve system acres 24,250
Annual average cost per acre managed $130
Percent of average annual cost years 25 - 30 18%
Appendix C - page 25

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report D-1
APPENDIX D: MAXIMUM UDA COST MODEL UPDATE
The following tables provide comprehensive documentation for the cost model update based on estimated impacts for the maximum urban development area.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Maximum Urban Development Area

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary (rounded) Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total (2021)
Program Administration $220,000 $17,350,000 $6,660,000 $6,260,000 $7,500,000 $37,990,000 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,240,000 $67,360,000 $67,360,000 $80,710,000 $354,680,000 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $250,000 $4,390,000 $2,480,000 $2,480,000 $2,980,000 $12,580,000 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $820,000 $8,260,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,050,000 $16,620,000 $16,620,000 $19,950,000 $60,240,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,410,000 $1,220,000 $1,020,000 $0 $3,650,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,650,000 $7,990,000 $10,820,000 $16,910,000 $42,370,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,200,000 $1,840,000 $2,710,000 $4,120,000 $10,860,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $260,000 $210,000 $3,480,000 $3,950,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,400,000 $1,550,000 $2,150,000 $5,100,000 Total $470,000 $182,840,000 $107,280,000 $110,480,000 $138,620,000 $539,680,000 Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix D - page 1

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary table Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program Administration $223,698 $17,346,583 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,498,644 $37,991,665 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,241,000 $67,361,587 $67,361,587 $80,711,223 $354,675,397 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $253,166 $4,387,960 $2,480,940 $2,480,940 $2,977,127 $12,580,133 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,853 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,051,220 $16,620,916 $16,620,916 $19,945,099 $60,238,151 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,411,927 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,648,120 $7,987,773 $10,823,750 $16,914,392 $42,374,035 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,195,918 $1,835,132 $2,710,132 $4,120,011 $10,861,193 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304 $3,948,328 Contingency $0 $0 $1,395,470 $1,548,281 $2,151,289 $5,095,040 Total $476,864 $182,833,581 $107,273,265 $110,482,298 $138,616,454 $539,682,462 Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix D - page 2

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
BLS Data CPI_ECI_CCI_2021 Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 NOTE: Original unit cost estimates for the 2006 HCP/NCCP were in 2005 dollars, inflated to 2006 dollars for use in the plan document.

Series Id: Data extracted on: March 29, 2017 (8:35:58 PM) Data extracted on: August 2, 2022
Series Title:

Area:

Item:

Base Period:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2021 dollars 2005 201.2 202.5 201.2 203.0 205.9 203.4 202.7 201.5 203.9 0.6545 2006 207.1 208.9 209.1 210.7 211.0 210.4 209.2 207.9 210.6 0.6754 2007 213.688 215.842 216.123 216.240 217.949 218.485 216.048 214.736 217.361 0.6976 2008 219.612 222.074 225.181 225.411 225.824 218.528 222.767 221.730 223.804 0.7193 2009 222.166 223.854 225.692 225.801 226.051 224.239 224.395 223.305 225.484 0.7245 2010 226.145 227.697 228.110 227.954 228.107 227.658 227.469 226.994 227.944 0.7344 2011 229.981 234.121 233.646 234.608 235.331 234.327 233.390 232.082 234.698 0.7535 2012 236.880 238.985 239.806 241.170 242.834 239.533 239.650 238.099 241.201 0.7738 2013 242.677 244.675 245.935 246.072 246.617 245.711 245.023 243.894 246.152 0.7911 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 0.8136 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 0.8349 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 0.8599 2017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.542 0.8877 2018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.435 0.9220 2019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.859 0.9525 2020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.059 0.9689 2021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.718 1.0000 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 323.408
Data extracted on: August 2, 2022 (8:36:09 PM)
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 2021 dollars
Series Id: 2005 98.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 0.6974
2006 101.0 101.8 103.1 103.9 0.7245
Series Title:
2007 104.9 105.9 106.7 107.3 0.7483
Ownership: 2008 108.3 109.0 109.9 110.3 0.7692
Component: 2009 111.0 111.1 111.4 111.4 0.7768
Occupation: 2010 112.2 112.6 113.3 113.5 0.7915
Industry: 2011 114.6 115.1 115.4 115.7 0.8068
Subcategory: 2012 116.8 117.3 117.7 118.2 0.8243
Area: 2013 118.9 119.5 120.2 120.5 0.8403
Periodicity: 2014 121.0 121.9 122.5 122.9 0.8570
Years: 2015 123.7 124.1 124.5 124.9 0.8710
2016 125.7 126.2 126.7 126.7 0.8835
2017 127.8 128.7 129.1 129.6 0.9038
2018 130.8 131.6 132.3 132.8 0.9261
2019 133.7 134.4 135.1 135.6 0.9456
2020 136.8 137.0 137.8 138.4 0.9651
2021 139.7 140.5 142.2 143.4 1.0000
California Construction Cost Index, Department of General Services Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2021 dollars 2006 4620 4603 4597 4600 4599 4593 4609 4616 4619 4867 4891 4877 4,674 0.60878 2007 4869 4868 4871 4872 4886 4842 4849 4851 4942 4943 4978 4981 4,896 0.63766 2008 4983 4983 4999 5004 5023 5065 5135 5142 5194 5393 5375 5322 5,135 0.66876 2009 5309 5295 5298 5296 5288 5276 5263 5265 5264 5259 5259 5262 5,278 0.68739 2010 5260 5262 5268 5270 5378 5394 5401 5401 5381 5591 5599 5596 5,400 0.70331 2011 5592 5624 5627 5636 5637 5643 5654 5667 5668 5675 5680 5680 5,649 0.73568 2012 5683 5683 5738 5740 5755 5754 5750 5778 5777 5780 5779 5768 5,749 0.74872 2013 5774 5782 5777 5786 5796 5802 5804 5801 5802 5911 5903 5901 5,820 0.75799 1.24% 2014 5898 5896 5953 5956 5957 5961 5959 5959 5959 5969 5981 5977 5,952 0.77520 2.27% 2015 6073 6077 6069 6062 6069 6055 6055 6055 6113 6114 6109 6108 6,080 0.79185 2.15% 2016 6106 6132 6248 6249 6240 6238 6245 6244 6267 6343 6344 6373 6,252 0.81432 2.84% 8.49% 2017 6373 6373 6373 6461 6455 6470 6474 6620 6620 6596 6596 6596 6,501 0.84664 3.97% 2018 6596 6596 6596 6596 6596 6598 6643 6613 6674 6679 6679 6684 6,629 0.86339 1.98% 2019 6684 6700 6616 6841 6852 6854 6854 6823 6814 6851 6895 6924 6,809 0.88681 2.71% 2020 6995 6945 6947 6955 6958 7041 6984 6988 7036 7120 7123 7120 7,018 0.91399 3.06% 2021 7090 7102 7130 7150 7712 7746 7892 8122 7900 8080 8141 8072 7,678 1.00000 9.41% 21.14% The ENR BCI reports cost trends for specific construction trade labor and materials in the California marketplace.

Accessed 8/2/2022
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all
urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
Total compensation
Professional and related occupations
All workers
Employment Cost Index (NAICS)
Original Data Value
CIU2010000120000I
Not seasonally adjusted
The California Construction Cost index is developed based upon Building Cost Index (BCI) cost indices for San Francisco and Los Angeles produced by Engineering News Record (ENR) and reported in the second issue each month for the previous month. This table is updated at the end of each month.

All items
1982-84=100
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
Professional and related, Index
Private industry workers
2005 to 2022
Appendix D - page 3

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Legend Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Legend
red numbers are assumptions or data entered directly into the worksheet blue numbers are links from other worksheets in the workbook black numbers are calculations based on the above numbers Cost factors are colored coded by primary source considered:

EBRPD (for HCP)
CCWD (for HCP)
Average of CCWD/EBRPD
ECCC Habitat Conservancy
J&S and EPS (for HCP)
AECOM, 2012
Updated by Insight Data & Economic Analysis, 2022
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 14
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-14 Summary actuals supercede model detail
Appendix D - page 4

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
PreserveAcresAcquiredRestored Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
Maximum UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 30,200 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
Total preserve acres acquired per period - 12,050 5,672 5,672 6,806 30,200 Total preserve acres managed, cumulative - 12,050 17,722 23,394 30,200 30,200 Assumptions:

Actual acquisition accounted for in years 1-5, 6-9 and 10 - 14; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the remaining 16 years of the permit term.

Management and monitoring on acquired land has not kept pace with actual acquisition. 14,463.76 Total acres acquired through 2021 (Annual Report Table 8a) 1,681.1 Already conserved acres (no credit acres) on parcels acquired through 2021 (Annual Report Table 8a) 732.93 Other acres (outside acquisition zones) not credited to preserve system through 2021 12,049.7 Total acres acquired and credited toward preserve system Land Cover Type Restored/Created by Time Period
Land Cover Type (acres except where noted) 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year
period) Total
oak savanna - - 51.6 51.6 61.9 165.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 5.40 15.5 15.5 18.6 55.0
perennial wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 0.16 10.1 10.1 12.1 32.5 seasonal wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 10.70 13.4 13.4 16.1 53.6 alkali wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 2.40 6.6 6.6 8.0 23.6 slough/channel - - 22.5 22.5 27.0 72.0
open water - - - - - -
ponds - 0.61 6.7 6.7 8.0 22.0
streams (miles) - 2.16 1.1 1.1 1.4 5.8
Total (acres) - 20.58 127.1 127.1 152.5 427.2
Assumptions:

Total restoration requirements based on assumptions in the HCP/NCCP. Actual restoration will depend on actual impacts to these features.

Actual restoration accounted for in years 1-14; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the next 16 years of the permit term.

For total acre calculation, streams are assumed to be 5 feet wide 30% % of perennial, seasonal or alkali wetland complex acreage assumed to be jurisdictional wetland; for compensatory restoration only.

USED IN WETLAND FEE CALCULATION
average acres/site
or linear feet/site
(streams)
% requiring substantial
soil disturbance
riparian/woodland scrub sites by acreage conversion: 3 20%

2.0 80%
1,000 90%
Restoration sites that require significant soil disturbance by land-cover type USED IN WETLAND FEE CALCULATION Land Cover Type Restoration Sites 0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
riparian woodland/scrub - 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.2 3.7
perennial wetland - 0.1 4.0 4.0 4.9 13.0
seasonal wetland - 4.3 5.4 5.4 6.4 21.4
alkali wetland - 1.0 2.7 2.7 3.2 9.4
ponds - - 9.0 9.0 10.8 28.8
streams (miles/acres converted to sites) - 10.2 5.4 5.4 6.5 27.6 Total sites for monitoring cost estimate - 15.9 27.5 27.5 33.0 103.9 Assumptions:

Average acres/site and percent of sites requiring substantial soil disturbance calculated in table above.

Seasonal, perennial, and alkali wetland acreages in Tables 5-16 and 5-17 are for wetland complexes; for cost estimates and revenue projections the wetted acres of these complexes are assumed to be 30% of the total acres.

Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Defining sites:
wetlands and pond sites by acreage conversion
stream sites by linear feet conversion:

Appendix D - page 5

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Personnel Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx date printed:1/31/23 Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel (Conservancy Staffing)
2022 Update

POST PERMIT

STAFFING
Number of FTEs
0-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Administrative staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50
Senior Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.25
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.25
Assistant Planner 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.25
Planning Technician 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10
Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20
Admin – Secretary -
IT Support Staff -
Total 3.70 3.70 3.70 1.60
Land acquisition staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Total 0.30 0.30 0.30 -
Management planning and design staffing lower in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.10 0.10 0.05 -
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.05 0.05 0.02 -
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.02 -
Total 0.25 0.25 0.14 -
Habitat restoration and creation staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner 0.10 0.10 0.10 -
Total 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
Environmental compliance staffing no change except 0 in last period Principal Planner 0.02 0.02 - -
Senior Planner 0.05 0.05 - -
Associate Planner - wetland fees 0.05 0.05 - -
Assistant Planner - wetland fees 0.10 0.10 - -
Total 0.22 0.22 - -
Preserve management and maintenance staffing higher in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10
Assistant Planner 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15
Preserve Maintenance Staff -
Total 0.20 0.20 0.32 0.32
Monitoring and research staffing higher in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.05
Total 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.10
Overall Staffing Plan
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.62
Senior Planner 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.25
Principal GIS Planner 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40
Assistant Planner 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.40
Planning Technician 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10
Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20
Admin – Secretary -
IT Support Staff -
Preserve Maintenance Staff -
Total 4.90 4.90 4.77 2.02

UPDATE STAFFING
included in per acre cost factors
2022 UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
Included in overhead rates
Included in overhead rates
included in per acre cost factors
Appendix D - page 6

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Program Administration and Permitting for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Contractor assistance with administration $400,000 $400,000 $480,000 Other administrative costs $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Vehicle / mileage allowance $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Travel $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Insurance $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Legal assistance $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Other permitting costs $15,000 $15,000 $18,000
Financial analysis assistance $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Financial audit (annual) $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Public relations and outreach $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Total $223,698 $4,671,472 $4,866,552 $7,808,559 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,498,644 $37,991,665 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.70 0.70 0.70
Senior Planner and support $156 0.70 0.70 0.70
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $132 0.70 0.70 0.70
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.80 0.80 0.80
Planning Technician and support $119 0.35 0.35 0.35
Accountant and support $157 0.40 0.40 0.40

3.70 3.70 3.70
$1,031,274 $1,031,274 $1,031,274
$5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Position
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
All Costs
Appendix D - page 7

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractor Assistance with Administration
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $400,000 $400,000 $480,000
Assumption:
$80,000 annual contractor cost per 2022 budget: for assistance with database, annual report, and permitting Other Administrative Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Memberships $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 Cost per period $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Assumption:
$10,000
$1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Assumption:
$7,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Insurance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Assumption:
$23,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
annual cost for Institute for Ecological Health (state and national), Bay Area Open Space Council, and East County Water Management Agency, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021
Appendix D - page 8

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 Legal Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Assumptions:
$115,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 15 - 19 $50,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 19 Note: The legal assistance category covers legal assistance required for program administration and (for years 6 - 10) the environmental compliance category.

Legal assistance for land acquisition included in the due diligence cost factor in the land acquisition category.

Legal assistance is also estimated for the environmental compliance category.

Other Permitting Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $15,000 $15,000 $18,000
Assumptions:
$3,000 Annual cost per 2022 Budget
Financial Analysis Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Assumptions:
$75,000 Cost per period for financial analysis assistance $15,000 Annual cost years 15 - 19 for assistance with endowment and EBRPD cost sharing agreement Financial analyst review will occur periodically over the life of the Plan (years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20 and 25).

Note: The financial analysis assistance category covers the periodic assistance of a financial analyst to review the program's cost/revenue balance, ensure that charges are adjusted in line with changing land costs and ensure compliance with State requirements on collection of fees.

Annual Financial Audit
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Assumptions:
$20,000 Cost per year for financial audit services based on Conservancy experience through 2021 Annual financial audit of the Conservancy's financial statements by an independent auditor are required by the JPA agreement and Government Code.

Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per year $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Cost per period $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix D - page 9

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Land Acquisition $0 $139,241,000 $66,216,653 $66,216,653 $79,459,983 $351,134,289 Site improvements $0 $0 $1,144,934 $1,144,934 $1,251,240 $3,541,108 Staff and overhead na na $494,440 $494,440 $593,328 $1,582,208 Due diligence $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,986,500 $1,986,500 $2,383,799 $10,997,925 Total $253,166 $165,742 $69,842,527 $69,842,527 $83,688,351 $223,792,311 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 14 + Projections Years 15 - 30 (2021 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total Remainder 15-30 Zone 1 $0 $12,711,000 $5,405,441 $5,405,441 $6,486,530 $30,008,413 $17,297,413 Zone 2 $0 $52,222,000 $20,527,038 $20,527,038 $24,632,446 $117,908,522 $65,686,522 Zone 3 $0 $3,553,000 $356,768 $356,768 $428,121 $4,694,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $10,748,000 $21,381,668 $21,381,668 $25,658,001 $79,169,336 $68,421,336 Zone 5 $0 $42,738,000 $13,737,272 $13,737,272 $16,484,726 $86,697,269 $43,959,269 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $8,523,000 $3,742,794 $3,742,794 $4,491,353 $20,499,940 $11,976,940 Outside Inventory Area $0 $550,443 $550,443 $660,532 $1,761,417 $1,761,417 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $8,746,000 $515,230 $515,230 $618,276 $10,394,735 $1,648,735 Total $0 $139,241,000 $66,216,653 $66,216,653 $79,459,983 $351,134,289 $211,893,289 Assumptions: 40% 60%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.

Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior Planner and support $156 0.20 0.20 0.20
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Total FTEs 0.30 0.30 0.30
Total cost per year $98,888 $98,888 $98,888
Total cost per period $494,440 $494,440 $593,328
Notes/Assumptions:

Actual staff costs for years 0 - 9 are included in the due diligence actuals below. 1,880 hours per year
All Costs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Actual acquisition cost through year 14, in 2021 dollars. Updated 2021 land cost factors by cost category applied to remaining acquisition targets. Total remaining cost allocated evenly over remaining 16 years of the permit term.

Appendix D - page 10

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.

The 2006 cost model used more detailed unit costs. The result of applying those cost factors in the 2006 model was that due diligence represented about 4% of land acquisition costs. 0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Due Diligence $253,166 $2,296,923 $1,479,004 $612,033 $1,986,500 $1,986,500 $2,383,799 $10,997,925 Assumptions:

3.0% Due diligence costs as a percentage of land acquisition cost.

Planning Surveys (Pre-Acquisition)
Based on Conservancy and EBRPD experience to date, initial property evaluation and planning is included in staff and consultant time.

Most significant field biological work is done post acquisition and is included as a monitoring cost.

Site Improvements
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Demolition of old facilities $111,803 $111,803 $134,164 Repair of boundary fence $495,065 $495,065 $495,065
Repair and replacement of gates $118,341 $118,341 $118,341 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) $232,550 $232,550 $279,060 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) $187,175 $187,175 $224,610 Total $1,144,934 $1,144,934 $1,251,240
Assumptions:

Most demolition to date is a condition of the transaction and assigned to the seller. Other site improvement costs included in EBRPD operations and maintenance costs to date. $9,856 Demolition of old facilities per 500 acres
$6,600 Repair and replacement of gates per 100 acres
$4,100 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) per 100 acres
$3,300 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) per 100 acres 180 Estimated number of parcels acquired years 15 - 30 assuming 100 acres per parcel 15,000 Average parcel boundary length in linear feet (from GIS analysis, grouping adjacent parcels with the same landowner) $6.11 Average cost per linear foot for boundary fence repair 15% Proportion of boundary fence that needs repair
For the 2012, 2016, and 2022 updates the model is simplified to assume due diligence costs (not including Conservancy staff costs) at 3% of land acquisition costs, roughly consistent with the experience of the Conservancy and EBRPD through 2021, during which time more than 50 percent of the preserve system goals for land acquisition took place. For years 10-30, Conservancy staff time costs are separately estimated and included in Program Staff line item above.

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix D - page 11

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Management Planning and Design for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Program staff and overhead $433,340 $433,340 $306,365
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total $0 $1,772,511 $938,155 $1,840,187 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.10 0.10 0.05
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 0.02
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.02

0.25 0.25 0.14
$86,668 $86,668 $51,061
$433,340 $433,340 $306,365
1,880 hours per year
Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per period $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Assumption:
$2,500 annual cost based on Conservancy 2022 budget
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies, .

Number of FTEs
Appendix D - page 12

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Management planning $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total per period $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Assumptions:

Restoration planning and designs included in habitat restoration/creation cost category. $1,000,000 per-period budget for management planning, through year 24 $500,000 per-period budget for management planning, years 25 - 30 The management planning and design staff and contractors will conduct the following activities:

Management plans for cropland/pasture preserves
Management plans for natural area preserves
Grazing plans
Mapping work for management plans
Exotic plant control program (for the entire preserve system) Fire management/control plan (for the entire preserve system) Contractor category
Contract value per period
Appendix D - page 13

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Habitat Restoration/Creation (including planning and design) for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Creation/Restoration $10,606,806 $10,606,806 $12,728,168 Staff and overhead $220,900 $220,900 $265,080
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $5,780,709 $5,780,709 $6,936,851
Total $0 $3,424,071 $2,063,773 $1,563,376 $16,620,916 $16,620,916 $19,945,099 $60,238,151 Land Cover Type Restored/Created
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
oak savanna - - 51.6 51.6 61.9 165.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 5.4 15.5 15.5 18.6 55.0
perennial wetland - 0.2 10.1 10.1 12.1 32.5
seasonal wetland - 10.7 13.4 13.4 16.1 53.6
alkali wetland - 2.4 6.6 6.6 8.0 23.6
slough/channel - - 22.5 22.5 27.0 72.0
open water - - - - - -
ponds - 0.6 6.7 6.7 8.0 22.0
streams (miles) - 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 5.8
Total (acres) - 20.6 127.1 127.1 152.5 427.2
Cost of Restoration/Creation Construction
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
oak savanna acres $18,420 $1,139,755 $1,139,755 $1,367,706 riparian woodland/scrub acres $51,822 $963,882 $963,882 $1,156,659 perennial wetland acres $84,544 $1,025,308 $1,025,308 $1,230,370 seasonal wetland acres $100,838 $1,622,239 $1,622,239 $1,946,687 alkali wetland acres $102,041 $811,222 $811,222 $973,467 slough/channel acres $76,798 $2,073,533 $2,073,533 $2,488,240 open water acres $112,058 $0 $0 $0
ponds acres $112,058 $898,842 $898,842 $1,078,611
streams linear feet $287 $2,072,024 $2,072,024 $2,486,429 $10,606,806 $10,606,806 $12,728,168
Assumptions:
20% Contingency factor for restoration projects; assumed higher than the standard contingency because of the higher degree of uncertainty in this portion of the conservation program.

Cost per unit
Total
Land Cover Type Units
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs Total
Land Cover Type (acres)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
For 2017 and 2022 updates, unit costs increased based on change in the California Construction Cost Index published by the State of California Department of General Services. Available at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI Construction costs are highly variable and depend mostly on the amount, depth, and linear extent of earthwork expected, and whether water control structure are required. Plant propagation, seeding, and watering also included. 2017 update:

Revised cost per unit for oak savanna
to $15K based on review/input from
H.T. Harvey
Revised cost per LF for stream
restoration by eliminating the low
cost outlier from the list of example
projects. Also did not reduce unit cost
by applying a 10% discount to be
more conservative.

Appendix D - page 14

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $132 0.10 0.10 0.10

0.15 0.15 0.15
$44,180 $44,180 $44,180
$220,900 $220,900 $265,080
1,880 hours per year
Assumptions:

Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per period $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Assumption:
$2,500 annual cost based on Conservancy 2022 budget
Contractors for restoration planning, design, construction oversight, and post-construction maintenance 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Design, plans, specifications, and engineering $3,500,246 $3,500,246 $4,200,295 Bid assistance $159,102 $159,102 $190,923
Construction oversight $1,060,681 $1,060,681 $1,272,817 Post-construction maintenance $1,060,681 $1,060,681 $1,272,817 Cost per period $5,780,709 $5,780,709 $6,936,851
Assumptions:
33%

1.50% percent of total construction cost required for bid assistance 10% percent of total construction cost required for construction oversight 10% percent of total construction cost required for post construction maintenance Restoration plans and designs of all types included in habitat restoration/creation cost category.

Design, plan, specification, and engineering work, bid assistance, and construction oversight will be conducted in the period in which construction takes place.

Monitoring of restoration sites covered in the Monitoring cost category.

Two years of post-construction maintenance will be conducted in the period after construction takes place to maintain irrigation systems, conducting weeding, etc. Management costs after success criteria are met is included in development fee paid for same site (wetland mitigation fee is in addition).

Contractor category
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Cost includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
percent of total construction cost required to complete restoration design and plans, specifications, engineering and provide allowance for remedial measures Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Habitat Conservancy staff select sites, hire and oversee consultants for plans, specifcations, and implementation.

Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Appendix D - page 15

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $276,548 $276,548 $0
Legal assistance $250,000 $50,000 $0
NEPA/CEQA $558,300 $558,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $11,000 $11,000 $0
CDFG 1602 $23,500 $23,500 $0
NHPA $60,200 $60,200 $0
Other $41,800 $41,800 $0
Total $0 $887,562 $194,053 $330,312 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Note: Detail is not intended to be prescriptive; it is used as a means to generate an overall environmental compliance cost estimate.

Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.02 0.02 -
Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 -
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 -

0.22 0.22 -
$55,310 $55,310 $0 $32,900 $32,900
$276,548 $276,548 $0 $164,500 $164,500
1,880 hours per year
Legal Assistance and Technical Support for Coordinated Regional Wetland Permitting 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $250,000 $50,000 $0
Assumptions:
$25,000 Annual cost for legal assistance with wetland permitting, years 15 - 20 $25,000 Annual cost for technical support with wetland permitting, years 15 - 20 Number of Projects Requiring Environmental Compliance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total over
Permit Term
Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles 4 4 - 20
Medium/more complex

10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles 4 4 - 20
Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles 2 2 - 10
10 10 - 20
Assumptions:

Details are not prescriptive but are a reasonable means of generating an overall cost for the environmental cost category.

Of the total of approximately 50 projects that would require environmental compliance, 1/5 would require compliance in each 5-year period between years 1 and 25. include in wetland fee
calculation
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Total projects remainder of permit term
Project size Size Range
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE with
Overhead & Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
Appendix D - page 16

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2021 dollars) Minimum Maximum CEQA CWA 404 CWA 401 CDFG 1602 NHPA Other Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles $ 2,000 $ 25,000 0.001 0.01 $7,346 $0 $968 $1,130 $3,673 $3,482 Medium/more complex

10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles $ 25,001 $ 100,000 0.0121 0.07 $58,767 $0 $1,130 $2,425 $5,142 $4,179 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles $ 100,001
$500,000 or
more 0.073 0.30 $146,918 $0 $1,291 $4,654 $12,488 $5,572 Assumptions:

Details are not prescriptive but are a reasonable means of generating an overall cost for the environmental cost category.

For NEPA/CEQA, 401/404 and 1602 compliance, varying costs have more to do with project complexity than with project size.

Clean Water Act 401 and 1602 permits will be done on a per-project basis Cultural compliance permits will be done on a per-project basis.

Permitted projects would be completed within the time limit allotted for the permits; no extensions or re-application would be required.

The "other" compliance category could include county grading permits, road encroachment permits, or other local approvals.

NEPA/CEQA
Depending on the level of detail that is provided for specific projects, they may or may not be able to be covered under the HCP EIR/EIS.

For those without sufficient detail, additional environmental documentation may need to be prepared.

It is likely that the majority of those would be in the form of mitigated negative declarations.

Because it is difficult to provide a cost estimate for a project without knowing details such as location, size, etc., the following are some rough numbers based on level of controversy:

Small scale non-controversial projects = Cat Excl/Cat Exemp Medium scale more controversial projects = IS MND/EA FONSI Larger scale more controversial projects = EIR/EIS
All land acquisitions would be a categorical exemption under CEQA as well as under NEPA, when NEPA applies. 401/404
The cost of conducting wetland delineations is not included under CWA 404/401 compliance; it is expected that delineation would be covered under land acquisition costs.

Each project implemented under the HCP will qualify for compliance under the USACE 404 regional permit program for the inventory area; there is no fee for 404 permit applications.

Tasks associated with Section 402 compliance are not included in this cost estimate.

NHPA
Archaeological surveys can be conducted at an intensive level at a rate of 40 acres per person per day.

No more than one cultural resource will be identified per 40 acres or part thereof.

This scope of work and cost estimate does not include tasks necessary for significance evaluations and resolution of adverse effects.

CDFG 1602
CWA 401 fee cost estimate assumes all projects qualify for flat fees in Category D Ecological Restoration and Enhancement Projects, as allowed under State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materials to Waters of the State, adopted by the State Water Board on April 2, 2019. FY 21/22 Water Quality Certification Dredge and Fill Application Fee Calculator (Effective 11/8/21) Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/ DFG 1602 costs are estimated based on the assumed cost of project activities within DFW jurisdiction per Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616, and the fee schedule corresponding to the project costs. Average cost based on mean of minimum and maximum fee amounts for standard agreements. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements and Fees, Effective January 1, 2022. Available:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA#55227743-fees Project Impacts to Wetlands
for CWA 401 Compliance Category
Project size Size Range
Estimate Project Cost within DFG
jurisdiction
Contra Costa Conservancy staff will prepare permit applications and notification for the 401, 404 and 1600 applications, thereby resulting in no consultant cost for permit preparation. This table also assumes that the permits for Water Quality Certification (CWA 401) and Streambed Alteration Agreement (DFG 1602) will not be secured under programmatic or Master permit processes.

Assumed wetland impact determined by AECOM based experience with typical projects that would be expected to be implemented by the Conservancy. For example wetland restoration/creation projects, stream restoration projects, adaptive management measures for existing wetland features and facilities improvements. In general, it is expected that impacts to wetlands and streams would be avoided if at all possible. Of the stream length indicated, assumed only 10% of that length would be impacted and an average stream width of 10 feet.

Appendix D - page 17

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program staff and overhead $261,320 $261,320 $495,982
Invasive Plant Control $1,545,290 $2,112,486 $3,283,682 Invasive Wildlife Control $309,058 $422,497 $656,736
Grazing Management $772,645 $1,056,243 $1,641,841
Wildfire Management $1,313,497 $1,795,613 $2,791,130
Security $231,794 $316,873 $492,552
Roads and Trails $231,794 $316,873 $492,552
Maintenance and Support $309,058 $422,497 $656,736
Annual Reporting $77,265 $105,624 $164,184
Law Enforcement $1,158,968 $1,584,365 $2,462,762
Administrative and General Expense $1,777,084 $2,429,359 $3,776,235 Total $0 $548,525 $2,478,883 $3,620,712 $7,987,773 $10,823,750 $16,914,392 $42,374,035 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and Support $206 0.05 0.05 0.07
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.10
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 0.15

0.20 0.20 0.32
$52,264 $52,264 $82,664
$261,320 $261,320 $495,982
1,880 hours per year, excluding vacation
Implementation Period (Years)
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Position
Hourly Cost per
FTE with
Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
All Costs
NOTE: Costs for years 1 - 14 include expenditures by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on land maintenance activities on Conservancy properties (staff costs, maintenance supplies, maintenance services from inception throught 2021). Details provided by the EBRPD and East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.

Appendix D - page 18

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Preserve Acres Managed
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total preserve acres acquired per period 12,050 5,672 5,672 6,806 Acres acquired and managed by end of period 12,050 17,722 23,394 30,200 Assumptions:

Total costs related to habitat and species protection on preserve system lands whether or not costs incurred by EBRPD or Conservancy.

Invasive Plant Control
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $1,545,290 $2,112,486 $3,283,682
Assumptions:
$20 annual cost per acre for invasive plant control
Patrol, work planning, cultural, manual, mechanical, chemical control.

Invasive Wildlife Control
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $309,058 $422,497 $656,736
Assumptions:
$4 annual cost per acre for invasive wildlife control
Observation, recording, and controlling bullfrog, fish, and feral mammals.

Grazing Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $772,645 $1,056,243 $1,641,841
Assumptions:
$10 annual cost per acre for grazing management
Data collection, administration, infrastructure repair, permitting, grazing management, reporting.

Wildfire Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $1,313,497 $1,795,613 $2,791,130
Assumptions:
$17 annual cost per acre for wildfire management
Fire suppression planning and wildfire management; fuels coordinator. Fuel reduction included in invasive plant control cost category.

Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
All work (except law enforcement) performed by EBRPD staff including Park Rangers, Supervisors, Stewardship staff, Heavy Equipment Operators, and Fire Department. Law enforcement cost assumes contract with Contra Costa County Sheriff.

Costs per acre (except law enforcement) based on estimates prepared by EBRPD staff for implementation of the Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan prepared for the Conservancy (2018 draft).

Cost estimates assume preserve system land is acquired and managed in equal annual increments over the remainder of the implementation period and that cost increases incrementally as acreage under management increases.

Appendix D - page 19

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Security
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $231,794 $316,873 $492,552
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for security maintenance and repair Gate and fence installation, inspection, and repairs.

Roads & Trails
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $231,794 $316,873 $492,552
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for roads and trails maintenance and repair Road grading, maintenance, and tree and brush removal.

On-going Maintenance and Support
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $309,058 $422,497 $656,736
Assumptions:
$4 annual cost per acre for on-going maintenance and support Equipment maintenance, service yard, (including support). Trash and debris removal from non-recreation areas.

Annual Reporting
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $77,265 $105,624 $164,184
Assumptions:
$1 annual cost per acre for annual management reporting Internal EBRPD reporting (Red Book) and Annual Report to ECCCHC.

Law Enforcement
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $1,158,968 $1,584,365 $2,462,762
Assumptions:
$15 annual cost per acre for law enforcement
Administrative and General Expense
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $1,777,084 $2,429,359 $3,776,235
Assumptions:
$23 annual cost per acre for administrative and general expense Law enforcement primarily for habitat and species protection. Based on annual cost of Contra Costa County Sheriff contract to provide law enforcement services to the Contra Costa Water District Los Vaqueros Watershed (18,500 acres of protected watershed lands and 1,900 acres reservoir). Includes a level of cost related to public access commensurate with the level of service required at the Los Vaqueros Watershed.

Covers the following General and Administrative Expenses: fuel, tools, equipment, and other supplies used in the course of preserve land management and services (utility fees, contractors, and other costs) incurred in the course of reserve land management. Also covers internal services costs for equipment replacement and infrastructure renovation and replacement. Does not include indirect and direct EBRPD overhead costs.

Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Appendix D - page 20

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $120,132 $120,132 $305,011
Contractors $1,000,000 $1,875,000 $3,000,000
Directed research $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive management $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Total $0 $654,741 $604,793 $936,384 $1,835,132 $2,710,132 $4,120,011 $10,861,193 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.03 0.03 0.08
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.08

0.08 0.08 0.16
$24,026 $24,026 $50,835
$120,132 $120,132 $305,011
1,880 hours per year
Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Monitoring contractors $1,000,000 $1,875,000 $3,000,000 Total per period $1,000,000 $1,875,000 $3,000,000
Metrics for gross annual budget estimate==> Preserve Acres (end of period)
Restored Acres
(per period)
Rough annual cost
per preserve acre
$200,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 15-19 17,722 127 $11 $375,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 20-24 23,394 127 $16 $500,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 25-30 30,200 152 $17 Assumptions:

Contractor activities include field data collection, analysis, and reporting. Costs include travel.

Note that planning, preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring for covered activities outside of preserves will be paid for by developers. These costs are not included here.

Species-response monitoring is covered in the restoration category when contractors will monitor restoration, creation, and enhancement sites during the 5-year period following the restoration activity.

Post-acquisition biological inventories will build on planning surveys. Inventory will include mapping of weeds and invasive plants.

Status and trends monitoring will occur after preserve land is purchased through year 30. Status and trend monitoring will build on planning surveys and post-acquisition inventories, when appropriate.

Some preserve covered activities and conservation measures require pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring. This work will be done by contractors. Contractors will conduct pre-construction surveys prior to construction as well as construction monitoring periodically during the construction period. All covered activities require compliance with HCP/NCCP pre-construction avoidance and minimization measures.

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Number of FTEs
Contract value per period
Appendix D - page 21

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Directed Research
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average cost per year to fund directed research $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total cost per period $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average Independent Conservation Assessment
Team cost per period $36,000 $36,000 $36,000
Average Science Advisors cost per period $179,000 $179,000 $179,000 Total cost per period $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Assumptions:

Adaptive management experiments are covered under the monitoring staff and directed research categories.

As of this 2022 update, this type of periodic scientific review is conducted by the Conservancy's on-call biologist contractors.

The Conservancy convened a Science Advisory Panel in year 10 and plans to do the same in year 20.

The Conservancy's Preserve Monitoring Plan remains in the draft stage.

The following assumptions generate a scientific review budget to inform adaptive management:

An Independent Conservation Assessment Team meets once every 4 years and has:
5 members
$7,200 stipend per member per 5-year period
Science Advisors Panel consists of:
10 members
$17,900 stipend per member per 5-year period
Appendix D - page 22

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Remedial Measures Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Remedial Measures for Maximum Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $0 $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304 $3,948,328 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304 $3,948,328 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation and preserve management cost categories.

Remedial Measures
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost of created/restored habitat per period $2,063,773 $1,563,376 $10,606,806 $10,606,806 $12,728,168 Cost for remedial measures for
created/restored habitat per period $206,377 $156,338 $3,394,178 Area of new preserve not including
created/restored habitat per period - 7,578 3,488 962 5,545 5,545 6,654 Cost for remedial measures for preserves
per period $6,513 $1,797 $33,126
Cost for other remedial measures per
period $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Total cost per period $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304
Assumptions:
2% Percent of annual preserve management and maintenance cost assumed to be needed for preserve remedial actions. 10% Percent of created/restored habitat for which remedial measures will be required. $93 Cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30. 63% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 1 - 5 29% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 6 - 9 8% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 10 - 14 Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Remedial actions are assumed to occur in the second 5-year period after habitat is created/restored or preserve land is purchased, with the exception of remedial actions for habitat created/restored in years 20-30. The cost for these remedial actions is included in years 25-30 so that it can be captured in this cost estimate.

The remedial cost for preserve lands is assumed to be a percentage of the cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 25-30, and is assumed to be needed once, in the second 5-year period after the preserve land is purchased. The costs for preserves areas acquired in years 20 - 30 is included in years 26-30 so that it can be captured in this cost estimate.

The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire.

Appendix D - page 23

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Contingency Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Contingency Fund for Maximum Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition/site improvements and habitat
restoration/creation construction costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,909,402 $30,965,623 $43,025,775 $101,900,800 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,395,470 $1,548,281 $2,151,289 $5,095,040 Assumptions:

5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency Appendix D - page 24

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Post Permit Costs Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $497,000 Reduced staffing and no legal and financial contractor costs Land Acquisition $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Environmental Compliance $0 Not required, post permit
Preserve Management and Maintenance $2,819,100 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $343,300 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $3,659,400
Total preserve system acres 30,200
Annual average cost per acre managed $121
Percent of average annual cost years 25 - 30 16%
Appendix D - page 25

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-1
APPENDIX E: ENDOWMENT MODEL UPDATE
Tables E.1 and E.2 present the endowment model results for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios, respectively.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-2
Table E.1: Endowment Fund - Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Permit Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Beginning Fund Balance $3,917,630 $6,990,803 $14,798,497 $18,214,633 $21,741,794 $25,383,587 $29,176,637 $33,125,859 Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 CWF2 $0 $3,182,808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 Summer Lakes $0 $1,462,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cypress Preserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,898 $65,796 $98,694 Subtotal $2,821,678 $7,466,986 $2,821,678 $2,821,678 $2,821,678 $2,854,576 $2,887,474 $2,920,372 Leases3 $124,172 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 Investment Earnings4 $127,323 $227,201 $480,951 $591,976 $706,608 $824,967 $948,241 $1,076,590 Total Revenues $3,073,173 $7,807,694 $3,416,136 $3,527,161 $3,641,793 $3,793,050 $3,949,222 $4,110,469 Ending Fund Balance $6,990,803 $14,798,497 $18,214,633 $21,741,794 $25,383,587 $29,176,637 $33,125,859 $37,236,328 Year 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Permit Year 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Beginning Fund Balance $37,236,328 $41,513,286 $45,959,742 $50,583,607 $55,390,645 $60,383,685 $66,591,487 $72,014,350 Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 CWF2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 Summer Lakes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cypress Preserve $131,592 $164,490 $197,388 $230,286 $263,184 $1,315,672 $328,980 $347,293 Subtotal $2,953,270 $2,986,168 $3,019,066 $3,051,964 $3,084,862 $4,137,350 $3,150,658 $3,168,971 Leases3 $113,507 $111,107 $111,107 $111,107 $107,982 $107,982 $107,982 $58,461 Investment Earnings4 $1,210,181 $1,349,182 $1,493,692 $1,643,967 $1,800,196 $1,962,470 $2,164,223 $2,340,466 Total Revenues $4,276,958 $4,446,457 $4,623,865 $4,807,038 $4,993,040 $6,207,802 $5,422,863 $5,567,899 Ending Fund Balance $41,513,286 $45,959,742 $50,583,607 $55,390,645 $60,383,685 $66,591,487 $72,014,350 $77,582,249

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-3
Table E.1: Endowment Fund - Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) (continued) Year Total Annual
Permit Year Year 15 - 30 Post-Permit
Beginning Fund Balance $3,917,630 $77,582,249
Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $44,838,400 $0
CWF2 $3,182,808 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $308,448 $19,278
Summer Lakes $1,462,500 $0
Cypress Preserve $3,176,273 $347,293
Subtotal $52,968,429 $366,571
Leases3 $1,747,957 270,605
Investment Earnings4 $18,948,234 $2,521,423
Total Revenues $73,664,619 $3,158,600
Post-Permit Costs NA ($3,158,600)
Net Cash Flow $73,664,619 ($0)
Ending Fund Balance $77,582,249 $77,582,249
1 Mitigation fee calculated to result in close to $0 annual net cash flow post-permit term. 2 Proceeds from California Wildlife Foundation (CWF) primarily associated with mitigation payments made prior to Plan implementation (in 2021 $). 3 Based on 2021 revenue from 13 leases. Eight communication tower leases are assumed to continue in perpetuity. Five wind power, residential, and agricultural leases are assumed to expire prior to the end of the permit term. 4 Investment earnings = Beginning Fund Balance x Annual Real Rate of Return on Investments (ROI). Real ROI equals 3.25% and is net of inflation and all administrative and investment management fees.

Sources: Regional Parks Foundation (2022 beginning fund balance); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (rate of return on investment); Appendix C (Post-Permit Costs table); and Appendix F, Tables F.2, F.3, and F.4 (endowment contributions to date, development project revenue, and lease revenue).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-4
Table E.2: Endowment Fund – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Permit Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Beginning Fund Balance $3,917,630 $7,740,310 $16,321,870 $20,537,023 $24,889,168 $29,382,758 $34,055,288 $38,912,573 Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 CWF2 $0 $3,182,808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 Summer Lakes $0 $1,462,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cypress Preserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,898 $65,796 $98,694 Subtotal $3,571,185 $8,216,493 $3,571,185 $3,571,185 $3,571,185 $3,604,083 $3,636,981 $3,669,879 Leases3 $124,172 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 Investment Earnings4 $127,323 $251,560 $530,461 $667,453 $808,898 $954,940 $1,106,797 $1,264,659 Total Revenues $3,822,680 $8,581,560 $4,215,153 $4,352,145 $4,493,590 $4,672,530 $4,857,285 $5,048,045 Ending Fund Balance $7,740,310 $16,321,870 $20,537,023 $24,889,168 $29,382,758 $34,055,288 $38,912,573 $43,960,617 Year 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Permit Year 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Beginning Fund Balance $43,960,617 $49,205,621 $54,651,586 $60,307,443 $66,180,013 $72,273,214 $79,616,932 $86,212,630 Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 CWF2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 Summer Lakes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cypress Preserve $131,592 $164,490 $197,388 $230,286 $263,184 $1,315,672 $328,980 $347,293 Subtotal $3,702,777 $3,735,675 $3,768,573 $3,801,471 $3,834,369 $4,886,857 $3,900,165 $3,918,478 Leases3 $113,507 $111,107 $111,107 $111,107 $107,982 $107,982 $107,982 $58,461 Investment Earnings4 $1,428,720 $1,599,183 $1,776,177 $1,959,992 $2,150,850 $2,348,879 $2,587,550 $2,801,910 Total Revenues $5,245,004 $5,445,965 $5,655,857 $5,872,570 $6,093,201 $7,343,718 $6,595,697 $6,778,850 Ending Fund Balance $49,205,621 $54,651,586 $60,307,443 $66,180,013 $72,273,214 $79,616,932 $86,212,630 $92,991,480

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-5
Table E.2: Endowment Fund – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) (continued) Year Total Annual
Permit Year Year 15 - 30 Post-Permit
Beginning Fund Balance $3,917,630 $92,991,480
Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $56,830,512 $0
CWF2 $3,182,808 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $308,448 $19,278
Summer Lakes $1,462,500 $0
Cypress Preserve $3,176,273 $347,293
Subtotal $64,960,541 $366,571
Leases3 $1,747,957 270,605
Investment Earnings4 $22,365,352 $3,022,223
Total Revenues $89,073,850 $3,659,400
Post-Permit Costs NA ($3,659,400)
Net Cash Flow $89,073,850 ($0)
Ending Fund Balance $92,991,480 $92,991,479
1 Mitigation fee calculated to result in close to $0 annual net cash flow post-permit term. 2 Proceeds from California Wildlife Foundation (CWF) primarily associated with mitigation payments made prior to Plan implementation (in 2021 $). 3 Based on 2021 revenue from 13 leases. Eight communication tower leases are assumed to continue in perpetuity. Five wind power, residential, and agricultural leases are assumed to expire prior to the end of the permit term. 4 Investment earnings = Beginning Fund Balance x Annual Real Rate of Return on Investments (ROI). Real ROI equals 3.25% and is net of inflation and all administrative and investment management fees.

Sources: Regional Parks Foundation (2022 beginning fund balance); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (rate of return on investment); Appendix D (Post-Permit Costs table); and Appendix F, Tables F.2, F.3, and F.4 (endowment contributions to date, development project revenue, and lease revenue).

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-1
APPENDIX F: REVENUE DATA
Appendix F provides detail on the revenue data used in the audit.

Table F.1 provides the index used to inflate actual costs and revenues from prior years to current (2021) dollars. The index is based on changes in the Conservancy’s mitigation fee schedule, thus replicating the same index used to reflect inflation in Plan costs. The fees are adjusted annually based on published price indices and periodically based on prior.37 Table F.2 shows endowment contributions through fiscal year 2022.

Table F.3 shows how development project revenue paid in lieu of the development fee is estimated for the remaining permit term. This revenue is entirely allocated to the endowment.

Table F.4 shows lease revenue from activities on preserve lands using 2021 as the base year. The table shows the allocation of estimated future revenue to the endowment, land acquisition and preserve management for the remainder of the permit term based on the 2020 lease revenue allocation agreement between the Conservancy and the Park District.

Table F.5 shows actual revenue to date by source in current dollars (the year received) and inflated to 2021 dollars.
37 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 30-31 and Table 9-7.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-2
Table F.1: Inflation Index (FY 2021 = 1.00)
Plan
Year
Fiscal
Year
Fee
Adopted
Zone 1
Fee1 Change
Inflation
Index
(2021 $)2
Fiscal
Year for
Application of
Inflation
Index3 Notes
-1 2006 $11,919.00 NA 0.6294 2005 Plan completed
0 2007 $12,456.88 4.5% 0.6578 2006 JPA formed & permits issued 1 2008 $12,077.65 (3.0%) 0.6377 2007 1st full yr. of implementation 2 2009 $10,731.11 (11.1%) 0.5666 2008
3 2010 $10,558.09 (1.6%) 0.5575 2009
4 2011 $10,662.15 1.0% 0.5630 2010
5 2012 $10,584.32 (0.7%) 0.5589 2011
6 2013 $10,076.00 (4.8%) 0.5321 2012 2013 Audit
7 2014 $11,146.99 10.6% 0.5886 2013
8 2015 $11,877.42 6.6% 0.6272 2014
9 2016 $12,788.47 7.7% 0.6753 2015
10 2017 $13,491.41 5.5% 0.7124 2016 2017 Audit
11 2018 $14,404.82 6.8% 0.7606 2017
12 2019 $15,342.88 6.5% 0.8102 2018
13 2020 $16,442.17 7.2% 0.8682 2019
14 2021 $16,890.46 2.7% 0.8919 2020
15 2022 $18,937.95 12.1% 1.0000 2021 2022 Audit
16 2023 $19,506.09 3.0% 1.0300 2022 Endowment model inflation rate 17 2024 $20,091.27 3.0% 1.0609 2023 Endowment model inflation rate 1 Fees for all three zones increase by the same inflation index. Fee reflects both annual inflation adjustments and periodic adjustments based on prior audits. Fee reflects amount charged by Conservancy for participating special entities. Fees charged by other JPA members (cities and the County) varied from this schedule in certain years due to pending litigation at that time. That litigation has been settled and all JPA members now charge the same fee. 2 Inflation index based on change in Zone 1 fee and is prescribed in Chapter 9 of the Plan using a combination of the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the Home Price Index (Federal Housing Finance Agency). 2023 fee and index estimated based on 3.0 percent inflation rate used in endowment model. 3 The development fee is increased based on inflation for the prior year, so the index applies to fiscal data for the year prior to the year the fee is adopted.

Source: ECCC Habitat Conservancy, Annual Mitigation Fee Adjustment Summary (PDF); Table 4.1.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-3
Table F.2: Endowment Contributions (through FY 2022)
Fiscal
Year Source Notes
Amount
(current $)
Amount
(2021 $)
Through FY 2021
Development Fee Funds
2020 California Wildlife Foundation Prior Pinn Bros. special tax inception to 2020; 1st and 2nd Summer Lakes payments (see Table F.2) $1,997,000.00 $2,239,040.25 Local Operating Funds
2020 Endowment share of lease revenue Plan inception through FY 2019-20 $1,103,556.00 $1,237,309.12 2021 Endowment share of lease revenue FY 2020-21 annual $72,596.89 $72,596.89 Subtotal $1,176,152.89 $1,309,906.01
Total $3,173,152.89 $3,548,946.26
After FY 2021
Development Fee Funds
2023 California Wildlife Foundation
Pinn Bros. special tax for 2021 and 2022; prePlan mitigation payments for other development projects; received by Conservancy 2022;
assumed to be deposited into endowment in
2023.
$3,376,641.53 $3,182,808.49
Local Operating Funds
2022 Endowment share of lease revenue1 FY 2021-22 total annual revenue $125,929.30 $122,261.46 Total $3,502,570.83 $3,305,069.95
1 Amount is slightly different than calculated amount in Table F.3. Amount in Table F.3 used for endowment model.

Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-4
Table F.3: Development Project Revenue
Project (location) Amount Revenue Requirement Notes
Pinn Bros. / Pulte (Brentwood)

0.2% fee on all property resales in
perpetuity.

Project is built out; assume sales prices and
therefore fee revenue increases with
inflation.
2016 Revenue $14,196
2017 Revenue $8,026
2018 Revenue $17,417
2019 Revenue $21,008
2020 Revenue $24,539
2021 Revenue $31,465
2022 Revenue $18,297
7-Year Average $19,278
Summer Lake / Shea Homes (Oakley) 5 payments of $487,500 each paid at recording of each
subdivision ($500,000 each net of

2.5% CA Wildlife Foundation fee).
1st & 2nd payments received in 2020 from
CA Wildlife Foundation and deposited into
endowment fund; 3rd payment received in
2022; anticipate 4th and 5th payments in
2023.

Total Obligation $2,437,500
Paid Through 2021 (2 payments) $975,000
Remaining Funding (3 payments) $1,462,500
Cypress Preserve (Oakley) Special tax adjusted annually for inflation, in perpetuity; must
generate $2.5 mil. (cumulative) by
2035 or pay difference.

Assume absorption of 300 units annually
starting in 2027 and buildout by 2037;
requires additional payment of $1.0M in
2035 to meet $2.5 mil. minimum revenue
requirement.

Total Dwelling Units $3,167
Special Tax per Unit $110
Total Annual Revenue at Buildout $347,293
Note: Summer Lakes phases 2 and 5 of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan. Cypress Preserve is phases 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the same specific plan, though new units in phase 6 are not subject to the special tax.

Source: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-5
Table F.4: Lease Revenue, 2022-2037 (2021 $)
Park Property Lessee
Lease
Type
Expiration
After All
Renewals
Annual
Revenue
(2021)
Remaining Lease
Years Post-2021
Permit
Term
PostPermit
Black
Diamond
Affinito Affinito Residential Terminated
Austin Thomas - South PG&E Communication NA $76,300 16 In perpetuity Byron Vernal
Pools
Pugh (Owens-Maness)
Souza III T-Mobile Communication NA $39,413 16 In perpetuity Souza III Sprint Communication Terminated
Souza III Sprint Nextel Communication NA $27,345 16 In perpetuity Martin CCATT Communication NA $20,024 16 In perpetuity
Martin Crown Castle Communication NA $23,531 16 In perpetuity Martin T-Mobile Communication NA $34,028 16 In perpetuity Martin American Tower Communication NA $34,364 16 In perpetuity Gramma's Quarter Buena Vista-Lease #4 Wind 2033 $12,500 12 0 Souza III Buena Vista-Lease #8 Wind 2036 $198,083 15 0
Martin Martin - 14031 Vasco Rd. Residential 2030 $6,000 9 0 Souza II Martin - 6400 Armstrong Rd. Residential Demolishe d
Deer Valley Roddy Cell Easement CC TM PA Communication NA $15,600 16 In perpetuity Roddy Home Ranch Jack + Donna Roddy Residential Terminated Delta Access Nunn RRS Farms Agricultural 2022 $71,100 1 0 Morgan
Territory Galvin Galvin Residential 2030 $6,000 9 0
Vasco Caves Souza III Sprint Nextel Communication Assigned Vasco Hills Vaquero Farms, Inc. Martin - 15500 Vasco Rd. Residential Terminated All Parks All Properties Interest Earnings NA 2037 $7,986 16 0 Total $572,274

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-6
Table F.4: Lease Revenue, 2022-2037 (2021 $) (continued) Park Property
Total Revenue
Endowment
Revenue Land Acquisition
Preserve
Management
Share1
Permit
Term Share1
Permit
Term Share1
Permit
Term2 Share1
Permit
Term
Black Diamond
Affinito
Austin Thomas -
South 100% $1,220,800 15% $183,120 0% $0 85% $1,037,680 Byron Vernal
Pools
Pugh (OwensManess)
Souza III 100% $630,614 25% $157,653 15% $94,592 60% $378,368 Souza III
Souza III 100% $437,520 25% $109,380 15% $65,628 60% $262,512 Martin 100% $320,390 25% $80,097 15% $48,058 60% $192,234 Martin 100% $376,489 25% $94,122 15% $56,473 60% $225,894 Martin 100% $544,448 25% $136,112 15% $81,667 60% $326,669 Martin 100% $549,824 25% $137,456 15% $82,474 60% $329,894 Gramma's Quarter 100% $150,000 25% $37,500 15% $22,500 60% $90,000 Souza III 100% $2,971,242 25% $742,811 15% $445,686 60% $1,782,745 Martin 100% $54,000 25% $13,500 15% $8,100 60% $32,400
Souza II
Deer Valley Roddy Cell Easement 100% $249,600 15% $37,440 0% $0 85% $212,160 Roddy Home Ranch
Delta Access Nunn 100% $71,100 15% $10,665 0% $0 85% $60,435 Morgan Territory Galvin 100% $54,000 15% $8,100 0% $0 85% $45,900 Vasco Caves Souza III
Vasco Hills Vaquero Farms, Inc.

All Parks All Properties 100% $127,778 0% $0 0% $0 100% $127,778 Total $7,757,805 $1,747,957 $905,179 $5,104,669

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-7
Table F.4: Lease Revenue, 2022-2037 (2021 $) (continued) Notes: Table reflects Lease Revenues Allocation Agreement (Agreement) between the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy dated October 2020.

Amount for 2022-2037 shown in 2021 dollars and assume that annual revenue increases with inflation (most but not all leases include an inflation clause).

The Agreement and therefore this table excludes grazing revenue that is assumed to only cover grazing costs with no net contribution to Plan funding. 1 Agreement does not address allocation of interest earnings on fund balances that are assumed to be allocated 100% to land management costs. 2 Land acquisition allocation is subject to a $2,000,000 maximum after which revenue is allocated to preserve management. An initial allocation to land acquisition of $525,875 was made when the Agreement was adopted, so with the additional estimated funding shown in this table, this maximum will not be reached during the permit term. All preserve lands must be acquired by the end of the permit term, so land acquisition lease revenue post-permit is allocated to the endowment.

Sources: East Bay Regional Park District; 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 F-8
Table F.5: Revenue By Year (through FY 2021)
Fiscal
year
Inflation
Index
Mitigation Fees Other Project Fees
State &
Federal
Grants
Permanent Impacts
Temporary
Impact
Fee
Administrative
Charges
Payments
For Noncovered
Activities
Other
Mitigation
Fees
Development
Fee1
Wetland
Mitigation
Fee
Rural
Road Fee
Current Dollars
2005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,140,000 $0 $0
2006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,245,000 $0 $0
2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $475,759 $0 $273,000
2008 $0 $236 $0 $25,542 $4,150 $243,725 $0 $1,410,695
2009 $880,435 $11,774 $30,978 $518,547 $10,000 $0 $49,131 $5,536,623 2010 $0 $141,363 $282,672 $160,043 $40,000 $0 $90,037 $10,028,928 2011 $220,239 $48,552 $5,235 $83,715 $68,410 $0 $318,492 $8,745,668 2012 $235,043 $181,371 $730,055 $66,547 $59,444 $43,978 $347,138 $4,862,568 2013 $1,703,067 $4,087 $122,792 $296,551 $62,452 $0 $146,502 $1,444,339 2014 $514,563 $207,226 $70,351 $432,631 $35,448 $0 $38,298 $14,947,687 2015 $975,432 $17,564 $18,529 $59,577 $25,816 $0 $141,709 $1,809,042 2016 $794,365 $67,651 $35,818 $84,252 $8,658 $0 $20,160 $7,363,644 2017 $1,510,425 $177,711 $128,303 $258,014 $16,657 $0 $69,933 $4,853,931 2018 $1,826,485 $142,820 $0 $205,456 $210,363 $90,261 $123,432 $3,066,502 2019 $1,420,049 $3,234 $4,833 $117,713 $73,383 $0 $34,769 $821,867 2020 $2,573,363 $0 $0 $46,284 $67,573 $0 $2,172,653 $590,030 2021 $1,985,014 $0 $4,743 $320,613 $14,223 $0 $102,389 $280,900 Total $14,638,479 $1,003,590 $1,434,310 $2,675,485 $696,577 $3,238,723 $3,654,643 $66,035,424

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-9
Table F.5: Revenue By Year (through FY 2021) (continued) Fiscal
year
Inflation
Index
Mitigation Fees Other Project Fees
State &
Federal
Grants
Permanent Impacts
Temporary
Impact
Fee
Administrative
Charges
Payments
For Noncovered
Activities
Other
Mitigation
Fees
Development
Fee1
Wetland
Mitigation
Fee
Rural
Road Fee
Constant 2021 Dollars
2005 0.6294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,811,249 $0 $0
2006 0.6578 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,892,673 $0 $0
2007 0.6377 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $746,055 $0 $428,101
2008 0.5666 $0 $417 $0 $45,079 $7,324 $430,154 $0 $2,489,754 2009 0.5575 $1,579,256 $21,119 $55,565 $930,130 $17,937 $0 $88,128 $9,931,163 2010 0.5630 $0 $251,090 $502,082 $284,269 $71,048 $0 $159,923 $17,813,371 2011 0.5589 $394,058 $86,871 $9,367 $149,786 $122,401 $0 $569,855 $15,648,002 2012 0.5321 $441,726 $340,859 $1,372,026 $125,064 $111,715 $82,649 $652,392 $9,138,447 2013 0.5886 $2,893,420 $6,944 $208,618 $503,825 $106,103 $0 $248,900 $2,453,854 2014 0.6272 $820,412 $330,398 $112,167 $689,781 $56,519 $0 $61,062 $23,832,410 2015 0.6753 $1,444,442 $26,010 $27,438 $88,223 $38,229 $0 $209,846 $2,678,871 2016 0.7124 $1,115,055 $94,962 $50,278 $118,265 $12,154 $0 $28,298 $10,336,390 2017 0.7606 $1,985,834 $233,646 $168,687 $339,224 $21,900 $0 $91,945 $6,381,713 2018 0.8102 $2,254,363 $176,277 $0 $253,586 $259,643 $111,406 $152,348 $3,784,870 2019 0.8682 $1,635,624 $3,725 $5,567 $135,583 $84,523 $0 $40,047 $946,634 2020 0.8919 $2,885,259 $0 $0 $51,893 $75,763 $0 $2,435,982 $661,543 2021 1.0000 $1,985,014 $0 $4,743 $320,613 $14,223 $0 $102,389 $280,900 Total $17,449,450 $1,572,317 $2,511,795 $3,714,708 $985,259 $5,074,185 $4,738,727 $106,525,123 Five-Year Avg.
(2017-2021)2 $2,149,219 $82,730 $35,799 $220,180 $91,210 $22,281 $116,734 $2,411,132 10-Year Avg.
(2017-2021)2 $1,746,115 $121,282 $194,952 $262,606 $78,077 $19,406 $178,417 $6,049,563

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-10
Table F.5: Revenue By Year (through FY 2021) (continued) Fiscal
year
Inflation
Index
Other Local Funds Other Revenue

Total
Local
Funds
(NonEBRPD)
Local - EBRPD
Interest
Earnings
MiscellaneousLand
Purchase
Due
Diligence
& Closing
Preserve
Mgt. (excl.
lease rev.)
Lease
Revenue
Current Dollars
2005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,537 $129 $1,161,665
2006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,610 $0 $1,275,610
2007 $1,500,000 $632,002 $131,444 $0 $0 $87,054 $11,503 $3,110,762 2008 $0 $0 $21,608 $0 $0 $36,492 $1,521 $1,743,969
2009 $880,000 $1,077,249 $65,622 $0 $0 $1,070 $0 $9,061,430 2010 $2,417,300 $4,603,901 $183,146 $0 $11,437 $0 $0 $17,958,828 2011 $0 $2,266,900 $92,500 $0 $386,357 $4,832 $248 $12,241,149 2012 $1,302,500 $649,890 $127,393 $0 $502,132 $615 $0 $9,108,673 2013 $0 $18,500 $107,555 $125,097 $521,364 $2,937 $0 $4,555,244 2014 $1,000,000 $4,098,850 $105,736 $115,536 $486,649 $6,441 $0 $22,059,416 2015 $0 $224,250 $51,344 $65,769 $469,448 $12,912 $0 $3,871,391 2016 $0 $937,275 $80,263 $80,876 $582,419 $19,905 $243 $10,075,529 2017 $28,000 $829,600 ($20,195) $94,421 $555,064 $24,377 $5,195 $8,531,436 2018 $0 $368,000 ($82,515) $75,731 $612,357 $48,760 $1,012 $6,688,664 2019 $15,000 $467,750 $50,147 $80,145 $610,781 $51,129 $693 $3,751,491 2020 $0 $105,000 $2,074 $84,283 $599,733 $30,379 $693 $6,272,064 2021 $50,003 $939,500 ($88,165) $90,784 $572,274 $16,768 $285 $4,289,332 Total $7,192,803 $17,218,667 $827,957 $812,642 $5,910,015 $395,818 $21,521 $125,756,654

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-11
Table F.5: Revenue By Year (through FY 2021) (continued) Fiscal
year
Inflation
Index
Other Local Funds Other Revenue

Total
Local
Funds
(NonEBRPD)
Local - EBRPD
Interest
Earnings
MiscellaneousLand
Purchase
Due
Diligence
& Closing
Preserve
Mgt. (excl.
lease rev.)
Lease
Revenue
Current Dollars
2005 0.6294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,218 $204 $1,845,671
2006 0.6578 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,534 $0 $1,939,207
2007 0.6377 $2,352,203 $991,065 $206,122 $0 $0 $136,512 $18,038 $4,878,097 2008 0.5666 $0 $0 $38,136 $0 $0 $64,406 $2,685 $3,077,955 2009 0.5575 $1,578,475 $1,932,285 $117,708 $0 $0 $1,919 $0 $16,253,687 2010 0.5630 $4,293,606 $8,177,444 $325,304 $0 $20,314 $0 $0 $31,898,450 2011 0.5589 $0 $4,056,003 $165,504 $0 $691,281 $8,645 $445 $21,902,216 2012 0.5321 $2,447,848 $1,221,368 $239,416 $0 $943,680 $1,156 $0 $17,118,348 2013 0.5886 $0 $31,431 $182,730 $212,532 $885,770 $4,990 $0 $7,739,116 2014 0.6272 $1,594,388 $6,535,156 $168,584 $184,210 $775,907 $10,269 $0 $35,171,263 2015 0.6753 $0 $332,075 $76,031 $97,392 $695,169 $19,120 $0 $5,732,847 2016 0.7124 $0 $1,315,658 $112,666 $113,526 $817,545 $27,941 $341 $14,143,079 2017 0.7606 $36,813 $1,090,718 ($26,551) $124,140 $729,771 $32,050 $6,830 $11,216,719 2018 0.8102 $0 $454,209 ($101,845) $93,472 $755,810 $60,182 $1,250 $8,255,571 2019 0.8682 $17,277 $538,758 $57,760 $92,311 $703,502 $58,891 $798 $4,320,999 2020 0.8919 $0 $117,726 $2,325 $94,498 $672,422 $34,061 $776 $7,032,250 2021 1.0000 $50,003 $939,500 ($88,165) $90,784 $572,274 $16,768 $285 $4,289,332 Total $12,320,610 $26,793,896 $1,563,889 $1,012,082 $7,691,172 $540,895 $31,366 $192,525,474 Five-Year Avg.
(2017-2021)2 $20,819 $628,182 ($31,295) $99,041 $686,756 $40,390 $1,988 $6,575,166 10-Year Avg.
(2017-2021)2 $414,633 $1,257,660 $62,295 $110,287 $755,185 $26,543 $1,028 $11,278,048 1 Development fees include fees applied to rural covered activities (outside urban development area) except rural road fees. 2 For "Other Mitigation Fees" average excludes extraordinary endowment contribution from California Wildlife Foundation in 2020 (see Table F.2).

Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
11/14/2023
SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Consultant to assist with Brentwood Senior Center Operational Assessment & Citywide Recreational Customer Satisfaction Survey.

DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
STAFF: Tim Ogden, City Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposal for Consultant to assist with Brentwood Senior Center Operational Assessment & Citywide Recreational Customer Satisfaction Survey.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Senior Center Operational Assessment and Recreational Customer Satisfaction Survey work products are estimated to cost approximately $100,000.

This cost would be the responsibility of the General Fund and come from the anticipated FY 2023/24 surplus. The necessary budget for this project would be included in the action when consideration of the contract is brought to the City Council.

BACKGROUND
Initially requested as a future agenda item on September 12, 2023, and authorized on September 26, 2023, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) to procure a consultant to assist with an operational assessment of the Brentwood Senior Activity Center (BSAC), and conduct a customer satisfaction survey of all recreational programming since 2019.

The RFP has been drafted with a scope of work that includes detailed interviews of stakeholders and operational programming information, as well as a citywide survey of past and current recreational programming participants (users and providers).

Following the draft scope of work, found in Exhibit B of the RFP, is a draft schedule outline compressed to expedite the work for consideration.

A. The Project involves performing an operational assessment of the Brentwood Senior Activity Center (“BSAC”), including:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
11/14/2023

1. Interview all facility rental and programming participants, existing and former staff, and current Parks & Recreation Commission members, which elect to participate, about any programming of the BSAC since 2019, to gauge effectiveness of programming and customer service.

Summarize interview feedback, and provide recommendations for improvement, if any.
a. The scope of personnel interviews is limited to those matters identified above. A discussion as to these limitations will be had prior to any interviews being conducted.

2. Review and summarize current and prior BSAC programming, MOU’s, special projects, events, and activities performed by City staff, and contracted non-profits and other community-based organizations since 2019 through present.

3. Report facility usage hours for all programming activities since 2019.

4. Report any future plans exploring program changes.

5. Assessment of language and cultural access, and recommendations for improvement, if any.

6. Assess the process for how staff is selected and assigned to work at BSAC, training of staff, on-site schedule of leadership, and leadership’s experience with seniors.

7. Independently evaluate and present findings to the City Council.

B. The Project also involves conducting a citywide survey (in both electronic and paper form) of willing past and current participants in all recreational programming at any City facility over the last three years (2021). The electronic and paper survey should cover the following topics:

1. Program efficiency.

2. Facilities satisfaction.

3. Customer service satisfaction of City staff and any third parties.

Continue survey outreach until 30% response rate is achieved.

C. Review staffing levels of programs and facilities, in comparison with prior programs and other like/similar cities and their operations.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
11/14/2023
D. Comparison of programming and services provided currently by the City with other like/similar cities and their operations.

ACTIVITY PLANNED DATES
RFP Issued November 15, 2023
Request for Information Deadline December 1, 2023
Proposal Deadline December 15, 2023
Interviews (if requested by City
Council)
If authorized, TBD
Notice of Selection January 8, 2024
Council Consideration of Agreement January 23, 2024
Commence Services ~March 1, 2024
Project Completion April 1, 2024
The scope of work and RFP have been reviewed by legal counsel.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 5: Parks and Recreation Services.

4. Expand and enhance recreation opportunities by increasing programming for seniors, youth, and teens; implementing adaptive recreation.

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

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Request for Proposals

ATTACHMENT “1”
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the 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 September 12, 2023, Vice Mayor Meyer, and Council Members Mendoza and Pierson requested future agenda items generally related to issues at the Brentwood Senior Activity Center, and customer satisfaction of recreational programming.

On September 26, 2023, the City Council directed staff to spend staff time and resources on items I.2.A and I.2B. and I.2.C all-inclusive of the details included in the staff reports for those items, excepting items directly related to any staff identifying information and personnel information: Interview all the staff and all the stakeholders that participate in the programming of all of those facilities and programs, former employees who are residents if they’d like to participate, include seniors and any participants in programming with the Parks and Rec.; Investigation be independently done, with staff time and resources to create an RFP to be reviewed by Council, and set the budget amount for the investigation at $100,000. The full list of items for investigations specific to the senior center; Questions on the survey for residents questions related to Youth services; Include in the RFP for consultant to put together a survey to encompass all of the various requests that you've mentioned tonight; Information independently evaluated, and then presented to the City Council; Additional programming based on the Survey with all programming in Parks and Recreation to be included; Add facilities and customer service; Council will authorize the RFP unless that authority is delegated.

To include a top down independent investigation of: Current non-profit and CBO partnerships and those terminated since 2019 including reasons for termination; Current MOU use those that expired since 2019 and those about to expire; Current programs, special projects, events and activities and those terminated since 2019, including reasons for termination. How staff is chosen to work at the center, how training is managed for that staff, whether temporary or long term, Senior related experience qualifications of leadership positions of regular center staff, Everything considered when placing staff there; Any future plans being explored that potentially change the format infrastructure or offerings of the senior center; Yearly attending number since 2019; Confirmation of language and cultural access efforts; The onsite schedule for Parks and Rec leadership. The status of the previously printed Brentwood seniors’ activities guide, to include facility usage of the senior center; Effectiveness of the programming customer service, recommendations from the Parks and Commission, on how we can ensure a positive experience for our residents.

A review of staffing levels in over the last 3 years in Parks and Recreation, with organizational charts and position and attrition over the 3 years and reason for leaving (general without names or position titles, should not be employee specific).

The City Attorney has the authority to use staff time and resources time and resources to run our motion past outside council.

City Attorney Approved Version 060120
RFPs/003.3
City of Brentwood

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For a Parks & Recreation Department
Operational Assessment
Date of Issuance: November 15, 2023
Request for Information Deadline: December 1, 2023
Proposal Deadline December 15, 2023

City of Brentwood
Request for Proposals
Page | 1
City Attorney Approved Version 060120

CITY OF BRENTWOOD

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The City of Brentwood (“City”) requests proposals (“Proposals”) from qualified individuals or firms (individually, a “Respondent” or “Consultant” and collectively, “Respondents” or “Consultants”) for consulting services for an operational assessment of the Brentwood Senior Activity Center and a programmatic survey of all recreational programming in the Parks & Recreation Department (“Project”).

1. ABOUT THE CITY
The City is a general law city located in east Contra Costa County, with an estimated population of 65,900. Additional information about the City is available online at:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov.

2. THE PROJECT
A. Summary. The City requires management consulting services (“Services”) for its Project. The Project involves performing an operational assessment of the Brentwood Senior Activity Center (“BSAC”), and conducting a citywide survey of past and current participants in all recreational programming occurring in any City facility since 2019.

B. Form of Agreement. A copy of the City’s standard Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”), is attached and incorporated as Exhibit A. By submitting a Proposal, the Respondent agrees to enter into the Agreement using the attached form with no exceptions to the form of the Agreement.

C. Scope of Services. The requested Scope of Services is attached and incorporated as Exhibit B. By submitting a Proposal, the Respondent represents that it is fully qualified and available to provide the Services set forth in the Scope of Services at the price set forth in its Proposal, and that it agrees to provide those Services if it is awarded the Agreement. The precise scope of services incorporated into the Professional Services Agreement will be negotiated between the City and the successful Respondent.

3. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCEDURES
A. Requests for Information. Questions or objections relating to the Request for Proposal (“RFP”), the RFP attachments, the RFP procedures, the Project, or the required Services may only be submitted via email to Tim Ogden, City Manager; [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. PDT, December 1, 2023 (the “Request for Information Deadline”). Any questions or objections that are not submitted in the manner specified and by the Request for Information Deadline will be deemed waived.

City will not be bound by the oral representations of any City officials, employees, or representatives.

All Requests for Information will be responded to within 7 work days of receipt. If information provided in such response is material to the overall RFP, a written addendum to the RFP will be sent to all known Respondents via email, and posted on the City’s website at: https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/projects-bids-rfps.

City of Brentwood
Request for Proposals
Page | 2
City Attorney Approved Version 060120
B. Submittal Instructions. Proposals must be received by the City by or before 5:00 p.m. PDT, December 15, 2023 (“Proposal Deadline”). Respondent must submit one copy of the Proposal in electronic format (pdf or Word) via email to, Tim Ogden, City Manager, at [email protected] with the subject line stating: “Proposal for “Operational Assessment & Survey” by the Proposal Deadline. Late submissions will be disregarded.

C. Planned RFP Schedule. The following schedule is provided for planning purposes based on current information. However, all dates are subject to revision, including the Proposal Deadline, and may be amended by addenda to this RFP.

ACTIVITY PLANNED DATES
RFP Issued November 15, 2023
Request for Information Deadline December 1, 2023
Proposal Deadline December 15, 2023
Interviews (if requested by City) TBD
Notice of Selection January 8, 2024
Council Consideration of Award January 23, 2024
Commence Services March 1, 2024
Project Completion May 1, 2024
D. Addenda. City reserves the right to issue addenda to modify the terms and conditions of this RFP, including modifications to the Proposal Deadline or to the Exhibits to this RFP. Addenda will be posted on the City’s website at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/projects-bids-rfps. Each Respondent is solely responsible for checking the City’s website for addenda, and for reviewing any and all addenda before submitting its Proposal.

4. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Each Proposal must be submitted in compliance with the requirements of this RFP. Each Proposal must respond to the items listed below. Clarity and brevity are preferable to volume.

Unless requested, do not attach brochures or promotional materials to the Proposal. Proposals should not exceed 6 one-sided pages, excluding any tabs or dividers. However, resumes may be included in an appendix and will not be counted in the total page count. By submitting a Proposal, the Respondent agrees that the lump sum price and proposed approach to providing the Services, including staffing, constitute a firm offer to enter into the Agreement with the City, and that the offer will remain open for 90 days following the Proposal Deadline.

A. Cover Letter. Provide a brief cover letter that includes all of the following information:
(1) Respondent’s name, address, phone number, and website address; (2) type of organization (e.g. corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship; and State of formation);
(3) a summary of general information about Respondent and the types of services it provides in relation to the Services required by the City; and

City of Brentwood
Request for Proposals
Page | 3
City Attorney Approved Version 060120
(4) contact information, including name, title, address, phone number, and email, of Respondent’s primary representative for purposes of this RFP.

The cover letter must be signed by a representative that is authorized to bind Respondent by contract and must state his or her name, title, and email address.

B. General Qualifications. Provide a brief description of the Respondent’s business, including the number of years in business under the current name. Describe the size of the business, including total number of employees and offices, and identify and briefly describe each local office that will be involved in providing the Services if awarded the Agreement. Describe how and why Respondent is qualified to provide the Services.

C. Experience. Identify services Respondent has provided in the last five years for projects that are similar in scope and nature to the Project described in this RFP, particularly with respect to services provided to other Parks and Recreation programming in cities or public agencies. For each example, provide (1) a brief description of the services provided, (2) an explanation of why this experience is relevant to the required Services, and (3) the name and address of the contracting agency, including contact information for a reference check (name, title, phone number, and email address).

D. Staffing. Identify by name and title Respondent’s key personnel that will be assigned to provide the Services and for each, include a resume outlining education, training, and experience. Identify by name, address, and website, each subconsultant or subcontractor, if any, that will be involved with providing the Services, including the proposed role for each such subconsultant or subcontractor. Include all applicable license numbers for any license required to perform the Services.

E. Price. Provide a lump sum price for the Services that is fully inclusive of all costs to provide the Services, including hourly billing rates, all labor, materials, equipment, supplies, the insurance required under the terms of the Agreement, travel fees, and any additional cost(s) the City would incur if Respondent is awarded the Agreement. Attach a copy of billing rates that would apply to any authorized additional Services.

F. Proposed Approach. Briefly describe Respondent’s proposed approach to providing the Services and how that approach will offer value to the City. Identify any proposed innovations that may be used to achieve more cost-effective delivery of the Services and/or cost savings for the Project as a whole.

5. EVALUATION
The factors that the City will consider in evaluating Proposals are as follows:
 General qualifications 1-15 points
 Relevant experience 1-15 points
 Proposed staffing 1-15 points
 Pricing 1-15 points
 Proposed approach 1-10 points
 Responsiveness 1-10 points

City of Brentwood
Request for Proposals
Page | 4
City Attorney Approved Version 060120
 References 1-10 points
 Interview (if requested) 1-10 points

6. SELECTION AND AWARD
A. Review. Proposals will be reviewed for responsiveness and evaluated and ranked based on the factors listed in Section 5, above. When the evaluation is complete, the Proposals will be ranked based on total scores to identify the Proposal that provides the best value to the City. Acting in its sole discretion, the City may elect to conduct interviews with shortlisted Respondents. The City, in its sole authority, will determine if the interviews will be set up as public meetings as defined by California open meeting laws (the Brown Act).

B. Award. City staff will recommend award of the Agreement, if at all, to the Respondent that is determined by the staff to offer the best value to the City based on the City’s review, as outlined above. City staff will submit its recommendation to the City Council or the awarding officer, as applicable, for award of the Agreement to the Respondent that it determines to offer the best value. The Respondents will be notified of staff’s intended recommendation by a Notice of Selection which will be posted on the City’s website at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/projects-bids-rfps, and which may also be emailed to each Respondent that submits a Proposal. The City Council or awarding officer will award the Agreement, if at all, to the Respondent that is determined by the City Council, acting in its sole discretion, to offer the best value to the City.

C. Protest Procedures. Any protest challenging the City’s intended selection or the selection process must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m., on the fifth business day following the date of the Notice of Selection. The protest must be submitted in writing via email to Tim Ogden, City Manager, at [email protected] and must clearly specify the basis for the protest. The protest will be reviewed in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, and the reviewing individual’s determination on the protest is final. No public hearing will be held on the protest. Time being of the essence, the City reserves the right to proceed with award of the Agreement and commencement of the Services notwithstanding any pending protest or legal challenge.

7. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Disclaimers and Reservation of Rights. Upon receipt, each Proposal becomes the sole property of City and will not be returned to the Respondent. Each Respondent is solely responsible for the costs it incurs to prepare and submit its Proposal. The City reserves, in its sole discretion, the right to reject any and all Proposals, including the right to cancel or postpone the RFP or the Services at any time, or to decline to award the Agreement to any of the Respondents. The City reserves the right to waive any immaterial irregularities in a Proposal or submission of a Proposal.

The City reserves the right to reject any Proposal that is determined to contain false or misleading information, or material omissions.

B. Conflict of Interest. Respondents must disclose to the City any actual, apparent, direct or indirect, or potential conflicts of interest that may exist with respect to Respondent, any employees of Respondent, or any other person relative to the Services to be provided pursuant to this RFP. This RFP process will be conducted in compliance

City of Brentwood
Request for Proposals
Page | 5
City Attorney Approved Version 060120
with all laws regarding political contributions, conflicts of interest, or unlawful activities. In accordance with Government Code Section 1090, Respondents who have participated in preliminary discussions, negotiations, reasoning, planning, and/or drawing of plans and specifications for previous agreements related to the same scope of work, will be excluded from consideration for the award of the Agreement. City employees are prohibited from participating in the selection process for this RFP if they have any financial or business relationship with any Respondent.

C. Public Records. The City is subject to the provisions of the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) (the “Act”), and each Proposal submitted to the City is subject to disclosure as a public record, unless the Proposal or any portion thereof is exempt under the Act. If a Respondent believes that any portion of its Proposal is exempt from disclosure under the Act, it must clearly identify the portion(s) it believes to be exempt and identify the basis for the exemption. Each Respondent bears the burden of proving any claimed exemption under the Act, and by submitting a Proposal, a Respondent agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City against any third party claim seeking disclosure of the Proposal or any portions thereof.

Attachments:

Exhibit A – Form of Agreement
Exhibit B – Scope of Services

City of Brentwood
Request for Proposals
Page | 6
City Attorney Approved Version 060120
Exhibit A – Form of Agreement

PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522

AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
[Insert Name of Consultant]
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the _____ day of __________________, 2024 by and between the City of Brentwood, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City"), and _____________________________________________, a _______________ ("Consultant") (each a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”).

RECITALS
A. City requires the professional services of a consultant specifically trained and experienced in operations assessments and customer service satisfaction surveys, which are professional services outside of services offered by City.

B. Consultant has the professional skills and experience necessary to perform the services described in this Agreement.

C. Consultant customarily engages in these services as part of its independently established trade, occupation, and/or business, separately from its work for City.

D. City desires to engage Consultant to provide these services by reason of its qualifications and experience in performing such services
E. Consultant has submitted a proposal to City and has affirmed its willingness and ability to perform such work on the terms and manner set forth in this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Scope of Work.

1.1 City retains Consultant, as an independent contractor, to perform, and Consultant agrees to render, those services (the "Services") that are described in the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by this reference, pursuant to this Agreement’s terms and conditions.

1.2 Consultant will control the manner and the means of the work to be performed, and be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of the Services. Consultant will, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in the Services.

1.3. Consultant will keep City informed on a regular basis that the Services are being performed in accordance with the requirement and intentions of this Agreement.

1.4 If applicable, Consultant has designated those persons listed in Exhibit “A” to provide the Services to the City. Consultant will not change or reassign those persons described in Exhibit “A” without prior written notice to City, and will not replace those individuals with individuals to whom City has a reasonable objection.

2. Standard of Performance. Consultant acknowledges that in entering into this Agreement the City is relying on Consultant's special skills and experience to do and perform the Services. While performing the Services, Consultant will exercise the reasonable professional care and skill customarily exercised by reputable members of Consultant's profession practicing in the Northern California area. The acceptance of the Services by City does not release Consultant from these obligations.

Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the Services.

Consultant will control the manner and means of the services to be performed by its employees and

2 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
subconsultants. All of Consultant's staff will be qualified by training and experience to perform their assigned tasks. Consultant will give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this Agreement by all of its employees and subcontractors, if any, and will keep the Services under its control.

On demand of City, if any employee or subcontractor of Consultant fails or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Agreement or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, he or she will be discharged immediately from the Services.

3. Term. Unless earlier terminated, the term of this Agreement will commence upon the date first above written and will expire upon completion of the Services by Consultant.

4. Schedule. Consultant will generally adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit “A” provided, that City will grant reasonable extensions of time for the performance of the Services occasioned by unusually lengthy governmental reviews of Consultant’s work product or other unavoidable delays occasioned by unforeseen circumstances; provided, further, that such unavoidable delay will not include strikes, lockouts, work stoppages, or other labor disturbances conducted by, or on behalf of, Consultant’s officers or employees.

Consultant acknowledges the importance to City of City’s project schedule and agrees to put forth its best professional efforts to perform the Services in a manner consistent with that schedule. City understands, however, that Consultant’s performance must be governed by sound practices. Consultant will work such overtime or engage such personnel and equipment as necessary to maintain the schedule, without additional compensation.

5. Compensation.

5.1 The total fee payable for the Services to be performed during the term of this Agreement will be a not to exceed amount of ______________________________________ dollars ($_________) as may be further specified in the attached Exhibit “A.” No other compensation for the Services will be allowed except for items covered by subsequent amendments to this Agreement. The City reserves the right to withhold a ten percent (10%) retention until City has accepted the Services.

5.2 Payment will occur only after receipt by City of invoices sufficiently detailed to include hours performed, hourly rates, and related activities and costs for approval by City.

5.3 Within thirty (30) days after receipt of any applicable progress payment request, City will verify the accuracy of the request, correct the charges where appropriate, and make payment to Consultant in an amount equal to the amount of such application, as verified or corrected by City. No payment made prior to completion and acceptance of the Services will constitute acceptance of any part of the Services.

City reserves the right to withhold payment from Consultant on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in Consultant's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder.

6. Status of Consultant. Consultant will perform the Services as an independent contractor, free from the control and direction of City, in pursuit of Consultant’s independent calling, and not as an employee of City. The persons used by Consultant to provide the Services under this Agreement will not be considered employees of City for any purposes whatsoever and City will not pay any tax, workers’ compensation insurance, retirement contributions or unemployment contributions on behalf of Consultant or its employees or subcontractors. Consultant agrees to indemnify and pay City within thirty (30) days for any tax, retirement contribution, social security, overtime payment, unemployment payment or workers’ compensation payment, including, but not limited to, those based on any provision of the Federal Affordable Care Act, which City may be required to make on behalf of Consultant or any agent, employee, or contractor of Consultant for work done under this Agreement. The payment made to Consultant pursuant to the Agreement will be the full and complete compensation to which Consultant is entitled. City will not make any federal or state tax withholdings on behalf of Consultant or its agents, employees or subcontractors.

At the City’s election, City may deduct the amounts paid pursuant to this Section, from any balance owing to Consultant.

3 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522

7. Subcontracting. Consultant's services are being requested by City because they are unique and personal. Except as may be specified in Exhibit “A”, Consultant will not subcontract any portion of the Services without prior written approval of City Manager or his/her designee. If Consultant subcontracts any of the Services, Consultant will be fully responsible to City for the acts, errors and omissions of Consultant's subcontractor and of the persons either directly or indirectly employed by the subcontractor, as Consultant is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Consultant. Nothing contained in this Agreement will create any contractual relationship between any subcontractor of Consultant and City.

Consultant will be responsible for payment of subcontractors. Consultant will bind every subcontractor and every subcontractor of a subcontractor by the terms of this Agreement applicable to Consultant's work unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract and approved in writing by City.

8. Other Consultants. The City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Services.

9. Indemnification. Consultant will hold harmless, defend and indemnify City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, costs or liability including attorney fees arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this Agreement, caused in whole or in part by any act or omission of the Consultant, any of its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, except to the extent caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of City.

10. Insurance. Consultant will obtain and maintain, at its cost and expense, for the duration of the Agreement and any and all amendments, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise out of or in connection with performance of the Services by Consultant or Consultant’s agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The insurance will be obtained from an insurance carrier admitted and authorized to do business in the State of California. The insurance carrier is required to have a current Best's Key Rating of not less than "A:VII."

10.1 Coverages and Limits. Consultant will maintain the types of coverages and minimum limits indicated below, unless Risk Manager or City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney approves a lower amount. These minimum amounts of coverage will not constitute any limitations or cap on Consultant's indemnification obligations under this Agreement. City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees make no representation that the limits of the insurance specified to be carried by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are adequate to protect Consultant. The coverage will contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to the above-designated insureds except for Workers Compensation and errors and omissions insurance. Consultant will obtain occurrence coverage, excluding Professional Liability, which will be written as claims-made coverage. If Consultant believes that any required insurance coverage is inadequate, Consultant will obtain such additional insurance coverage, as Consultant deems adequate, at Consultant's sole expense.

10.1.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. $2,000,000 combined single-limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the submitted policies contain aggregate limits, general aggregate limits will apply separately to the work under this Agreement or the general aggregate will be twice the required per occurrence limit.

10.1.2 Automobile Liability. $1,000,000 combined single-limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

10.1.3 Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability. Workers' Compensation limits as required by the California Labor Code and Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance will not be required if Consultant has no employees and provides, to City's satisfaction, a declaration stating this.

10.1.4 Professional Liability. Errors and omissions liability appropriate to Consultant’s profession with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per claim.

4 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522

10.2 Endorsements. For Commercial General Liability Insurance, Consultant will ensure that the policies are endorsed to name the City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees as additional insureds. Prior to City's execution of this Agreement, Consultant will furnish, to the satisfaction of the City, certificates of insurance and endorsements.

10.3 Cancellation. Insurance will be in force during the life of the Agreement and any extensions of it and will not be canceled without thirty (30) days prior written notice to City sent pursuant to the notice provisions of this Agreement.

10.4 Failure to Maintain Coverage. If Consultant fails to maintain any of these insurance coverages, then City will have the option to declare Consultant in breach of this Agreement, or may purchase replacement insurance or pay the premiums that are due on existing policies in order to maintain the required coverages. Consultant is responsible for any payments made by City to obtain or maintain insurance and City may collect these payments from Consultant or deduct the amount paid from any sums due Consultant under this Agreement.

10.5 Submission of Insurance Policies. City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete and certified copies of any or all required insurance policies and endorsements.

10.6 Primary Coverage. For any claims related to the Services and this Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance coverage will be primary insurance with respect to City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City for itself, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees, will be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and not contributory with it.

10.7 Reduction in Coverage/Material Changes. Consultant will notify City in writing pursuant to the notice provisions of this Agreement thirty (30) days prior to any reduction in any of the insurance coverage required pursuant to this Agreement or any material changes to the respective insurance policies.

10.8 Waiver of Subrogation. The policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City.

11. Business License. If required, Consultant will obtain and maintain a City of Brentwood Business License for the term of the Agreement, as it may be amended from time-to-time.

12. Maintenance of Records. Consultant will maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs incurred under this Agreement. All records will be clearly identifiable. Consultant will allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant will allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.

13. Ownership of Documents.

13.1 All product produced by Consultant or its agents, employees, and subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement (the “Work Product”) is the property of City. In the event this Agreement is terminated, all Work Product produced by Consultant or its agents, employees and subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement will be delivered to City pursuant to the termination clause of this Agreement. Consultant will have the right to make one (1) copy of the Work Product for Consultant’s records.

13.2 The Work Product may be used by City and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes City may deem advisable, without further employment of or payment of any compensation to Consultant; provided, however, that if this Agreement is terminated for any reason prior to completion of the Project and if under such circumstances City uses, or engages the services of and directs another consultant to use, the Work Product, City agrees to hold Consultant harmless from any and all liability, costs, and expenses relative to claims arising out of matters and/or events which occur subsequent to the termination of this Agreement as a result of causes other than

5 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
the fault or negligence of Consultant, or anyone for whose acts it is responsible, in preparation of the Work Product. Consultant will not be responsible for deficiencies solely attributable to modifications of the Work Product performed by others, or that arise from use of the Documents in connection with a project or site other than that shown in the Work Product.

14. Copyrights. Consultant agrees that all copyrights that arise from the Services will be vested in City and Consultant relinquishes all claims to the copyrights in favor of City.

15. Confidentiality. All documents, reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant and/or provided by the City to the Consultant, in connection with the performance of the Services pursuant to the Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant will not make any of these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before any such release.

16. Notices. Any notices relating to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given and served for all purposes when delivered personally, by facsimile or by generally recognized overnight courier service, or five (5) days after deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

For City:

City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Phone No. (925)
Facsimile No. (925)
Attn:

For Consultant:

Name:

Title:

Address:

Phone No.:

Facsimile No.:

Attn:

Either Party may change its address for purposes of this section by giving the other Party written notice of the new address in the manner set forth above.

17. Conflicts of Interest.

17.1 City will evaluate Consultant’s duties pursuant to this Agreement to determine whether disclosure under the Political Reform Act and City’s Conflict of Interest Code is required of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, agents, or subcontractors. Should it be determined that disclosure is required, Consultant or Consultant’s affected employees, agents, or subcontractors will complete and file with the City Clerk those schedules specified by City and contained in the Statement of Economic Interests Form 700.

17.2 Consultant understands that its professional responsibility is solely to City. Consultant warrants that it presently has no interest, present or contemplated, and will not acquire any direct or indirect interest, that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement. Consultant further warrants that neither Consultant, nor Consultant’s agents, employees, subcontractors and consultants have any ancillary real property, business interests or income that will be affected by this Agreement or, alternatively, that Consultant will file with the City an affidavit disclosing this interest. Consultant will not knowingly, and will take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not, employ a person having such an interest in the performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers that it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant will promptly disclose the relationship to the City and take such action as the City may direct to remedy the conflict.

18. General Compliance with Laws. Consultant will keep fully informed of federal, state and local laws and ordinances and regulations (“Laws”) which in any manner affect those employed by Consultant, or in any way affect the performance of the Services by Consultant. Consultant will at all times observe and

6 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
comply with these laws, ordinances, and regulations and will be responsible for the compliance of the Services with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations.

19. Pandemic Health Laws. Consultant’s duty to comply with Laws includes compliance by Consultant with all local, state, or federal Laws that have been or may be enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (collectively, “Health Laws”), which include all of the County of Contra Costa Health Orders. Failure to fully comply with the Health Laws constitutes a material default, subject to all available remedies including suspension or termination.

20. Discrimination and Harassment Prohibited. Consultant will comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination and harassment.

21. Labor Code Compliance. If this Agreement exceeds $1,000, it is subject to all applicable requirements of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, beginning at section 1720, and the related regulations, including but not limited to requirements pertaining to wages, working hours and workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant must also post all job site notices required by laws or regulations pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.4.

21.1 Prevailing Wages. Each worker performing Services under this Agreement that is covered under Labor Code section 1720 or 1720.9, must be paid at a rate not less than the prevailing wage as defined in sections 1771 and 1774 of the Labor Code. The prevailing wage rates are on file with the City and are available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1775, Consultant and any subconsultant or subcontractor will forfeit to the City as a penalty up to $200 for each calendar day, or portion of a day, for each worker paid less than the applicable prevailing wage rate, in addition to paying each worker the difference between the applicable wage rate and the amount actually paid.

21.2 Working Day. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1810, eight hours of labor consists of a legal day’s work. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1813, Consultant will forfeit to the City as a penalty the sum of $25 for each day during which a worker employed by Consultant or any subconsultant or subcontractor is required or permitted to work more than eight hours during any one calendar day, or more than 40 hours per calendar week, unless such workers are paid overtime wages under Labor Code section 1815.

21.3 Payroll Records. Consultant and its subconsultants or subcontractors must maintain certified payroll records in compliance with Labor Code sections 1776 and 1812, and all implementing regulations promulgated by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). For each payroll record, Consultant and its subconsultants or subcontractors must certify under penalty of perjury that the information in the record is true and correct, and that it has complied with the requirements of Labor Code sections 1771, 1811, and 1815. Unless the Agreement price is under $25,000, Consultant must electronically submit certified payroll records to the Labor Commissioner as required under California law and regulations.

21.4 Apprentices. If the Agreement price is $30,000 or more, Consultant must comply with the apprenticeship requirements in Labor Code section 1777.5.

21.5 DIR Monitoring, Enforcement, and Registration. The Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5, and, subject to the exception set forth below, Consultant and any subconsultants or subcontractors must be registered with the DIR to perform public works projects. The registration requirements of Labor Code section 1725.5 do not apply if the Agreement price is for under $25,000.

21.6 Workers’ Compensation Certification. Under Labor Code section 1861, by signing this Agreement Consultant certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Labor Code section 3700 which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake

7 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work on this contract.”

22. Termination. In the event of the Consultant's failure to prosecute, deliver, or perform the Services, City may terminate this Agreement for nonperformance by notifying Consultant in writing pursuant to the notice provisions of this Agreement. Consultant has five (5) business days to deliver any documents owned by City and all work in progress to City address contained in this Agreement. City will make a determination of fact based upon the work product delivered to City and of the percentage of work that Consultant has performed which is usable and of worth to City in having the Agreement completed. Based upon that finding City will determine the final payment of the Agreement. In the event City elects to terminate, City will have the right to immediate possession of all Work Product and work in progress prepared by Consultant, whether located at the project site, at Consultant's place of business, or at the offices of a subconsultant.

Either Party, upon tendering thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other Party, may terminate this Agreement for convenience. In this event and upon request of City, Consultant will assemble the work product without charge and put it in order for proper filing and closing and deliver it to City. Consultant will be paid for work performed to the termination date; however, the total will not exceed the lump sum fee payable under this Agreement. City will make the final determination as to the portions of tasks completed and the compensation to be made.

23. Covenants Against Contingent Fees. Consultant warrants that Consultant has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that Consultant has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon, or resulting from, the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City will have the right to terminate this Agreement for nonperformance, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of the fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fees, gift, or contingent fee.

24. Claims And Lawsuits. By signing this Agreement, Consultant agrees that any Agreement claim submitted to City must be asserted as part of the Agreement process as set forth in this Agreement and not in anticipation of litigation or in conjunction with litigation. Consultant acknowledges that if a false claim is submitted to City by Consultant, it may be considered fraud and Consultant may be subject to criminal prosecution. Consultant acknowledges that California Government Code sections 12650 et seq., the False Claims Act, applies to this Agreement and, provides for civil penalties where a person knowingly submits a false claim to a public entity. These provisions include false claims made with deliberate ignorance of the false information or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information. If City seeks to recover penalties pursuant to the False Claims Act, it is entitled to recover its litigation costs, including attorney's fees. Consultant acknowledges that the filing of a false claim may subject Consultant to an administrative debarment proceeding as the result of which Consultant may be prevented to act as a Consultant on any public work or improvement for a period of up to five (5) years. Consultant acknowledges debarment by another jurisdiction is grounds for City to terminate this Agreement.

25. Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. Any action at law or in equity brought by either of the Parties for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by this Agreement will be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, and the Parties waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in these proceedings to any other county. This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.

26. Testimony. Consultant will testify at City's request if litigation is brought against City in connection with Consultant's services under this agreement. Unless the action is brought by Consultant, or is based upon Consultant's actual or alleged negligence or other wrongdoing, City, upon prior written agreement with Consultant will compensate Consultant for time spent in preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at Consultant's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

27. Successors and Assigns. It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement will be binding

8 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
upon the Parties and their respective successors. Neither this Agreement nor any part of it nor any monies due or to become due under it may be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of City, which will not be unreasonably withheld.

28. Section Headings. Section headings as used in this Agreement are for convenience only and will not be deemed to be a part of such sections and will not be construed to change the meaning of the section.

29. Waivers. The waiver by either Party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law will not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of same or of any other term, covenant, condition or law. The acceptance by either Party of any fee or other payment which may become due under this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other Party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or any applicable law.

30. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated by it embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter of it. The City Manager is authorized, in consultation with the City Attorney, to agree to nonmaterial amendments to this Agreement. Neither this Agreement nor any of its provisions may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except in a writing signed by both parties.

31. Authority. The individuals executing this Agreement and the instruments referenced in it on behalf of Consultant each represent and warrant that they have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind Consultant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

32. Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or its application to any party or circumstances shall be held, to any extent, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of the term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

9 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522

33. Signatures.

33.1 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which together will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute the same instrument.

33.2 Digital/Electronic Signatures. Using a City-approved method, this Agreement may be executed through the use of digital or electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code Section

16.5. The presence of an electronic signature on this Agreement will be construed as the Parties’ consent to do business electronically.

CONSULTANT:
* By:

Printed Name:

Title:
** By:

Printed Name:

Title:

CITY:

By:

Tim Y. Ogden, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Damien Brower, City Attorney
If required by City, proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Consultant must be attached. If a Corporation, Agreement must be signed by one corporate officer from each of the following two groups. *Group A. **Group B.

Chairman, Secretary,
President, or Assistant Secretary,
Vice-President CFO or Assistant Treasurer
Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.

If an LLC:
• The Agreement must be signed by a Managing Member or the LLC must attach a resolution empowering the signatory to bind the LLC.

If a partnership:
• The Agreement must be signed by the Managing Partner or the Partner authorized to execute agreements of this type. Additional documentation, such as the partnership agreement, confirming this signature authority may be required.

If a sole proprietorship:
• The Agreement must be signed by the owner.

10 PSA_PW_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant will perform the following Services, at the rates indicated below.

City of Brentwood
Request for Proposals
Page | 7
City Attorney Approved Version 060120
Exhibit B – Scope of Services
A. The Project involves performing an operational assessment of the Brentwood Senior Activity Center (“BSAC”), including:

1. Interview all facility rental and programming participants, existing and former staff, and current Parks & Recreation Commission members, which elect to participate, about any programming of the BSAC since 2019, to gauge effectiveness of programming and customer service. Summarize interview feedback, and provide recommendations for improvement, if any. a. The scope of personnel interviews is limited to those matters identified above. A discussion as to these limitations will be had prior to any interviews being conducted.

2. Review and summarize current and prior BSAC programming, MOU’s, special projects, events, and activities performed by City staff, and contracted non-profits and other community-based organizations since 2019 through present.

3. Report facility usage hours for all programming activities since 2019.

4. Report any future plans exploring program changes.

5. Assessment of language and cultural access, and recommendations for improvement, if any.

6. Assess the process for how staff is selected and assigned to work at BSAC, training of staff, on-site schedule of leadership, and leadership’s experience with seniors.

7. Independently evaluate and present findings to the City Council.

B. The Project also involves conducting a citywide survey (in both electronic and paper form) of willing past and current participants in all recreational programming at any City facility over the last three years (2021). The electronic and paper survey should cover the following topics:

1. Program efficiency.

2. Facilities satisfaction.

3. Customer service satisfaction of City staff and any third parties.

Continue survey outreach until 30% response rate is achieved.

C. Review staffing levels of programs and facilities, in comparison with prior programs and other like/similar cities and their operations.

D. Comparison of programming and services provided currently by the City with other like/similar cities and their operations.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
11/14/2023
SUBJECT: Review and discussion of the actions contained within the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, including
prioritization, implementation status, and cost
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Review and discussion of the actions contained within the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, including prioritization, implementation status, and cost.

Staff recommends that the Council review the information contained within this report and the attached table, and prioritize those actions remaining to be implemented within their respective terms.

FISCAL IMPACT
The 2023/24 General Fund Operating Budget includes a $115,000 Strategic Plan budget for the estimated cost of implementing certain actions contained within the Conservation and Open Space Element that may be prioritized by the City Council.

Once City Council direction is received and before performing any actions, a formal scope of work, schedule for implementation and budget update, if necessary, will be brought back to the City Council for approval.

BACKGROUND
The City’s General Plan was comprehensively updated in July 2014. It is organized into elements, or chapters, many of which are mandatory according to state law. Two of the mandatory elements are Conservation and Open Space. It is common for cities and counties to combine these two into a single element since there tends to be a fair amount of overlap between them. This is the way Brentwood has historically organized its General Plan, including the current version adopted in 2014, with the Conservation and Open Space Element being Chapter 4.

Each element begins with a brief overview, followed by a series of goals, policies, and actions:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
11/14/2023
 A goal is defined as a description of the general desired result that the community seeks to create.
 A policy is defined as a specific statement that guides decision-making as the City works to achieve the various goals and objectives.  An action is defined as an implementation measure, procedure, technique, or specific program to be undertaken by the City to help achieve a specified goal or implement an adopted policy.

The Conservation and Open Space Element includes nine goals that are supported by 80 policies and 47 actions. The last chapter (Chapter 12) of the General Plan specifically addresses implementation. At the time the General Plan was adopted in 2014, each action was included in Chapter 12 and was assigned a relative priority level (A, B, or C):
 Priority level A implies that the start of the action will be implemented in the relatively short-term (approximately 1-5 years).
 Priority level B implies a somewhat longer-term implementation (approximately 5-10 years).
 Priority level C indicates a longer-term implementation schedule (approximately 10-20 years).

A number of other actions are referenced as "ongoing," which refers to them either already being undertaken by the City or those that are expected to continue on either a periodic or perpetual basis. Of the 47 actions contained within the Conservation and Open Space Element, 13 are designated as priority level A, nine are priority level B, one is priority level C, and 24 are ongoing. While 28 of the 47 actions have been implemented, the majority of those designated as priority levels A-C have either not been started or are still in progress.

As noted in the preface to the Implementation chapter of the General Plan:

The implementation schedule includes some caveats. One is that many of these actions will require both staff and financial resources to implement, thus making them difficult to definitively schedule, given the annual nature of the budgetary process and changing priorities over the years. Another is that it is often difficult to clearly state the duration of tasks; therefore, estimated starting dates (priority levels) are presented for actions rather than completion dates. Finally, in some instances, the selection of priority level (A, B, or C) reflects the level of complexity and the level of effort required to implement an action rather than the importance of the action itself.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
11/14/2023
In addition, the General Plan’s implementation schedule addresses not only action items within the Conservation and Open Space Element, but also dictates the schedule of implementation for action items contained within every other element of the General Plan. It was thus created with a comprehensive perspective on the work of implementing the entire General Plan. As such, it represents a balancing of a number of factors, including staff time, funding, community priority, difficulty of implementation, and so forth.

Following the Council discussion in October and December of 2021, staff reviewed the actions contained within the Conservation and Open Space Element to determine status and, for those not yet completed, a preliminary estimate of the staff time and/or cost to do so. A table excerpted from Chapter 12 of the General Plan, listing all of the Conservation and Open Space Element actions, is attached for the Council’s review and reference. The table has been modified slightly by sorting it according to priority level and adjusting the last column, which includes notes about the status of each action, along with a preliminary estimate of the staff time and/or cost for those actions remaining to be completed.

The Council discussed this item at length in February 2022. While that discussion touched on what actions could be implemented relatively quickly with minimal cost, there was no consensus on how to prioritize them. Rather, recognizing the significant amount of information involved with this item, the Council directed staff to return at a future meeting for a more detailed discussion. It should be noted that a large portion of the Council’s discussion at the time focused on how to protect parks and open space from future development. Staff prioritized this in terms of spending time and resources, ultimately addressing it in an expedited fashion through the preparation of Measure Q and its adoption by the voters in November 2022.

At this time, staff recommends that the Council review the information contained within this report and the attached table, and provide direction in terms of how the various actions should be prioritized. This could include prioritizing the actions within each of the priority levels (A, B, and C). After performing any additional research on certain actions, staff would coordinate with other departments (and potentially consultants) as necessary and come back to the Council with a formal scope of work, schedule for implementation, and budget update, if necessary.

Staff has prepared two versions of the implementation table, with one being ordered by priority level and the other being ordered by ease of implementation, to assist with the Council’s discussion. For example, there are certain actions that require updates to the City’s website that can be implemented relatively quickly with no additional cost (other than staff time).

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
11/14/2023
It should be noted that if the Council determines changes to the actions themselves are needed (e.g., deleting one or more of them, modifying their text, or adding new ones), then a formal amendment of the General Plan to the Conservation and Open Space Element would be required as a separate process.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

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

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element

3. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Table - Chapter 12

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 26, 2021, the Council discussed a future agenda item brought forward by Council Member Meyer related to implementation of the General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space Element. At that time, the Council unanimously directed staff to add this item to the Strategic Plan processwith an emphasis on prioritizing those actions remaining to be implemented. They also requested bringing the item back to the Council for a more in-depth discussion in February 2022, if feasible based on current workload of staff and Council.
 On December 1, 2021, the Council held a daylong workshop to discuss the Strategic Plan. At that time, staff made a comprehensive presentation with respect to, among other things, proposed goals and initiatives to be included in the Strategic Plan. One of the initiatives proposed by the Community Development Department was to “Protect Natural and Agricultural Resources.” This included the development of an implementation plan for the General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space Element, consistent with the direction provided on October 26, 2021 along with prioritizing remaining actions within their respective time frames and their associated cost.  On February 22, 2022, the Council conducted a brief review of the Conservation and Open Space Element actions as part of a business item, but directed staff to return at a future meeting for a more detailed discussion.

4. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
Brentwood General Plan 4-1
Overview
Natural resources, including open space lands, agricultural lands, waterways, hillsides, scenic views, wildlife habitat, and historical resources form an important part of Brentwood’s unique character and represent some of its greatest assets. The Conservation and Open Space Element provides the framework to protect, maintain, and enhance Brentwood’s natural resources. The Conservation and Open Space Element balances the overall vision of the General Plan for preserving Brentwood’s high living standards, agricultural heritage, and natural resources while simultaneously providing for economic development and balanced growth.

State law requires the General Plan to address open space issues, including the recognition of open space as a valuable resource for its own sake, the coordination of local policies with State and regional policies, and the use of open space to preserve environmentally sensitive natural areas and habitat. California Government Code Section 65560 defines open space lands as being essentially unimproved and devoted to the preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, or public health and safety.

As required by State law, the Conservation and Open Space Element addresses the conservation and utilization of open space lands and natural resources, including natural habitats, riparian corridors, special-status species, and soils/hillsides. The Conservation and Open Space Element also addresses the topics of energy conservation, air quality, water quality, and the preservation of cultural and historical resources.

Background information regarding conservation, natural resources, and open space conditions in Brentwood is presented in Chapter 5 of the General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report.

Goals, Policies, and Actions
Goal COS 1 Ensure the provision and preservation of diverse and accessible open spaces throughout the Brentwood Planning Area

Policy COS 1-1: General Plan land use designations that include agriculture, permanent open space, parks, and similar uses, as well as waterways (i.e., Marsh Creek, Dry Creek, Deer Creek, and Sand Creek), shall be considered open space.

Policy COS 1-2: Preserve open space for conservation, recreation, and agricultural uses.

Policy COS 1-3: Conversion of open space, as defined under Policy COS 1-1, to developed residential, commercial, industrial, or other similar types of uses, shall be strongly discouraged. Undeveloped land that is designated for urban uses may be developed if needed to support economic development, and if the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map.

4. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
4-2 Brentwood General Plan
Policy COS 1-4: Where possible, integrate open space and stream corridors with trails and other recreational open space in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Policy COS 1-5: Recognize urban open space as essential to maintaining a high quality of life within the city limits of Brentwood.

Policy COS 1-6: Support regional and local natural resource preservation plans of public agencies that retain and protect open space within the city limits, the Sphere of Influence, and the Planning Area.

Policy COS 1-7: Encourage public and private efforts to preserve open space.

Policy COS 1-8: Common or private open space that is not City property shall be privately maintained.

Policy COS 1-9: Encourage the protection and incorporation of existing, native, mature, non-orchard trees and areas of natural vegetation as part of new development.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 1
Action COS 1a: Review all development proposals involving unincorporated land within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County, and within or adjacent to the Sphere of Influence or Planning Area, to ensure adequate preservation of community separators and open space resources.

Action COS 1b: Adopt an ordinance that specifies standards and responsibilities for the maintenance of private open space lands within the city limits. The standards should include provisions for public access, habitat management, water quality protection, safety, and aesthetics.

Action COS 1c: Implement a coordinated and cost-effective plan for City management and maintenance of publicly-owned open space within the city limits.

Goal COS 2 Preserve designated agricultural lands in Brentwood's Planning Area

Policy COS 2-1: Support and encourage the preservation of agricultural lands throughout Brentwood’s Planning Area, particularly in areas to the south and east of the city limits.

Policy COS 2-2: Maintain permanent agricultural lands surrounding the city limits to serve as community separators and continue the agricultural heritage of Brentwood.

Policy COS 2-3: Encourage and support programs that create or establish permanent agricultural areas in Brentwood’s Planning Area.

4. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
Brentwood General Plan 4-3

Policy COS 2-4: Participate in regional planning efforts with agencies and organizations such as Contra Costa County, land trusts, and other regional partners to establish and maintain permanent agricultural areas to the south and east of Brentwood.

Policy COS 2-5: Work with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on issues of mutual concern including the conservation of agricultural land through consistent use of LAFCO policies, particularly those related to conversion of agricultural lands and establishment of adequate buffers between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, and the designation of a reasonable and logical Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary for the City.

Policy COS 2-6: Minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses.

Policy COS 2-7: Require the use of buffers such as greenbelts, drainage features, parks, or other improved and maintained features in order to separate residential and other sensitive land uses, such as schools and hospitals, from agricultural lands and agricultural operations.

Policy COS 2-8: Require new development to have structural setbacks that respect agricultural operations.

Policy COS 2-9: Developers shall be responsible for mitigating impacts upon nearby agriculture. Setbacks and buffers shall be provided by the developer and not encroach upon productive agricultural areas.

Policy COS 2-10: Limit incompatible uses (i.e., schools, hospitals, and high density residential) near agriculture.

Policy COS 2-11: Work with agricultural landowners to improve practices that have resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent properties. Such practices include site drainage and flood control measures.

Policy COS 2-12: Promote best management practices in agricultural operations to reduce emissions, conserve energy and water, and utilize alternative energy sources.

Policy COS 2-13: Assist agricultural landowners and farmers with a variety of programs aimed at preserving agricultural lands, increasing opportunities for local sales of agricultural products, and increasing access to local commodities markets.

Policy COS 2-14: Encourage agricultural landowners in Brentwood’s Planning Area to participate in Williamson Act contracts and other programs that provide long-term protection of agricultural lands.

Policy COS 2-15: Support the procurement of expanded and additional water rights which provide for contractual supply reliability for agricultural use.

4. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
4-4 Brentwood General Plan

Policy COS 2-16: Encourage small-scale food production, such as community gardens and cooperative neighborhood growing efforts, on parcels within the city limits, provided that the operations do not conflict with existing adjacent urban uses.

Policy COS 2-17: Encourage and support the development of new agricultural related industries featuring alternative energy, utilization of agricultural waste, biofuels, and solar or wind farms.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 2
Action COS 2a: Continue to implement Chapter 8.01 (Right to Farm) of the Brentwood Municipal Code in order to protect farming uses from encroaching urban uses and to notify potential homebuyers of nearby agricultural operations.

Action COS 2b: Consider impacts to agricultural lands and agricultural productivity when reviewing new development projects, amendments to the General Plan, and rezoning applications.

Action COS 2c: Amend Title 17 (Zoning) of the Brentwood Municipal Code to include specific agricultural buffer requirements for residential and sensitive land uses (i.e., schools, day care facilities, and medical facilities) that are proposed near existing agricultural lands in order to protect the associated agricultural operations from encroachment by incompatible uses. Buffers shall generally be defined as a physical separation, depending on the land use, and may consist of topographic features, roadways, bike/pedestrian paths, greenbelts, water courses, or similar features. The buffer shall occur on the parcel for which a permit is sought and shall favor protection of the maximum amount of agricultural land.

Action COS 2d: Collaborate with water suppliers and wastewater treatment plant operators to increase the availability of treated or recycled water for agricultural purposes.

Action COS 2e: Work with Contra Costa County to establish and implement consistent policies for agricultural lands in Brentwood's Planning Area that prioritize the preservation of agricultural lands and support ongoing agricultural activities.

Action COS 2f: Continue to implement, and periodically review/update as necessary, Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Preservation Program) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

Action COS 2g: Continue to implement the Agricultural Enterprise Implementation Plan to assist local farmers with a variety of programs that facilitate infrastructure improvements, business ventures, and other initiatives to grow the agricultural industry in and around Brentwood.

Action COS 2h: Coordinate with groups such as the Agricultural-Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County (ANRT), the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT), and Harvest Time in Brentwood in order to fund agricultural easements, programs that protect agricultural lands, and programs that provide marketing assistance and economic support to local farmers.

4. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
Brentwood General Plan 4-5
Action COS 2i: Develop a program to provide additional support for agricultural tourism, u-pick farms, and other agricultural activities that serve as a regional draw to Brentwood and enhance its agricultural heritage.

Goal COS 3 Protect and enhance Brentwood’s ecosystem and natural habitats

Policy COS 3-1: 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.

Policy COS 3-2: 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.

Policy COS 3-3: Focus conservation efforts on high priority conservation areas that contain suitable habitat for endangered, threatened, migratory, or special-status species and that can be managed with minimal interference with nearby urban land uses.

Policy COS 3-4: Conserve existing native vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.

Policy COS 3-5: Avoid removal of large, mature trees that provide wildlife habitat or contribute to the visual quality of the environment to the greatest extent feasible through appropriate project design and building siting. If full avoidance is not possible, prioritize planting of replacement trees on-site over off-site locations.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 3
Action COS 3a: Require new development, as well as infrastructure projects, long-range planning projects, and other projects, to comply with the requirements of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special-status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed
Action COS 3b: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist.

Action COS 3c: Develop CEQA Thresholds of Significance to assist staff, project applicants, and decision-makers in determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment under Section 21082.2 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Special-­Status

Species
Special-status species
include any species of
plant or animal, which
is listed, or proposed
for listing, as threatened
or endangered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National
Marine Fisheries
Service, or the CA
Department of Fish and
Wildlife.

4. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
4-6 Brentwood General Plan
Goal COS 4 Protect and enhance water resources in local creeks, riparian habitat, wetlands, the Marsh Creek Watershed, and aquatic habitat

Policy COS 4-1: Where feasible, protect and enhance surface water quality in creeks, streams, channels, seasonal and permanent marshland, wetlands, sloughs, riparian habitat, and vernal pools through sound land use planning, community design, and site planning.

Policy COS 4-2: Rehabilitate existing channelized waterways, as feasible, to remove concrete linings and allow for a connection with the stream channel and the natural water table. Avoid creating additional channelized waterways, unless no other alternative is available to protect human health, safety, and welfare.

Policy COS 4-3: Where feasible, restore existing channelized waterways to a more natural condition. Restoration efforts should provide for naturalized hydraulic functioning. Restoration should also promote the growth of riparian vegetation to effectively stabilize banks, screen pollutants from runoff entering the channel, enhance fisheries, and provide other opportunities for natural habitat restoration.

Policy COS 4-4: Require discretionary projects, as well as new flood control and storm water conveyance projects, to integrate best management practices and natural features to the greatest extent feasible, while ensuring that these features adequately convey and control storm water to protect human health, safety, and welfare.

Policy COS 4-5: Encourage the use of natural features such as bio swales, vegetation, retention ponds, and other measures to remove storm water pollutants prior to discharge, subject to State regulations.

Policy COS 4-6: Where feasible, new development adjacent to creeks and streams should include opportunities for beneficial uses, such as flood control, ecological restoration, public access trails, and walkways.

Policy COS 4-7: Consult with State and Federal agencies during the development review process to help identify wetland and riparian habitat that has candidacy for restoration, conservation, and/or mitigation. Focus restoration and/or conservation efforts on areas that would maximize multiple beneficial uses for such habitat.

Policy COS 4-8: Conserve riparian habitat along local creeks, including but not limited to Marsh Creek, Deer Creek, Dry Creek, and Sand Creek, in order to maintain water quality and provide suitable habitat for native fish and plant species.

Policy COS 4-9: Consider the effects of development on ground and surface water quality, and implement measures to reduce water contamination.

Marsh
Creek

Watershed
The Marsh Creek
Watershed drains the
east side of Mt. Diablo.

It covers about 128
square miles of
rangeland, farmland,
protected parkland,
and urban land. The
creek flows
approximately 30 river
miles from its
headwaters in Morgan
Territory Preserve
through Brentwood
and Oakley to empty
into the Delta at Big
Break.

Riparian
Habitat
Riparian habitat is the
assortment of native
plants that occur
adjacent to freshwater
streams, creeks, and
rivers.

4. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
Brentwood General Plan 4-7
Policy COS 4-10: Where feasible, encourage and support multipurpose detention basins that provide water quality protection, storm water detention, open space amenities, and recreational amenities.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 4
Action COS 4a: Coordinate with interested public and private entities to create new and expanded public access trails along creeks and streams that connect to parks and open space areas within Brentwood’s Planning Area.

Action COS 4b: Continue to identify which storm water and drainage facilities are in need of repair and address these needs through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Action COS 4c: Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance and the environmental review process, in order to conserve wetlands and riparian habitat within the city limits and the Planning Area.

Action COS 4d: Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Contra Costa County, and local watershed protection groups to identify potentially impacted aquatic habitat within Brentwood’s Planning Area and to develop riparian management guidelines to be implemented by development, recreation, and other projects adjacent to creeks, streams, and other waterways.

Action COS 4e: Continue to implement, and periodically review/update as necessary, Chapter 15.52 (Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control) of the Brentwood Municipal Code. The City shall review projects to ensure that best management practices are implemented during construction and site grading activities, as well as in project design to reduce pollutant runoff into water bodies.

Action COS 4f: Explore revising Title 17 (Zoning) of the Brentwood Municipal Code to include standards for creek setbacks and the protection of riparian habitat along creek corridors. The standards should include minimum setback requirements, site design standards, and requirements for the ongoing maintenance of creek and riparian habitat on public and private lands.

Action COS 4g: Update the Creek Trails and Revegetation Master Plan. Solicit public input during the preparation of the update, and include outreach efforts to community organizations with knowledge of and interest in key issues associated with local creeks, trails, and habitat restoration.

Action COS 4h: Encourage volunteer-based programs that organize community creek restoration and/or clean-up events and provide public education regarding the benefits of city and regional water resources.

Action COS 4i: Provide a conservation page (or similar page) on the City’s website that provides links to resource agencies (i.e., CDFW, USFWS, USACE, etc.) and provides information regarding local and regional conservation and environmental programs, to the extent that the City has readily available information.

4. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
4-8 Brentwood General Plan
Goal COS 5 Utilize Brentwood’s mineral resources while preserving development and conservation options for the future

Policy COS 5-1: Ensure that areas of mineral resources can be mined while productive and are ultimately reused for urbanization or open space.

Policy COS 5-2: Allow resource extraction of gas, oil, and mineral resources as an interim use.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 5
Action COS 5a: Work with property owners to develop reclamation plans for areas with mineral resources.

Action COS 5b: Continue to implement, and periodically review/update as necessary, Chapter 17.680 (Oil and Gas Production) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

Action COS 5c: Identify and evaluate areas within Brentwood’s Planning Area with potential resource value, including oil, gas, sand, and gravel.

Goal COS 6 Preserve and enhance prehistoric, historic, and cultural resources in and around the Brentwood community

Policy COS 6-1: Protect important historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Brentwood.

Policy COS 6-2: Encourage the voluntary identification, conservation, and reuse of historical structures, properties, and sites with special and recognized historic, architectural, or aesthetic value.

Policy COS 6-3: Encourage historic resources to remain in their original use whenever possible. The adaptive use of historic resources is preferred, particularly as museums, educational facilities, or visitor-serving uses, when the original use can no longer be sustained. Older residences may be converted to office/retail use in commercial areas and to tourist or business use, so long as their historical authenticity is maintained or enhanced.

Policy COS 6-4: Leverage the City’s strong cultural and historic heritage to support and encourage historically-oriented visitor programs and heritage tourism through cooperation with local, regional, and State marketing efforts.

Policy COS 6-5: Continue to support and promote annual festivals and community events that celebrate Brentwood’s cultural heritage.

Policy COS 6-6: Encourage and support community art projects, including murals, sculptures, educational programs, and events that highlight Brentwood’s cultural and historic heritage.