Clayton City Council
September 20, 2022

July 7, 2022 | Page 7
The CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model can output only average congested speeds and not 95th percentile speeds, so the buffer index will be a monitoring metric, compiled for existing and observed conditions but not forecasted. The buffer index for each freeway corridor listed in Table 1 will be calculated from the same INRIX data used to calculate the delay index.

Surface Roadway RTOs

PEAK-HOUR LOS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS IN URBAN AREAS
Peak-hour intersection LOS will be calculated for specified signalized intersections along the defined RRS in urban areas. Signalized LOS is a delay-based qualitative measure of traffic conditions. LOS is expressed in ratings from “A” through “F,” with “A” meaning that all traffic clears the intersection in every cycle and “F” meaning that drivers must wait through multiple cycles to clear the intersection.

Signalized intersection LOS is determined based on intersection turning movement counts (also called turning/traffic volumes), intersection geometry, and signal timing data. The CCTA Technical Procedures specify that methods documented in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual be used to measure signalized intersection LOS.
3 The relationship between average delay and LOS is shown in Table

2. TABLE 2. INTERSECTION LOS DEFINITIONS
Delay (Second/Vehicle) Level of Service
≤10 A
> 10-20 B
> 20-35 C
> 35-55 D
> 55-80 E
> 80 F
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Exhibit 19-8.

The facilities evaluated using signalized intersection LOS or other intersection operational metrics in the previous round of Action Plans are listed in Table 3. The performance of these Action Plan intersections and some additional locations was monitored in 2017. In addition, a subset of these intersections is regularly monitored as part of the Congestion Management Program, which was most recently conducted in 2021. For all previously monitored intersections, intersection operational models have been built, and peak hour turning movement counts were collected to represent 2013, 2017, or 2021 conditions. Table 4 summarizes the available data for intersection analysis. 3 The Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition was published by the Transportation Research Board in January 2022.

July 7, 2022 | Page 8
Since the previous rounds of Action Plans and monitoring, some previously rural highway segments have been developed into signalized arterial corridors and some roadways have been newly designated as RRS, potentially adding numerous additional signalized intersection locations to be analyzed. A small number of previously monitored intersections appear to fall on roadway facilities that are no longer proposed as RRS for this round of Action Plan updates.

For this analysis of 2019 and 2050 baseline conditions, the project team proposes to report on only key locations, such as at the intersections of two RRS facilities, freeway ramp terminals, and intersections of local concern, as depicted in Figure 2 through Figure 6. In total, 355 intersections will be analyzed for 2019 and 2050.

TABLE 3. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – PREVIOUS ACTION PLANS RTPC Arterial Facility
Previously Used
Performance Target and
Number of Intersections
WCCTAC
(West County)
• Appian Way
• Carlson Boulevard
• Central Avenue
• Cummings Skyway
• Interstate 580 (I-580)
• Richmond Parkway
• San Pablo Avenue
• San Pablo Dam Road
• State Route 4 (SR-4)
• 23rd Street
LOS D on all intersections
except for San Pablo
Avenue and San Pablo Dam
Road where LOS E is
acceptable.

TRANSPAC
(Central County)
• Alhambra Avenue
• Bailey Road
• Clayton Road
• Contra Costa Boulevard
• Geary Road
• North Main Street
• Pacheco Boulevard
• Pleasant Hill Road
• Taylor Boulevard
• Treat Boulevard
• Ygnacio Valley Road/Kirker Pass Road
LOS F on all intersections. a

TRANSPLAN
(East County)
• Auto Center Drive
• Bailey Road
• Balfour Road
• Brentwood Boulevard/Main Street
• Buchanan Road
• Deer Valley Road (improved portion)
• East 10th Street/Harbor Street (in Pittsburg)
• East 18th Street
• Fairview Avenue
• Hillcrest Avenue
• James Donlon Boulevard (including future extension)
• Laurel Road
LOS D on all intersections
except for Bailey Road
where LOS E is acceptable.

July 7, 2022 | Page 9
TABLE 3. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – PREVIOUS ACTION PLANS RTPC Arterial Facility
Previously Used
Performance Target and
Number of Intersections
• Leland Road (both West and East)/Delta Fair Boulevard • Lone Tree Way/A Street
• Oak Street/Walnut Boulevard (within Brentwood)
• Ninth Street/Tenth Street (in Antioch)
• Pittsburg-Antioch Highway
• Railroad Avenue/Kirker Pass Road
• Sand Creek Road/Dallas Ranch Road
• Somersville Road
• Wilbur Avenue
• Willow Pass Road
Lamorinda
(LPMC and
Southwest County)
• Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Road
• Pleasant Hill Road
Side Street Delay, no LOS
rating.

Tri-Valley
(TVTC and
Southwest County)
• Alcosta Boulevard
• Bernal Avenue
• Bollinger Canyon Road
• Camino Tassajara
• Danville Boulevard
• Dougherty Road
• Dublin Boulevard
• Fallon Road
• First Street/Railroad Avenue
• Hopyard Road
• Iron Horse Trail
• Jack London Boulevard
• San Ramon Road
• San Ramon Valley Boulevard
• Santa Rita Road
• Stanley Boulevard
• Stoneridge Drive
• Sunol Boulevard
• Sycamore Valley Road
• Tassajara Road
• Vasco Road
LOS E on all intersections
except no standard for
intersections in downtown
areas and those exempt by
General Plans.
a. Other TRANSPAC intersection performance targets are defined by volume to capacity (V/C) ratios or the number of cycles.

Source: RTPC Action Plans

July 7, 2022 | Page 10
TABLE 4. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AND AVAILABLE INTERSECTION DATA Region
Previous
Action Plans
2017
Monitoring 2021 CMP
Total Signalized
Intersections on RRS
Total Proposed for
Existing and Baseline
Scenarios
West County 55 30 29 174 84
Central County 41 41 9 233 83
East County 151 29 301 93
Lamorinda 13 12 1 47 12
Tri-Valley 39 51 22 163 83
Total 299 163 61 918 355

July 7, 2022 | Page 11
FIGURE 2. ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY RRS (WEST COUNTY)

July 7, 2022 | Page 12
FIGURE 3. ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY RRS (CENTRAL COUNTY)

July 7, 2022 | Page 13
FIGURE 4. ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY RRS (EAST COUNTY)

July 7, 2022 | Page 14
FIGURE 5. ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY RRS (SOUTHWEST COUNTY – LAMORINDA)

July 7, 2022 | Page 15
FIGURE 6. ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY RRS (SOUTHWEST COUNTY – TRI-VALLEY)

July 7, 2022 | Page 16
The methodology for calculating signalized intersection LOS will follow standard practice.

Observed counts will largely be obtained from those collected for the 2017 MTSO monitoring and the 2021 CMP monitoring. For any additional intersections added to the list for this round of Action Plans, historical turning volume estimates will be obtained from the Streetlight data subscription maintained by CCTA.

Peak-hour traffic volumes for the base year and future year will be estimated using the Furness process specified in the CCTA Technical Procedures and summarized here. This process develops intersection turning movement forecasts using observed counts and model outputs, as follows:
• Calculate the Model Correction Volume for each network link (i.e., the difference between the projected peak-hour volume for the validation (base year) run and actual peak-hour traffic volumes).
• Determine the forecast peak-hour approach and departure volumes for each study intersection by adding the Model Correction Volume to the model output. • Develop intersection turning movement volumes that are consistent with the approach and departure volumes by balancing projected intersection turning movements with actual turning movement volumes using an iterative process.
• Check reasonableness by comparing adjusted intersection turning movement volumes with both the existing count data and the raw model output.
• Review volume adjustments that do not appear reasonable and, if appropriate, revise adjustments.

Prior to modeling the LOS that will result from the calculated volumes, DKS will double-check intersection geometry using Google Earth to ensure that the modeling reflects current intersection configurations. DKS will reach out to the local jurisdictions to request timing plans for any newly added intersection locations. In the absence of local timing plans, optimized timing settings will be applied.

Once the estimated 2019 Base Year and 2050 Baseline turning volumes, intersection geometries, and signal timings are in place, signalized intersection LOS will be assessed by implementing the latest Highway Capacity Model (HCM) methods in the Trafficware Synchro (“Synchro”) software package. The latest HCM 7th Edition was released in February 2022 and is not yet implemented in Synchro, so Synchro reports signalized intersection delay and LOS based on the HCM 6th Edition (there is no significant difference for the analysis of signalized intersections).

The outcome of this modeling will yield a list of all intersections and their baseline 2019 and projected 2050 LOS rating. These ratings will be compared to the existing Action Plan MTSOs, if applicable, and DKS will assist the RTPCs in revising the MTSOs to create new RTOs as appropriate.

There may be a data gap for turning movement counts for newly identified intersections in Alameda County. Since the CCTA Streetlight subscription will not provide data for these locations, local jurisdictions will be contacted to provide any available recent counts. In some cases, it may be necessary

July 7, 2022 | Page 17
to use turning volumes directly from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model outputs to estimate existing conditions operational performance.

PEAK-HOUR SEGMENT LOS ON SELECTED TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS OUTSIDE OF URBAN AREAS
LOS will be analyzed for specific segments on rural roadways. Roadway segment LOS is a measure of traffic efficiency and smoothness of flow along roadway segments that are not constrained by a nearby traffic signal. This has previously been calculated for the East County in accordance with the methods specified in the 2010 HCM using average speed for Class I highways, which are two-lane facilities in largely rural areas that motorists expect to traverse at relatively high speed.

DKS will run LOS analysis for the roadway segments as listed in Table 5 and shown in Figures 2 through

6. TABLE 5. RURAL ROADWAY CORRIDORS
Subarea Facility From To
West County San Pablo Dam Road
Castro Ranch Road
RTPC Boundary
RTPC Boundary
Wildcat Canyon
Central County
Bailey Road Concord Boulevard RTPC Boundary
Kirker Pass Road RTPC Boundary James Donlon Boulevard
Kirker Pass Road Clearbrook Drive RTPC Boundary
East County
Byron Highway State Route 4 Alameda County
Camino Diablo Road Marsh Creek Road Vasco Road
Marsh Creek Road Deer Valley Road Vineyard Parkway
Vasco Road Walnut Boulevard Alameda County
Vasco Road Alameda County Dalton Avenue
Bailey Road Leland Avenue RTPC Boundary
State Route 4 Bypass Balfour Road Marsh Creek Road
Deer Valley Road Sand Creek Road Marsh Creek Road
Marsh Creek Road RTPC Boundary Deer Valley Road
Lamorinda San Pablo Dam Road RTPC Boundary Wildcat Canyon Tri-Valley
State Route 84 (E. Vallecitos Road) Interstate 680 Ruby Hill Drive Dublin Canyon Road Palo Verde Road Foothill Road

July 7, 2022 | Page 18
The latest edition of HCM (7th Edition) specifies a new version for calculating segment LOS, which requires substantially more data than the previous HCM 6thedition/2010 approach. The new approach requires information on passing constraint condition (none, passing lane, or passing constrained), flow rate (vehicles per hour), percentage heavy vehicles, vertical slope (five classifications based on segment length and slope), and horizontal curvature (five classifications based on curve radius and superelevation). This data is not available for the segments to be studied, the Action Plan updates will retain this HCM 6th Edition approach, which simply relates LOS to average speed, as shown in Table 6.

For this analysis, DKS will use the model to predict average speed for all segments to be analyzed.

TABLE 6. LOS FOR TWO-LANE RURAL ROADWAYS
Level of Service Average Speed (Miles per Hour)
A >55
B >50-55
C >45-50
D >40-45
E ≤40
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010, Exhibit 15-3.

Transit RTOs

MODE SHARE OF TRANSIT TRIPS
Mode share will be estimated for the Action Plan updates, both for transit (which is the focus of this section) and for the bike/pedestrian and climate change topics (as explained in later sections of this memo).

For the Action Plan analysis, mode share in each subregion will be estimated using data collected by the American Community Survey (ACS), as published by the Census Bureau, and model results.

For current conditions, the PlaceWorks team will use ACS data, which gives data forwork commute trips for workers 16 years of age and over. The current data release includes one-year estimates for 2019, which will be used for the Action Plan analysis. Mode share for all trips and all modes will be modeled using outputs from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model. Specifically, the person trip tables from the mode choice step of the model will be aggregated to calculate mode share by geographic subarea.

The trip tables are in “production-attraction” format, meaning that trips are tabulated based on the zone of production (location of residence for all home-based trip purposes) and zone of attraction (work or other location) rather than representing directional trips.

July 7, 2022 | Page 19
The CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model produces person trip matrices by mode by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for each trip purpose and income quartile. DKS will develop scripts to summarize this data by RTPC and mode. Most mode share RTOs will be summarized by the geographic area of production, but some metrics based on the attraction zone may be of interest as well. Thus, mode share can be reported based on the zone of residence (“X percent of work trips made by East County residents are by auto”) or the attraction zone (“Y percent of work trips for jobs in Central County are by transit”).

Mode shares will be calculated for the 2019 base year and 2050 baseline scenarios. The mode alternatives specified in CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model include:
• Drive Alone
• Shared Ride 2 Occupants
• Shared Ride 3+ occupants
• Transit with Walk Access
• Transit with Drive Access
• Bicycle
• Walk
The summary tables and charts for these modes will report mode share for the subregion of production (all trips), for commute mode share by subregion of production (home-based work trips only), and for commute mode share by subregion of attraction or job location (home-based work trips only).

RATIO OF TRAVEL TIME FOR TRANSIT AS COMPARED TO AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL TIME FOR

SELECT TRIPS
This RTO is intended to measure the difference in travel time for a motorist as compared to a transit user. The origin destination pairs shown in Table 7 are proposed for this metric. Travel times will be developed for each mode based on both the peak-commute and reverse-commute directions of travel for the morning and afternoon peak periods.

TABLE 7. CORRIDORS FOR TRANSIT-AUTO TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON Subarea Origin-Destination Pairs
West County North Richmond BART and Contra Costa Center (Pleasant Hill BART station) Hercules Transit Center and Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco Central County Walnut Creek BART station and Montgomery Street BART station Orinda BART station and 12th Street (Oakland) BART station East County Antioch BART station and 12th Street (Oakland) BART station Lamorinda Orinda BART station and Montgomery Street (San Francisco) BART station Tri-Valley Vasco Station (Altamont Corridor Express) and San Jose Diridon station Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and Montgomery Street (San Francisco) BART station

July 7, 2022 | Page 20
Transit travel times along key routes will be based on published transit schedules. Bus schedules are assumed to account for expected roadway congestion that would impact bus routes. Driving travel times will be derived from INRIX roadway analytics for weekdays (Tuesday – Thursday) for April 2019.

Baseline 2050 conditions will be modeled using the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model. The model outputs used for this purpose will be the peak period transportation “skim” matrices, representing transit wait time, transit in-vehicle travel time, and drive-alone automobile travel time between all TAZs.

Bicycle and Pedestrian RTOs
Bicycle and pedestrian RTOs will be based on the countywide Low-Stress Bike Network (LSBN) adopted in the 2018 CCTA Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan. This network consists of existing and planned Class 1 bike paths and Class 4 cycle tracks throughout Contra Costa County.

MODE SHARE OF BICYCLING AND WALKING
The methodology for this RTO will be identical to the methodology for the “Mode Share of Transit Trips” RTO. See the previous section for more details.

PROPORTION OF THE COUNTYWIDE LOW-STRESS BIKE NETWORK THAT HAS BEEN

COMPLETED
The LSBN is a component of the CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) adopted in 2018.

The CBPP introduced a new way of evaluating a facility’s “Level of Traffic Stress,” in which roadways are evaluated on several factors, including, but not limited to, the speed and number of vehicles and presence and width of bicycle facilities. Facilities are given a rating from one (least stressful) to four (most stressful) to evaluate the stress a bike rider will experience. The goal of the 2018 CBPP is to ensure the countywide bicycle network is complete and rated either Level of Traffic Stress 1 (most children can feel safe riding on these facilities) or Level of Traffic Stress 2 (The “interested but concerned” adult population will feel safe riding on these facilities). Ultimately, construction of the entire LSBN would result in an increase in bicycle mode share and a reduction in KSI collisions. It is assumed that the LSBN includes only Class I and Class IV facilities.

For this RTO, the project team will update the LSBN to reflect any portions that have been constructed since the 2018 CBPP and map adoption. Once the LSBN is updated, the number of total miles in the network upon buildout will be calculated and compared with the total miles already completed.

NUMBER OF LOCATIONS WHERE THE LOW-STRESS BIKE NETWORK MAKES AN

UNPROTECTED CROSSING OVER A HEAVILY TRAVELED VEHICLE ROUTE PlaceWorks will create an ArcGIS point data set to identify each location where the LSBN (Class I and Class IV facilities) crosses a vehicle roadway. Then, we will rank the crossing by how protected it is using Google Maps. Ranking will occur as follows:

July 7, 2022 | Page 21
• Fully protected by grade separation or a signalized intersection with cyclist protections. • Semi-protected at an at-grade crossing with a beacon system, or with a signal but without cyclist protections.
• Unprotected at an at-grade crossing, which includes none of the improvements listed above.

This exercise will be conducted for low-stress bikeway crossings of all arterials and major collectors in each subarea. The types of roadways included in this exercise are interstates, freeways, expressways, other principal arterials, minor arterials, and major collectors. The only roadways not included in this exercise are minor collectors and local routes.

Safety RTOs

NUMBER OF KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED (KSI) COLLISIONS
DKS will obtain KSI collisions data for Contra Costa County from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and will then geocode and clean the data to form the basis for the RTO. The number of KSI collisions will be tabulated and mapped by subregion.

NUMBER OF BIKE- OR PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS
This RTO will be developed using the same TIMS data set described above. The number of bicycle- or pedestrian-involved KSI collisions will be tabulated and mapped by subregion.

NUMBER OF BIKE- OR PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS WITHIN 500 FEET OF A SCHOOL This RTO will be developed using the same TIMS data set described previously. The project team will use GIS school site polygon data to create a 500-foot buffer around school sites and determine which of the geocoded collisions occurred within these school site buffers. The resulting data will be tabulated and mapped by subregion. The number of crash records is expected to be low, so the records identified through GIS analysis will be individually reviewed to confirm that the crashes involve student bicyclists or pedestrians.

Equity RTOs

PROPORTION OF KSI AND BIKE- OR PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS THAT OCCUR IN

EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITIES
This RTO will be developed using the same TIMS data set described for the Safety RTOs. Using GIS, this analysis will map the boundaries of identified Equity Priority Communities (EPCs). For each subregion and the county as a whole, the proportion of collisions occurring in EPCs will be reported and mapped.

This RTO would not be tracked in Action Plans that do not contain EPCs, including Tri-Valley and Lamorinda.

July 7, 2022 | Page 22
SHARE OF COUNTY JOBS THAT CAN BE REACHED BY EPC RESIDENTS WITH A 30-MINUTE

DRIVE, AS COMPARED TO COUNTY RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE
DKS will compare the model’s map of TAZs to identified EPCs in Contra Costa and identify each TAZ as either “EPC” on “non-EPC.” DKS will then calculate which TAZs can be reached within a 30-minute drive from each TAZ in the study area andwill sum the number of jobs within those TAZs. The average number of jobs per TAZ that are reachable within 30 minutes will be calculated for EPC and non-EPC TAZs, and the results will be compared to each other. Since this analysis has not been completed, it is unknown if there is any correlation in the data. If there is no correlation, the RTO will be recommended to move forward. This RTO would not be tracked in Action Plans that do not contain EPCs, including Tri-Valley and Lamorinda.

SHARE OF COUNTY JOBS THAT CAN BE REACHED BY EPC RESIDENTS WITH A 45-MINUTE

TRANSIT TRIP, AS COMPARED TO COUNTY RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE DKS will use the TAZs identified as “EPC” and “non-EPC” in the previous RTO to calculate which TAZs can be reached within a 45-minute transit trip from each TAZ in the study area. DKS will then sum the number of jobs within those TAZs. The average number of jobs per TAZ that are reachable by a 45- minute transit trip will be calculated for EPC and non-EPC TAZs, and the results will be compared to each other. Since this analysis has not been completed, it is unknown if there is any correlation in the data. If there is no correlation, the RTO will be recommended to move forward. This RTO would not be tracked in Action Plans that do not contain EPCs, including Tri-Valley and Lamorinda.

PROPORTION OF EPC ACRES THAT ARE NOT WITHIN A QUARTER-MILE DISTANCE OF A

TRANSIT STOP SERVED BY HIGH-QUALITY TRANSIT
GIS data will be used to map the EPC boundaries and all high-quality transit stops in the CCTA area. A buffer of a quarter mile will be created around the high-quality transit stops to determine if there are any portions of EPCs that are not within this buffer. A calculation will then be made to determine how many acres of EPCs in each subregion are not within the buffer and thereby not served by high-quality transit. This RTO would not be tracked in Action Plans that do not contain EPCs, including Tri-Valley and Lamorinda.

Climate Change RTOs

SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE MODE SHARE
The methodology for this RTO will be identical to the methodology for the “Mode Share of Transit Trips” RTO, except that the metric associated with this RTO will track a decrease in overall single-occupant vehicle (SOV) mode share, not an increase as desired for transit and bicycle/pedestrian mode share. See the previous section for more details.

July 7, 2022 | Page 23

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER CAPITA
VMT per capita will be modeled for the 2019 Base Year and Baseline 2050 condition using outputs from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model. Scripts tabulating VMT per capita at the residential location and VMT per employee at the worksite for each TAZ have already been developed as part of CCTA’s Technical Procedures update. Final processing will be done in a spreadsheet, and results will be tabulated by subregion.

TRANSPORTATION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS PER CAPITA
This RTO will be based on the VMT data developed, as described previously. DKS will divide the VMT by speed bin and time period to create inputs for the most recent Emission Factor (EMFAC) mobile source emissions model maintained by the California Air Resources Board. Subregional scenarios will be created for the 2019 Base Year and 2050 Baseline conditions. Total tons of GHG emissions will be divided by the subregional population assumed in the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model to arrive at average daily GHG emissions per capita (in tons).

ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE OWNERSHIP IN THE SUBREGION
The California Energy Commission tracks zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) ownership in partnership with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Data are updated annually in April and are published on the Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Statistics web page.

Vehicle population is also updated annually in April, to reflect the number of vehicles on the road during the previous calendar year. The vehicle population numberincludes vehicles whose registration is either current or less than 35 days expired.

PlaceWorks will assemble this data and disaggregate it by subregion. Total registrations by vehicle type are available by county and zip code, so a rough approximation of ownership by subregion is possible.

Technology RTOs

LEVEL OF ETHERNET-BASED SIGNAL INTERCONNECTION
Interconnected signal systems are those that communicate with other signals or systems. Signal interconnect helps in establishing a connection between the traffic signals and the central system, which enables remote access to the signals from the local agency locations or the Traffic Management or Operations Center. This will allow signal timings to be adjusted remotely, during regular day-to-day operations, during major incidents, and during special events. Interconnection enables crossjurisdiction communications, coordination, and data exchange to respond to varying traffic conditions.

July 7, 2022 | Page 24
Information will be collected from cities regarding signal systems to identify percentage of signals that are currently interconnected through ethernet-based communications. The assembled data will determine the level of signal interconnection as compared to the total number of signals with the jurisdiction and countywide as a whole.

RTOs Considered but Not Recommended

WAIT TIME FOR PARATRANSIT
Several RTPC TAC members expressed interest in an RTO relating to wait time for paratransit services.

The project team met with CCTA staff and consultant Nelson Nygaard to discuss their work with paratransit services and other accessible transit in the county. This group prepared CCTA’s Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan in 2021, which provides a detailed catalog of existing accessible transportation facilities in the county, needed improvements, and goals and strategies to address gaps in service. Upon recommendation from this group, the Action Plans and Countywide Transportation Plan will include language and actions that refer to the Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan but will not include an RTO related to such service.

SPEED REDUCTION
Several RTPC TAC members stated that reducing typical travel speeds on surface streets around Contra Costa, especially in areas where prevailing speeds exceed designated speed limits, may improve overall safety. Reducing vehicular speeds is critical to improve safety outcomes and make streets more comfortable for active users such as bicyclists and pedestrians.

CCTA’s Vision Zero effort includes speed reduction as a defined goal. The CCTA Vision Zero Implementation Guide for Local Jurisdictions points to encouraging safe speeds as a key priority, and notes that “[managing] speeds is critical to achieving zero fatalities because the kinetic transfer of energy from vehicles traveling at high speeds is much greater than at lower speeds, and results in more fatalities and more injuries, increasing in severity as speeds increase.” It additionally suggests that local jurisdictions “[identify] high-speed corridors based on speed surveys and Safety Priority Locations Maps.

The concentration of locations on high-speed arterials reveals a relationship between speed and traffic collisions resulting in fatal or severe injuries.”
Mobile device data can be used to measure existing prevailing speeds on specific roadways, so an RTO could be defined that monitors prevailing speeds along specific corridors and sets a goal to reduce those prevailing speeds over time. However, this mobile device data can be difficult to gather, especially within a large geographic area, so use of this data is not practical for this RTO. However, the CCTA countywide travel model also produces estimates of vehicular speed along each road segment, and that data could hypothetically be used to forecast changes in travel speeds under various future scenarios.

Thus, gathering data for this RTO is possible.

July 7, 2022 | Page 25
Regardless, a potential RTO relating to speed reduction is not as relevant to land use as the RTOs described previously. Therefore, the project team does not propose to move forward with this RTO.

USE OF SHARED (POOLED) TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES Data assembled before the pandemic showed that the emerging presence of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), such as Lyft and Uber, were leading to increases in VMT and congestion, but that shared TNC rides (also referred to as pooled rides), in which several unrelated riders share a vehicle for a trip, could result in reductions in VMT and congestion. For this reason, many experts suggested that shared TNC rides should be considered, and several RTPC TAC members thought it would be useful to track the proportion of TNC rides that are shared.

However, the pandemic has led to the cancellation of shared services by both Lyft and Uber in the greater Bay Area market, so it is impossible to track such rides today. Moreover, data from Lyft and Uber is not readily available and is difficult to obtain. For these reasons, no RTO regarding shared TNC rides is recommended at this time, but one could be added if shared services are reinstated, and data can be collected from TNCs.

NUMBER OF SHARED SCOOTERS, SHARED BICYCLES, AND PUBLIC AUTONOMOUS

VEHICLES THAT ARE DEPLOYED
Several RTPC TAC members indicated that they’d like to track micromobility programs through the Action Plans. Potential metrics included the number of shared devices deployed, miles of rides completed, and number of operators, among others. However, there is only one subarea with an active micromobility program and only one other subarea currently pursuing deployment of their own. To determine feasibility of this RTO, the project team met with these jurisdictions and government relations staff at micromobility operator Lime. Lime and local jurisdiction staff expressed support for increasing the number of micromobility programs. However, it was agreed that the most efficient use of time and funding is to first support CCTA in taking a regional leadership role similar in the way that the Transportation Authority of Marin and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority have done.

This role could include working with operators and jurisdictions to create a draft ordinance and/or Request for Proposals or a set of model standards for the local jurisdictions to adopt locally. Therefore, the project team proposes that micromobility programs be addressed in the Action Plans as actions and not as an RTO. The action will consider a micromobility RTO in the next iteration of Action Plans.

PAVEMENT CONDITION ON THE COUNTYWIDE LOW-STRESS BIKE NETWORK Several RTPC TAC members indicated that condition of pavement along bicycle and pedestrian routes could potentially encourage or deter their use. The project team explored how and where pavement condition on these facilities is measured to determine if this RTO would be feasible. The project team found that there are no programs that track pavement condition on the entirety of the countywide LSBN. Pavement condition is currently tracked in a few areas of the county:

July 7, 2022 | Page 26
• Some portions of the LSBN are on arterial roadways, which, in some cases, do have a tracking system for pavement condition. However, pavement condition data for these arterial roadways is limited to the portion used by vehicles and does not include shoulder bicycle or pedestrian facilities.
• The East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) measures Pavement Condition Index (PCI) on their off-street bicycle facilities. This data is used by the EBRPD to determine where pavement needs to be enhanced or replaced on their facilities. However, the project team discussed this potential RTO with EBRPD staff and heard that the PCI is not considered a truly accurate measurement of overall pavement condition. EBRPD staff noted that the tool is tailored for vehicle roadways and does not account for varying pavement conditions resulting from tree uprooting, settling, or damage.

Given that no comprehensive data regarding pavement conditions on bikeways currently exists, no RTO regarding this topic is recommended at this time.

AVERAGE COMMUTE TIME FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS VERSUS HIGHER-INCOME

RESIDENTS
Various RTPC TAC members were interested to know if there is a correlation between the time that commuters spend traveling to and from work and their income. Specifically, RTPC TAC members were curious to know if low-income commuters spend a disproportionately longer amount of time traveling to work than higher-income commuters. They wanted to determine:
• Is there a correlation between household income and total commute time? • Is there a correlation between household income and transit commute time? • Is there a correlation between household income and driving (solo) commute time? Commute time and income can be estimated through data collected by the ACS, as published by the Census Bureau. The ACS estimates only cover work commute tripsfor workers 16 years of age and over.

The current data release includes one-year estimates for 2019. The project team pulled this ACS data and calculated the average travel time in each census tract by dividing the aggregate travel time by the number of workers over 16 that commute to work. The finding from this exercise was that the correlation value was 0.3, indicating a weak correlation between all three commute types and household income. Due to this lack of correlation, the project team moved forward to check related questions, including:
• Is there any correlation between income and the percentage of commuters at 19 minutes or less (total of three commute time groups)?
• Is there any correlation between income and the percentage of commuters at 60 minutes or more?
• Is there any higher commute time for tracts inside of EPCs vs those outside EPCs?

July 7, 2022 | Page 27
A detailed examination revealed that none of these questions resulted in a strong correlation.

Therefore, the project team could not make a conclusion that household income is directly related to the amount of time that commuters spend traveling to and from work. For these reasons, the project team does not propose moving forward with this RTO.

MILES OF ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ESTIMATED TO BE VULNERABLE TO SEALEVEL RISE RTPC TAC members and the project team indicated interest in how rising sea levels would potentially impact RRS. PlaceWorks identified all key facilities subject to inundation through sea-level rise, which were limited to bay shore areas in West, Central, and East County. These facilities subject to inundation were determined using RRS maps, which the project team then overlaid with sea-level rise projections.

The sea-level rise projections are also used in Contra Costa County’s ongoing Climate Action Plan and 2019 Vulnerability Assessment, congruent with best practices. Through this exercise, the project team determined that the majority of RRS or other infrastructure are in areas where private property owners and entities, such as Union Pacific Railroad, will likely work with local agencies to protect their infrastructure, thereby reducing the need for local intervention. In cases where local intervention or action would need to occur, sea-level rise adaptation planning will occur incrementally over time and is likely already being considered, such as through the current update to the Contra Costa County General Plan and Climate Action Plan and regional work through agencies such as the Association of Bay Area Governments and State working groups. Furthermore, it is difficult to know the true extent of infrastructure impacted by sea-level rise due to elevation of existing roadways (that may not be at sea level, such as the Carquinez Bridge) and unknowns related to vital infrastructure along these routes that may not be identified, such as bus storage lots or utility boxes. For these reasons, the project team does not propose moving forward with this RTO.

PERCENTAGE OF VULNERABLE RRS FOR WHICH REMEDIATION PLANS OR A MITIGATION

APPROACH HAVE BEEN CREATED
Much like the above RTO, the RTPCs and project staff wanted to know if there were existing or proposed remediation plans or mitigation approaches to address the RRS that are vulnerable to sea-level rise inundation. Since the project team does not propose moving forward with the above RTO, we recommend not moving forward with this subsequent RTO.

........................................................................................................................

ATTACHMENT 2:

RTO ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM

........................................................................................................................ Page 85

MEMORANDUM
DATE July 7, 2022; Revised July 14, 2022
TO John Hoang and Matt Kelly, CCTA
FROM David Early and Torina Wilson, PlaceWorks
Erin Vaca, DKS Associates
SUBJECT Regional Transportation Objectives Analysis Memorandum The Action Plan planning process will incorporate performance metrics known as Regional Transportation Objectives (RTOs) that address transportation modes such as driving, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian travel, along with nonmodal topics of safety, equity, climate change, and technology.

This memorandum presents the initial results of modeling and data collection for each of these RTOs for the Central County subregion, and it presents performance targets for each RTO based on the modeling and data collection results.

This memorandum was compiled and authored by PlaceWorks. DKS conducted the modeling and wrote most of the text regarding the roadway, mode share, collision, and climate change RTOs. PlaceWorks prepared the content for the remaining RTOs.

The RTOs and proposed performance targets are summarized in Table 1.

Information about the methods used to calculate this data is contained in the RTO Methodology Memorandum dated July 7, 2022.

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 2
TABLE 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVES FOR CENTRAL COUNTY SUBREGION Facility Type or
Planning Focus Metric Definition Existing Target Proposed 2027 Target Proposed 2050 Target Roadways
Freeway Delay Index
Freeway Buffer Index
Travel time ratio for congestion vs. free-flow
conditions
Proportion of added travel time between the 95th
percentile and the average
Delay Index:

DI≤4.0 (I-680)
DI≤3.0 (SR-242)
DI≤5.0 (SR-4)
None
Delay Index:

DI≤4.0 (I-680)
DI≤3.0 (SR-242)
DI≤5.0 (SR-4)

0.50 Delay Index:

DI≤4.0 (I-680)
DI≤3.0 (SR-242)
DI≤5.0 (SR-4)

0.50 Intersection
Level of Service (LOS) Average control delay during peak hours LOS F at selected
intersections,
including: Geary
Road and North
Main Street; Treat
Boulevard and
Geary Road; Treat
Boulevard and
Bancroft Road;
Ygnacio Valley Road
and Bancroft Road;
Ygnacio Valley Road
and Civic Drive
LOS D
in all areas except for
downtowns, key school
sites, and freeway ramps;
LOS E at freeway ramps;
no LOS standards for
downtowns, key school
sites, or TPAs, or at the
following intersections:

Geary Road and North
Main Street; Treat
Boulevard and Geary Road;
Treat Boulevard and
Bancroft Road; Ygnacio
Valley Road and Bancroft
Road; Ygnacio Valley Road
and Civic Drive
LOS D
in all areas except for
downtowns, key school
sites, and freeway ramps;
LOS E at freeway ramps;
no LOS standards for
downtowns, key school
sites, or TPAs, or at the
following intersections:

Geary Road and North
Main Street; Treat
Boulevard and Geary Road;
Treat Boulevard and
Bancroft Road; Ygnacio
Valley Road and Bancroft
Road; Ygnacio Valley Road
and Civic Drive
Roadway Segment LOS
outside of urban areas Average speed during peak hours None LOS E (≤40mph) LOS E
(≤40mph)
Transit
Transit Mode Share Proportion of daily person trips using transit None 13% commute trips 26% of commute trips Travel Time Ratio Ratio of peak commute period travel time on transit to drive alone auto travel time for key corridors None Transit time ≤ auto travel time
Transit time ≤ auto travel
time
Active
Transportation
Bicycle Mode Share Proportion of daily person trips made by bicycle None 6% all trips

2.5% commute trips
12% all trips
5% for commute trips,
Low Stress Bike Network
(LSBN) Proportion of the LSBN that is complete None 29.5% 100% LSBN Crossings Number of locations the LSBN crosses a roadway and is considered to be unprotected None None None

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 3
Facility Type or
Planning Focus Metric Definition Existing Target Proposed 2027 Target Proposed 2050 Target Safety
KSI Collisions Number of crashes resulting in fatality or injury None Bike-Ped Collisions Zero fatality and severe injury crashes Number of KSI crashes involving a bicyclist of pedestrian None
Bike-Ped Collisions near
Schools
Number of bicycle or pedestrian involved KSI
collisions occurring within 500 feet of schools None
Equity
KSI Collisions in EPCs Proportion of KSI collisions that occur in EPCs None Zero fatality and severe injury crashes Job Share Accessible by
driving in EPCs
Share of jobs accessible by EPCs residents with a 30-
minute drive None 68% of jobs accessible 77% of jobs accessible Job Share Accessible by
transit in EPCs
Share of jobs accessible by EPCs residents with a 45-
minute transit trip None 58% of jobs accessible 100% of jobs accessible High Quality Transit
Access in EPCs
Number of people in EPCs not within a quarter-mile
distance of a transit stop served by high quality
transit
None 40% 100%
Climate Change
SOV Mode Share Proportion of daily person trips made by single occupant vehicle None 50% 40%
GHG Emissions per
Capita Tons of CO2 emissions None 17 lbs per capita Zero transportation related EV Ownership Number of battery electric vehicles owned by subregion residents None 50% market penetration 100% market penetration VMT per capita Home-based vehicle miles traveled per capita None 26.6 VMT 21 VMT Technology Level of Signal
Interconnection Number of connected signals None 101 101

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 4
Mode Share RTOs
Mode share is considered in RTOs regarding the transit, bike/pedestrian, and climate change topics.

Since mode share is relevant to three separate topics, information on it is presented in this section.

Specific RTOs for each mode are contained in the sections below.

REPORTED CURRENT COMMUTE MODE SHARE
The American Community Survey (ACS) estimates published by the Census Bureau reports the number of work trips by mode. An estimated mode share based on this data is shown in Table 2 shows the commute mode share for Contra Costa County and the Central County subregion. As shown, about 78 percent of the work trips in Contra Costa County are made by automobile while 76 percent are made by automobile in the Central County subregion.

TABLE 2. MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CENTRAL COUNTY SUBREGION (2019) Mode
Contra Costa County Central County Subregion
Estimate
Margin
of Error
Percent
Mode
Share Estimate
Margin
of
Error
Percent
Mode
Share
Total: 544,376 ±3,447 166,294 ±3445
Car, truck, or van - drove alone 367,467 ±3,409 68% 111,651 ±2793 67% Car, truck, or van - carpooled 62,385 ±2,486 11% 14,516 ±1141 9% Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 59,068 ±1,981 11% 21,336 ±1128 13% Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, walked, or
other means
19,344 ±2,462 4% 7,601 ±851 5%
Worked from home 36,112 ±1,310 7% 11,188 ±780 7%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B08301.

MODELED COMMUTE MODE SHARE
Mode shares for the home-based work trip purpose have been calculated based on the residence location (Table 3) or the work location (Table 4). These tables report mode shares for both Central County and the Planning Area as a whole. The modeling results show that most work trips by Central County residents are made by automobile, specifically driving alone. Central County’s transit mode share for work trips is slightly higher than the Planning Area’s, reflecting the availability of BART service.

Bicycling and walking account for a very small portion of commute trips made by Central County residents (note that the bicycle mode share only reflects those trips made by bicycle from beginning to end and does not count access trips to and from transit stops).

Commuters to jobs located within Central County predominantly use the automobile modes to get to work, specifically driving alone. Transit, bicycling, and walking account for very small shares of this market. Transit accounts for about 2 percent of this market while bicycling and walking account for a bit over 3 percent. Commute mode shares are predicted to remain much the same by 2050.

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 5
TABLE 3. MODELED HOME-BASED JOURNEY-TO-WORK MODE SHARE – CENTRAL COUNTY RESIDENTS Planning Area Central County
2019 2050 Baseline 2019 2050 Baseline
Drive Alone Auto 73% 73% 72% 70%
Carpool 14% 13% 13% 13%
Transit 11% 12% 13% 13%
Bike 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%
Walk 1.3% 1.4% 2% 3%
Source: CCTA travel demand model and DKS Associates.

Note: Mode shares calculated with home-based work person trip ends at the production (home location) zone. Totals may not add due to rounding.

TABLE 4. MODELED HOME-BASED JOURNEY-TO-WORK MODE SHARE –JOBS LOCATED IN CENTRAL COUNTY

Planning Area Central County
2019 2050 Baseline 2019 2050 Baseline
Drive Alone Auto 83% 81% 83% 80%
Carpool 12% 12% 12% 13%
Transit 2% 3% 2% 3%
Bike 0.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.7%
Walk 2% 2% 3% 3%
Source: CCTA travel demand model and DKS Associates.

Note: Mode shares calculated with home-based work person trip ends at the attraction (work location) zone. Totals may not add due to rounding.

MODE SHARE FOR ALL TRIP PURPOSES
Table 5 reports the mode share calculated for all trip purposes included in the CCTA travel demand model – home-based work, home-based shopping, home-based social/recreation, non-home-based, home-based grade school, home-based high school, and home-based college. The modeling results show that most trips are currently made by automobile, with transit and active transportation modes accounting for about 11 percent of all trips.

By 2050, the mode shares are expected to remain similar to existing conditions, with only a slight decrease in drive alone, increase in carpooling share, and decreases in transit and active transportation mode shares.

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 6
TABLE 5. MODE SHARE FOR ALL TRIPS– CENTRAL COUNTY SUBREGION RESIDENTS Planning Area Central County
2019 2050 Baseline 2019 2050 Baseline
Drive Alone Auto 63% 62% 64% 63%
Carpool 27% 27% 25% 28.7%
Transit 3% 4% 4% 2.5%
Bike 1% 1% 0.5% 0.9%
Walk 6% 6% 7% 4.6%
Source: CCTA travel demand model and DKS Associates.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Freeway RTOs
Freeway Route of Regional Significance (RRS) in the Central County subregion include:
• I-680 between the Benicia Martinez Bridge and SR-24.
• I-680 from SR-24 to Livorna Road.
• SR-242 from SR-4 at Port Chicago Highway to I-680 at Willow Pass Road. • SR-4 from Cummings Skyway to Willow Pass Road.

PEAK HOUR DELAY INDEX ON SELECT FREEWAY SEGMENTS
The delay index is a measure of delay experienced by motorists on a roadway segment during a peak commute hour in a single direction. The delay index is calculated by measuring the time it takes to travel a segment of road during peak-period congested conditions and comparing it to the time it takes to travel the same segment during uncongested, free-flow conditions. The delay index may also be calculated as the ratio of congested speed to uncongested speed, given that the distance is fixed on any given corridor.

Baseline observed and modeled results for freeway delay index on the freeway Routes of Regional Significance are shown in Table 6. As shown, freeway corridors with especially high levels of delay (greater than 1.5 delay index) include I-680 south of SR-24 (northbound in the p.m. and southbound in the a.m.) and SR-242 (northbound in the p.m.), and SR-4 (eastbound in the p.m.). The modeled condition for 2050 shows similar patterns.

Based on current performance and the future modeled performance, it is proposed that the previous delay index standards be maintained.

BUFFER INDEX ON SELECT FREEWAY SEGMENTS
The buffer index represents the extra buffer time (or time cushion) that most travelers add to their average travel time when planning trips to ensure on-time arrival. This extra time is added to account for any unexpected delay. The buffer index is expressed as a percentage and its value increases as

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 7
reliability gets worse. For example, a buffer index of 40 percent means that, for a 20-minute average travel time, a traveler should budget an additional 8 minutes (20 minutes × 40 percent = 8 minutes) to ensure on-time arrival most of the time. In this example, the 8 extra minutes is called the buffer time.

The buffer index is computed as the difference between the 95th percentile travel time and average travel time, divided by the average travel time.

Baseline observed and modeled results are shown in Table 6. The observed buffer index for existing conditions and peak direction of travel ranges from 0.10 to 0.43, reflecting a high degree of travel time variability in some of the corridors.

The existing Central County Action Plan does not have a buffer index performance target set for any RRS. The proposed performance target for the buffer index is 0.50, which means that the extra travel time that must be considered for travelers would be no more than half of the average travel time over the corridor. This target appears attainable for most of the RRS corridors based on current performance.

TABLE 6. FREEWAY RTOS
Route of Regional
Significance
2019 Observed 2050 Baseline Modeled
Avg Speed a Delay Index Buffer Index Avg Speed a Delay Index Interstate 680 n/o SR-24
Northbound – a.m. 64.7 1.0 0.06 64.8 1.0
Northbound – p.m. 44.6 1.5 0.30 49.4 1.3
Southbound – a.m. 46.3 1.4 0.39 49.9 1.3
Southbound – p.m. 63.4 1.0 0.29 64.7 1.0
Interstate 680 s/o SR-24
Northbound – a.m. 64.4 1.0 0.06 68.5 0.9
Northbound – p.m. 27.1 2.4 0.30 27.4 2.4
Southbound – a.m. 33.9 1.9 0.39 36.9 1.8
Southbound – p.m. 45.3 1.4 0.29 50.1 1.3
SR 242
Northbound – a.m. 63.7 1.0 0.10 63.3 1.0
Northbound – p.m. 22.9 2.8 0.37 30.3 2.1
Southbound – a.m. 43.4 1.5 0.26 46.3 1.4
Southbound– p.m. 64.4 1.0 0.11 60.5 1.1
State Route 4
Eastbound – a.m. 55.0 1.2 0.36 56.1 1.2
Eastbound – p.m. 26.9 2.4 0.43 56.1 1.2
Westbound – a.m. 44.1 1.5 0.27 58.5 1.1
Westbound – p.m. 61.7 1.0 0.11 65.1 1.0

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 8
Surface Roadway RTOs

PEAK HOUR LOS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS IN URBAN AREAS
This RTO will be applied to signalized intersections along the defined arterial RRS. Signalized Intersection LOS is a delay-based qualitative measure of traffic conditions at a signalized intersection. LOS is expressed in ratings from “A” through “F”, with “A” meaning that all traffic clears the intersection in every cycle and “F” meaning that drivers must wait through multiple cycles to clear the intersection.

Signalized intersection LOS is determined based on intersection turning movement counts (also called turning/traffic volumes), intersection geometry, and signal timing data. The CCTA Technical Procedures specify that methods documented in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual be used to measure signalized intersection LOS1
. The relationship between average control delay and LOS is shown in Table 7. The key arterial intersections that are analyzed for LOS will be available in Table 8 by the time of the Round 4 meeting.

The existing Central County Action Plan specifies that LOS F is acceptable at selected intersections, including:
• Geary Road and North Main Street
• Treat Boulevard and Geary Road
• Treat Boulevard and Bancroft Road
• Ygnacio Valley Road and Bancroft Road
• Ygnacio Valley Road and Civic Drive
Congestion in downtown areas often results from economically- and socially positive increased activity, so it is considered acceptable. Congestion at freeway ramps is often unavoidable since large numbers of trips are concentrated in areas where motorists get onto freeways. Therefore, the proposed performance targets for signalized intersection LOS for the Central County subregion is as follows:
• LOS D in all areas except downtowns, at key schools, and freeway. • LOS E at freeway ramps.
• No LOS standard for downtowns, key schools, or Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), or at the following intersections: Geary Road and North Main Street; Treat Boulevard and Geary Road; Treat Boulevard and Bancroft Road; Ygnacio Valley Road and Bancroft Road; Ygnacio Valley Road and Civic Drive.

TABLE 7. INTERSECTION LOS DEFINITIONS
Control Delay (Seconds/Vehicle) LOS
≤10 A
1 The Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition was published by the Transportation Research Board in January 2022.

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 9
>10-20 B
>20-35 C
>35-55 D
>55-80 E
>80 F
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Exhibit 19-8

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 10
TABLE 8. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LOS [DATA IN PROGRESS AND FORTHCOMING] Intersection
2019 A.M. 2019 P.M. 2050 A.M. 2050 P.M.

LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

ALHAMBRA AVE & ALHAMBRA VALLEY RD

ALHAMBRA AVE & D ST

ALHAMBRA AVE & ELDERWOOD DR

ALHAMBRA AVE & PASO NOGAL RD/VIRGINIA HILLS DR
ALHAMBRA AVE & SR-4 WB RAMPS
ALHAMBRA AVE & STATE ROUTE 4 (SR-4) EB RAMPS

BAILEY RD & CONCORD BLVD

CLAYTON RD & AYERS RD

CLAYTON RD & BABEL LN

CLAYTON RD & BAILEY RD

CLAYTON RD & DETROIT AVE

CLAYTON RD & FARM BUREAU RD

CLAYTON RD & GATEWAY BLVD

CLAYTON RD & MARSH CREEK RD

CLAYTON RD & OAKHURST DR

CLAYTON RD & PARK ST

CLAYTON RD & TERRY LYNN LN
CLAYTON RD/MARKET ST & SR-242 RAMPS

CONTRA COSTA BLVD & CONCORD AVE/CHILPANCINGO PKWY
CONTRA COSTA BLVD & GREGORY LN/I-680 SB OFF-RAMP
CONTRA COSTA BLVD & I-680 SB ON/OFF RAMPS

CONTRA COSTA BLVD & MONUMENT BLVD

GEARY RD & PLEASANT HILL RD
I-680 NB OFF RAMP & RUDGEAR RD
I-680 NB ON RAMP & ELENA CT

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 11
Intersection
2019 A.M. 2019 P.M. 2050 A.M. 2050 P.M.

LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
I-680 NB RAMPS & MARINA VISTA AVE
I-680 NB RAMPS & OLYMPIC BLVD
I-680 NB RAMPS & S MAIN ST
I-680 NB RAMPS & WILLOW PASS RD
I-680 RAMPS & MONUMENT BLVD
I-680 SB OFF RAMP & MONUMENT BLVD
I-680 SB ON RAMP & RUDGEAR RD
I-680 SB RAMP & HILLSIDE AVE
I-680 SB RAMPS & MARINA VISTA AVE
I-680 SB RAMPS & OLYMPIC BLVD
I-680 SB RAMPS & S MAIN ST
I-680 SB RAMPS & WILLOW PASS RD

KIRKER PASS RD & CONCORD BLVD

MAIN ST & OAK PARK BLVD

MARINA VISTA AVE & SHELL AVE

MONUMENT BLVD & CLAYTON RD
MONUMENT BLVD & I-680 NB RAMPS
N MAIN ST & I-680 NB OFF RAMP/PENNIMAN WAY
N MAIN ST & I-680 RAMPS/SUNNYVALE AVE
N MAIN ST & SB 680 OFF RAMP

N MAIN ST & TREAT BLVD/GEARY RD

PACHECO BLVD & BLUM RD

PACHECO BLVD & CENTER AVE

PACHECO BLVD & GOLF CLUB RD

PACHECO BLVD & HOWE RD

PACHECO BLVD & MORELLO AVE

PACHECO BLVD & MUIR RD

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 12
Intersection
2019 A.M. 2019 P.M. 2050 A.M. 2050 P.M.

LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

PACHECO BLVD & SHELL AVE
SB I-680 ON RAMP/RUDGEAR RD & DANVILLE BLVD
SR-242 NB OFF RAMP & OLIVERA RD
SR-242 NB ON RAMP & CONCORD AVE
SR-242 NB RAMPS & GRANT ST
SR-242 SB ON RAMP & CONCORD AVE
SR-242 SB RAMPS & SOLANO WAY
SR-4 EB RAMPS & CENTER AVE
SR-4 EB RAMPS & MORELLO AVE
SR-4 WB RAMPS & ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY
SR-4 WB RAMPS & CENTER AVE
SR-4 WB RAMPS & MORELLO AVE
SR-4 WB RAMPS & PORT CHICAGO HWY

TAYLOR BLVD & GRAYSON RD

TAYLOR BLVD & MORELLO AVE/MERCURY WAY

TAYLOR BLVD & PLEASANT HILL RD

TREAT BLVD & BANCROFT RD

TREAT BLVD & BUSKIRK AVE

TREAT BLVD & CLAYTON RD

TREAT BLVD & COWELL RD

TREAT BLVD & OAK GROVE RD

TREAT BLVD & OAK RD

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & ALBERTA WAY/PINE HOLLOW RD

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & AYERS RD

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & CAMPUS DR

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & CIVIC DR

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & CLAYTON RD

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 13
Intersection
2019 A.M. 2019 P.M. 2050 A.M. 2050 P.M.

LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & COWELL RD/MONTECITO DR
YGNACIO VALLEY RD & I-680 SB ON RAMP

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & N CALIFORNIA BLVD

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & OAK GROVE RD

YGNACIO VALLEY RD & WALNUT AVE
Notes: Delay is average control delay reported in seconds. Cells that are bolded indicate performance below target.

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 14
FIGURE 1. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY RRS - CENTRAL COUNTY

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 15

PEAK HOUR SEGMENT LOS ON SELECTED TWO-LANE ROADWAYS OUTSIDE OF URBAN AREAS
Roadway segment LOS is a measure of traffic efficiency and smoothness of flow along roadway segments that are not constrained by a nearby traffic signal. This has been calculated in accordance with the methods specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual using average speed for Class I highways (Class I highways are two-lane facilities in largely rural areas that motorists expect to traverse at relatively high speed).

For the Central County subregion, this metric is applied to:
• Bailey Road from Concord Boulevard to the RTPC Boundary. • Kirker Pass Road from Clearbrook Drive to the RTPC Boundary.

The segment LOS is related to average speed, as shown in Table 9. Table 10 lists the two-lane roadway corridors analyzed for the Central County subregion and reports the existing and forecasted LOS.

Much of the roadway corridors operate at LOS E, corresponding to speeds at or under 40 mph.

The existing Central County Action Plan does not have an adopted LOS threshold for any two-lane rural roadways. The recommended performance target for this metric is LOS E, which would essentially maintain the current performance.

TABLE 9. LOS FOR TWO-LANE ROADWAYS
LOS Average Speed (MPH)
A >55
B >50-55
C >45-50
D >40-45
E ≤40
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Exhibit 15-3.

TABLE 10. ROADWAY CORRIDOR LOS FOR TWO-WAY ROADWAYS OUTSIDE OF URBAN AREAS Route of Regional
Significance
Time of
Day Direction
2019 2050
Avg Speed LOS Avg Speed LOS
Bailey Road A.M. EB 32.0 E 33.9 E
Bailey Road P.M. EB 34.6 E 48.9 C
Bailey Road A.M. WB 40.1 D 59.4 A
Bailey Road P.M. WB 39.8 E 57.4 A
Kirker Pass Road A.M. EB 32.0 E 25.5 E
Kirker Pass Road P.M. EB 34.6 E 51.4 B
Kirker Pass Road A.M. WB 40.1 D 55.0 A
Kirker Pass Road P.M. WB 39.8 E 50.5 A
Source: Inrix Roadway Analytics, CCTA Travel Demand Model

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 16
Transit RTOs

MODE SHARE OF TRANSIT TRIPS
As shown in Table 3 in the first section of this memo (“Mode Share”), 13 percent of Central County residents commute to work using transit, compared to 11 percent of residents within the planning area.

Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate that the model output predicts that this number will remain at 13 percent of home-based work mode share based on residence location and increase to 3 percent based on job location. Meanwhile, the model predicts that around 3 percent of all trips (not strictly commute trips) will be taken by transit by 2050.

The existing Central County Action Plan does not have an adopted transit mode share target. Covid has greatly reduced transit trips, so the proposed performance target for transit mode share in the Central County subregion is to return to pre-pandemic levels of 13 percent of home-based work trips by 2027.

We also propose a target is to double the level of home-based work transit trips to 26 percent by 2050.

This is an ambitious goal, but one that will be needed to meet goals to minimize VMT, transportation related GHG emissions and congestion.

RATIO OF TRAVEL TIME FOR TRANSIT AS COMPARED TO AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL TIME

FOR SELECT TRIPS
This metric compares the peak period transit travel time on select corridors to the equivalent single occupant vehicle travel time in the peak commute direction. The key corridor(s) monitored for the Central County subregion along with the comparative travel times are shown in Table 11.

The proposed performance target is that transit travel time should be less than or equal to auto time, when measured from transit station to transit station. As shown in Table 11, BART travel times are currently favorable to driving in the afternoon eastbound direction between the Orinda and 12th Street BART stations. BART travel times are favorable for both the morning westbound and afternoon eastbound directions between the Walnut Creek and Montgomery Street BART stations. By 2050, these patterns are more pronounced, assuming BART service remains constant.

TABLE 11. TRAVEL TIME RATIO FOR AUTOS VS TRANSIT ON KEY CORRIDORS Transit/Drive Alone Time
Corridor Median Drive
Time (Minutes)a
Scheduled
Transit Time
(Minutes) b
2050 Drive
Alonec
Existing 2050

WALNUT CREEK BART STATION - MONTGOMERY STREET BART STATION Morning – Westbound 43.37 37.00 104.57 0.85 0.35
Morning – Eastbound 24.06 35.00 26.26 1.45 1.33
Afternoon- Westbound 29.04 37.00 32.18 1.27 1.15
Afternoon- Eastbound 45.19 35.00 108.80 0.77 0.32
Notes:
a) Range of average driving time for Tuesdays – Thursdays for April 2019 from Inrix Roadway Analytics; b) From published schedules
c) CCTA travel demand model congested time skims for a.m. and p.m. peak periods

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 17
Bike/Pedestrian RTOs

MODE SHARE OF BICYCLING AND WALKING
As shown in Table 3 in the first section of this memo (“Mode Share”), about one percent of Central County residents commute to work through active transportation such as biking or walking. Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate that these shares will increase to over 3 percent of home-based work trips based on residence location as well as job location. As shown in Table 5, the model predicts that only 5 percent of all trips (not strictly commute trips) would be by walking or biking by 2050.

The existing Central County Action Plan does not have an adopted biking or walking mode share target.

The proposed performance target for biking and walking mode share in the Central County subregion is to double the combined mode share for all trips for bikes and walking to 15 percent by 2050. Because biking and walking modes are important to CCTA and their member jurisdictions, the proposed performance target for 2027 is half of the 2050 target, at 7.5 percent. Further, the project team proposes the Central County Action Plan include biking and walking mode share performance targets for commute trips in addition to all trips. The proposed biking and walking performance targets for commute trips are five percent by 2027 and 10 percent by 2050. These are ambitious goals but will be needed to meet goals to minimize VMT, transportation related GHG emissions and congestion.

PROPORTION OF THE COUNTYWIDE LOW STRESS BIKE NETWORK THAT HAS BEEN

COMPLETED
The Low Stress Bike Network (LSBN) is a component of the CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) adopted in 2018. The CBPP introduced a new way of evaluating a facility’s Level of Traffic Stress, in which roadways are evaluated on several factors, including, but not limited to the speed and number of vehicles and presence and width of bicycle facilities. Facilities are given a rating from one (least stressful) to four (most stressful) to evaluate the stress a bike rider will experience. The goal of the 2018 CBPP is to ensure the LSBN is complete and rated either Level of Traffic Stress 1 (most children can feel safe riding on these facilities) or Level of Traffic Stress 2 (The “interested but concerned” adult population will feel safe riding on these facilities). Ultimately, construction of the entire LSBN would result in an increase in bike/pedestrian mode share and a reduction in KSI collisions.

The status of the entire Central County portion of the LSBN is shown in Figure 2. If the entire LSBN in the Central County subregion were completed, it would result in 231.4 miles of Class I and Class IV facilities.

Table 12 shows that 21 percent of Central County’s LSBN is already completed. A further 2 percent of low stress facilities are incomplete yet have an adopted plan to complete the facility. There are projects proposing improvements that would not result in low-stress facilities on an additional 2 percent of the LSBN while 7 percent are proposed for further study. A total of 68 percent of the total LSBN miles are incomplete and do not have a plan to complete them.

We suggest that the region should aim to achieve 100% completion of the LSBN by 2050. We also propose an interim target of 24% (56.6 miles) completion by 2027. This is the sum of existing completed facilities (21%) and 150% of the already proposed low-stress additions to the network (2% x 150% = approximately 3%). This would require completion of the low-stress projects that already have an

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 18
adopted plan, and completion of additional projects on the proposed LSBN. This could include segments on which non-low-stress facilities are currently proposed if those projects are revised to become lowstress projects.

TABLE 12. PROPORTION OF THE CENTRAL COUNTY SUBREGION LSBN THAT IS COMPLETE Status of Facility Miles Percent
Existing Low Stress Facility 49.7 21%
Desired Low Stress Facility with Low Stress Project Proposed 4.7 2% Desired Low Stress Facility with Non-Low Stress Project Proposed 4.3 2% Desired Low Stress Facility with Project Under Study 16.5 7% Desired Low Stress Facility without any Project Proposed or Under Study 156.2 68%

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 19
FIGURE 2. STATUS OF THE CENTRAL COUNTY LSBN

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 20

NUMBER OF LOCATIONS WHERE THE LOW STRESS BIKE NETWORK MAKES AN

UNPROTECTED CROSSING OF A HEAVILY TRAVELED VEHICLE ROUTE For this RTO, PlaceWorks created an ArcGIS point data set, shown in Figure 3, that identifies each location where the existing LSBN crosses a heavily-traveled vehicle route and is considered:
• Fully protected by grade separation or a signalized intersection with cyclist protections. • Semi-protected at an at-grade crossing with a beacon system, or with a signal but without cyclist protections.
• Unprotected at an at-grade crossing which includes none of the improvements listed above.

As illustrated in Figure 3, there are three intersections in the Central County subregion that are currently unprotected. There are three existing intersections that are already fully protected and twenty-four which are semi-protected. The unprotected intersections are:
• Unprotected: Port Chicago Highway crossing an eastbound freeway off-ramp on SR-24. • Unprotected: Briones to Mount Diablo Regional Trail crossing at Buena Vista Avenue north of 1st Avenue.
• Unprotected: Ygnacio Canal Trail and Oak Grove Road Couplet in the southeast direction.

We propose that the Action Plan set a target to modify these three unprotected crossings to be fully protected by 2027. Then, we propose to set a target to modify all semi-protected intersections to become fully protected by 2050.

As the LSBN is completed over time, new locations where the LSBN crosses a heavily traveled vehicle route will be added. Local jurisdictions should install full intersection protections for cyclists and pedestrians at these locations.

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 21
FIGURE 1. TYPES OF CROSSINGS AT INTERSECTIONS OF THE LSBN AND A HEAVILY-TRAVELED ROADWAY

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 22
Safety RTOs
The RTOs presented in this section are based on the injury and fatality crashes reported by the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)2
. TIMS crash records represent cleaned and geocoded
data compiled by the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) maintained by the California Highway Patrol. The statistics reflect the most recent five years available data (January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020).

CCTA has published the Vison Zero & Systemic Transportation Safety “How To” Policy and Implementation Guide and encourages local jurisdictions to adopt and implement Vison Zero Action plans. In addition, an objective found in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is to, “Reduce the rate of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and injuries per capita.” In alignment with the Vision Zero philosophy, the proposed performance target is zero fatalities and severe injuries for each of the below safety RTOs.

NUMBER OF KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED (KSI) COLLISIONS
This RTO tracks the number of bicycle or pedestrian involved KSI crashes from the TIMS data set. The crash locations are depicted in Figure 4. Table 13 summarizes the crashes by type and Table 14 summarizes the crashes by severity.

During the analysis timeframe, there were 6,839 severe injury or fatality crashes throughout the planning subarea. The most common types of crash were rear end and broadside collisions. These collisions resulted in over 106 fatalities and 451 severe injuries.

NUMBER OF BIKE- OR PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS
The crash locations for the Central County subregion are depicted in Figure 5 and summarized by severity in Table 14. During this timeframe, there were 817 bicycle or pedestrian involved crashes, accounting for about 12 percent of all crashes. Thirty-seven of the bicycle or pedestrian crashes resulted in fatalities and 121 resulted in severe injury.

NUMBER OF BIKE- OR PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS WITHIN 500 FEET OF A SCHOOL
This RTO tracks the number of bicycle or pedestrian involved KSI crashes that occur within 500 feet of school campuses. These crash locations are also depicted in Figure 5. A total of 78 crashes occurred near school campuses, 47 of which involved collision with a pedestrian and 31 with a bicyclist, resulting in three fatalities.
2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, University of California, Berkeley. 2022

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 23
FIGURE 4. FATALITY AND INJURY COLLISIONS (2016-2020)

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 24
TABLE 13. INJURY AND FATALITY COLLISION BY CRASH TYPE - CENTRAL COUNTY SUBREGION FROM JANUARY 1, 2016, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020
Crash Type Number of Crashes
Not Stated 118
Head-on 387
Sideswipe 751
Rear End 2,458
Broadside 1,471
Hit Object 931
Overturned 236
Vehicle/Pedestrian 404
Other 83
Total 6,839
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System and DKS Associates TABLE 14. NUMBER OF CRASHES BY SEVERITY - CENTRAL COUNTY SUBREGION FROM JANUARY 1, 2016, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020
Severity Number of Total Crashes Bike and Ped Crashes
Fatal 106 37
Injury (Severe) 451 121
Injury (Other Visible) 1,928 318
Injury (Complaint of Pain) 4,354 341
Total 6,839 817
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System and DKS Associates

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 25
FIGURE 5. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN INVOLVED CRASHES INCLUDING WITHIN 500 FEET OF SCHOOLS

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 26
Equity RTOs

PROPORTION OF KSI AND BIKE- OR PED-INVOLVED COLLISIONS THAT OCCUR IN EPCS This metric tracks the proportion of all collisions that occur within EPCs. Of the 6,839 crashes summarized under Safety RTOs, 773 or about 11 percent occurred within Central County EPCs.

SHARE OF COUNTY JOBS THAT CAN BE REACHED BY EPC RESIDENTS WITH A 30-

MINUTE DRIVE, AS COMPARED TO COUNTY RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE This metric compares the proportion of Contra Costa County jobs reachable within a 30-minute peak period drive from each TAZ in the subregion compared to the proportion of County jobs reachable from all TAZs within subregion EPCs. The number of jobs corresponds to those used in the travel demand model inputs. As shown in Table 15 below, while 83 percent of County jobs are reachable from the Central County subregion, only 63% of County jobs are reachable from within the EPCs. By 2050, the share of County jobs reachable from the Central County region is forecasted to drop slightly to 77 percent while the EPC share rises to 65 percent.

The proposed performance target for this RTO is that the share of accessible jobs from within the EPCs should be equivalent to that of the subregion as a whole by 2027 and 2050. This implies that the EPC accessibility for Central County should rise to 68 percent by 2027 and 77 percent by 2050.

TABLE 15. SHARE OF COUNTY JOBS ACCESSIBLE WITHIN A 30 MINUTE DRIVE GEOGRAPHY JOBS 2019

PERCENT

REACHABLE
2019
COUNT
TAZs
2019
JOBS
2050

PERCENT

REACHABLE
2050
COUNT
TAZs
2019
Contra Costa County 404,286 100% 1,493 530,467 100% 1,493 Central County 336,573 83% 1,154 406,423 77% 1,155
Central County EPCs 255,437 63% 917 345,153 65% 923
SHARE OF COUNTY JOBS THAT CAN BE REACHED BY EPC RESIDENTS WITH A 45-

MINUTE TRANSIT TRIP, AS COMPARED TO COUNTY RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE This metric compares the proportion of Contra Costa County jobs reachable within a 45-minute peak period transit trip from each TAZ in the subregion compared to the proportion of County jobs reachable from all TAZs within subregion EPCs. The number of jobs corresponds to those used in the travel demand model inputs. As shown in Table 16 below, while 100 percent of County jobs are reachable from the Central County subregion, only 43 percent of County jobs are reachable from within the EPCs. By 2050, while the EPC share rises to 51 percent.

The proposed performance target for this RTO is that the share of accessible jobs from within the EPCs should be equivalent to that of the subregion as a whole by 2050, which is 100 percent. This implies that the EPC accessibility for Central County should rise to an interim target of 58 percent by 2027.

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 27
TABLE 16. SHARE OF COUNTY JOBS ACCESSIBLE WITHIN A 45 MINUTE TRANSIT TRIP GEOGRAPHY JOBS 2019

PERCENT

REACHABLE
2019
COUNT
TAZs
2019
JOBS
2050

PERCENT

REACHABLE
2050
COUNT
TAZs
2019
Contra Costa County 404,491 100% 1,495 530,616 100% 1,495 Central County 404,491 100% 1,495 530,616 100% 1,495
Central County EPCs 174,506 43% 570 269,249 51% 626

PROPORTION OF EPC ACRES THAT ARE NOT WITHIN A QUARTER-MILE DISTANCE OF A

TRANSIT STOP SERVED BY HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT
As shown on Figure 6, there is portion of EPC areas in Central County that are not within a quarter mile of high frequency bus stops with 15-minute headways or less, or within a half-mile of rail or ferry terminals. Table 17 indicates that only 26 percent of EPC acreage is within the high-quality transit buffer, meaning a total of 74 percent are not within the buffer.

We suggest that the region aim to achieve 100% of EPC acres within a quarter mile of high-quality transit by 2050. We know that this is an ambitious goal, especially in cases where EPC acreage includes industrial areas. However, this goal will help the subregion and CCTA meet broad transit goals and increase access in areas considered to be EPCs.

We also propose an interim target of 40% completion by 2027 (a roughly 50% increase over the current condition).

TABLE 17. CENTRAL COUNTY EPC ACRES IN RELATION TO HIGH-QUALITY TRANSIT Acres Proportion of Total Acres
Within high-quality transit buffer 373.1 26%
Not within high-quality transit buffer 1,072.4 74%
Total EPC acres in Central County 1,1445.51 100%

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 28
FIGURE 6. CENTRAL COUNTY EPCS AND HIGH-QUALITY TRANSIT

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 29
Climate Change RTOs

SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE MODE SHARE
As shown in Table 2 in the first section of this memo (“Mode Share”), 67 percent of total Central County work trips were taken by driving alone, compared to 68 percent of all Contra Costa County residents.

Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate that the model output predicts that this number will increase to 70 percent of home base work mode share based on residence location and 80 percent based on job location by 2050. Meanwhile, the model predicts that 63 percent of all trips made by Central County residents (not strictly commute trips) will be taken by driving alone by 2050.

The proposed performance target for single-occupant vehicle work commute mode share in the Central County subregion is 60 percent for home-based work trips, in 2027 and 49 percent in 2050.

These numbers have been derived by reducing future single-occupant vehicle mode share by the targeted increases in transit, bike and walk trip mode share, and by also assuming an increase in carpooling (multiple-occupant vehicle) mode share to 15 percent.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) PER CAPITA
The Action Plans will consider total VMT for County and subregion residents.

The 2020 VMT study conducted for CCTA by Fehr & Peers found that 2018 VMT per service population in the Central County subregion was 29.4, and that the same number for Contra Costa County was 30.3 VMT per service population.

The California Air Resources Board’s document entitled 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals published in January 20193 states that the state needs to reduce daily per capita total VMT to 21 to achieve carbon-neutrality, which is the State’s goal for 2045.

Based on this finding, we propose that the Action Plan contain a goal for 2050 to reduce VMT per capita to 21 VMT per service population in the Central County area. Using a straight-line projection for reductions from 2018 until 2045, this would mean a reduction of ten percent to 26.6 VMT per capita by 2027.

TABLE 18. VMT PER SERVICE POPULATION
2018 2050
Central County 29.4 25.9
Contra Costa County 30.3 28.2
Source: Fehr and Peers, 2020; DKS and CCTA Travel Demand Model, 2022 3 Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-01/2017_sp_vmt_reductions_jan19.pdf

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 30

TRANSPORTATION GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS PER CAPITA This metric reflects the total daily VMT occurring on roadways within the planning area, including commercial vehicle trips and through traffic but does not include estimates of VMT occurring outside the travel demand model boundaries. The EMFAC emissions model has been used to translate this total daily roadway VMT into GHG emissions (specifically, CO2)4. The emissions outputs also reflect assumptions about the future vehicle fleet.

The proposed target for this metric is zero tons of transportation related emissions by 2050 or about a 1/3 reduction in GHG per capita by 2027. With the currently estimated 26 pounds of GHG per capita, this translates to a 2027 target of about 17 pounds per capita. Although transportation related CO2 emissions are projected to fall by 2050, more work is needed to reach the target of zero.

TABLE 19. AVERAGE DAILY TRANSPORTATION RELATED GHG PER CAPITA 2019 2050

POPULATION
CO2

EMISSIONS
(TONS)
CO2

EMISSIONS

PER CAPITA
(LBS)

POPULATION
CO2

EMISSIONS
(TONS)
CO2

EMISSIONS

PER CAPITA
(LBS)
Central County 318,611 4,153 26.07 411,543 2,647 12.43
Contra Costa
County
1,148,922 13,734 23.91 1,457,615 8,737 11.99
Source: DKS Associates, EMFAC 2021, CCTA Travel Demand Model.

ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE OWNERSHIP IN THE SUBREGION
This RTO tracks the number of battery electric vehicles “on the road,” with the goal of increasing total EV penetration. Data as of April 2021, which is the most recent report date, are shown in Table 20 for Central County as well as all of Contra Costa County for comparison. Central County currently has 4,879 EVs, as compared to 21,609 in the County overall.

Under a rule proposed by CARB, 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the state must be powered by batteries or hydrogen by 2026, and 100 percent 20355. Currently, 12.4 percent of new vehicles sold in California are ZEV and ZEVs make up about 4 percent of the light duty vehicle fleet in Contra Costa County.

By executive order, California has set a target of one million ZEVs on the road by 2025 and five million ZEVs by 20306. Since Central County accounts for less than one percent of the state’s population, this suggests that the subregion should have about 8,100 EVs by 2025 and 40,600 EVs by 2030. A straightline extrapolation of this number through 2050 suggests over 191,000 EVs in Central County by 2050. 4 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2021 v1.0.2 Scenario Analysis. 5 California Air Resources Board. Advanced Clean Cars II. 6 Executive Order B-16-2012 and Executive order B-48-18.

July 7, 2022, Revised July 14, 2022| Page 31
With all the above factors in mind, we propose a target 100 percent of the fleet, contrasted to the estimated existing EV fleet penetration of about two percent. The estimated number of light duty vehicles currently based in Central County is about 250,700.

TABLE 20. ELECTRIC VEHICLES BY SUBREGION AS OF APRIL 2021 Area Battery Electric Vehicles
Central County 4,879
East County 2,926
Lamorinda 3,141
Tri-Valley 15,262
West County 4,258
Total Subregion 30,466
Contra Costa County 21,609
Source: California Energy Commission (2022). California Energy Commission Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Statistics. Data last updated April 2022. Retrieved June 29, 2022 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/zevstats.

Note: Correspondence of zip codes to RTPC boundaries is approximate.

Technology RTO

LEVEL OF ETHERNET-BASED SIGNAL INTERCONNECTION
Interconnected signal systems are those which communicate with other signals or systems. Signal interconnection helps in establishing a connection between the traffic signals and the central system, which enables remote access to the signals from the local agency locations or the Traffic Management or Operations Center. These interconnections allow signal timings to be adjusted remotely, during regular day-to-day operations, during major incidents, and during special events. Interconnection also enables cross-jurisdiction communications, coordination, and data exchange to respond to varying traffic conditions.

CCTA is currently working with Central County’s jurisdictions to interconnect a total of 101 signals in Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek, using funding to come primarily from MTC’s OBAG3 program. Since this effort is already underway, the target for this RTO is the completion of all 101 signal improvements by 2027. There is no additional target for 2050, since there are no plans for a further interconnection program.

........................................................................................................................

ATTACHMENT 3:

ROUND 1 OUTREACH SUMMARY

........................................................................................................................ Page 118 Outreach Summary
Action Plan and Countywide Transportation Plan Updates March - May 2022 Prepared by:

151
People
Commented
Online
553 People
Commented
In Person
In-person pop up events included interactive poster boards, surveys, and project flyers while the virtual workshops included a PowerPoint presentation and group discussion. Regardless the event, participants were asked the same set of questions (though additional feedback was welcomed and encouraged):
• What do you think transportation should look like
in the future?
• What can we do to help you with your
transportation needs?
• What is your bright idea for improving transportation in the County?
A total of 704 comments were collected through this outreach effort. 151 of these comments were made on the online
community forum survey, the remaining 553 comments were collected during the pop-up and workshop events.

This document outlines
the first round of public
outreach conducted by the
Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) and
its consultants between
March and April 2022
for the Action Plan and
Countywide Transportation
Plan Updates. Outreach was
conducted to the general
Contra Costa Community
and the Alameda County
portion of the Tri Valley
area. Feedback was
collected both in-person
and virtually to provide
for a variety of feedback
channels:
■ 11 In-Person Pop Up
Events
■ 5 Virtual Workshops
■ Online Community
Forum Survey
■ 421 Project Flyers
Distributed!
Each CCTA subregion had two in-person pop up events and one virtual workshop, except for the West County subregion where a repeated pop up was conducted due to a last-minute rain cancellation. The online community forum survey was available countywide for all residents.

Introduction
TRI-VALLEY AREA: San Ramon Farmers Market
Saturday, March 5th 2022 from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm
6000 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon
Urbanized Areas within CCTA Study Area
Regional Transportation Planning Committee Boundaries
CCTA Study Area Boundary 0 1.5 3
Miles
West
County
East
County
Tri-Valley
Tri-Valley
Central
County
Lamorinda
San Ramon
Farmers Market
Iron Horse Trail
Danville Rest Area
Concord
Farmers Market
Walnut Creek BART
El Cerrito del
Norte BART
Self Care
Sunday (2) Brentwood
Farmers Market
Pittsburg
Center BART
Orinda
Farmers Market
Lafayette BART
Pop Up Event
Urbanized Areas
Regional Transportation
Planning Committee
Boundaries
County Boundary

Demographic Breakdown
The project team collected optional demographic
information on the written surveys at the pop-up
events, during registration for the virtual workshops,
and on the online community forum survey. Note
that not all respondents chose to share demographic
information. Percentages shown on this page
indicate the percentage of responses in each
category, not demographics of all respondents.

WEST COUNTY:

El Cerrito
del Norte BART
Tuesday, March 22nd
2022 from 4:00 pm
to 6:00 pm
6400 Cutting Blvd,
El Cerrito
■ Zip Code - 38 Responses
■ Household Income - 63 Responses
■ Age - 74 Responses
■ Race/ Ethnicity - 73 Responses
West County
Central
County
East County
Lamorinda
Tri-Valley
Other
Bay Area
Out of Bay Area
ZIP
13% 13%
21%
11%
11%
16%
16%
70+ years old Under 29 years old
30 to 49
years old
50 to 69
years old
AGE
16%
39% 32%
12%
Less than $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
More than
$200,000 5% 6%
16%
11%
24%
13%
25%
INCOME
* 0% American Indian or Alaska Native
** 0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
60%
7%
18%
3%
4%
8%
NonHispanic
White
Other
Asian
Two or more Races
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American
RACE/

ETHNICITY

General Comments
BART
bike
bus
buses
public cars transportation
traffic
school
needs
safe
people
parking
trail
car
better
routes electric
road
transit
lanes
Of the 704 total comments,
470 of them were general
comments about countywide
transportation and not
focused on improvements in a
specific subregion. The most
commented words include:

This list of comments includes frequently mentioned topics and ideas but is not an exhaustive list of general comments. Comments are not listed in order of priority. ■ Increase walkability and explore pedestrian-only areas ■ Increase bikeability, number of bike lanes, and their convenience and safety ■ Ensure bicyclists and pedestrians feel safe
■ Conduct safety presentations for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers ■ Bike and scooter share
■ Improve last mile connections to public transit
■ Bus express lanes or bus-only lanes on freeways and arterials ■ Public transit improvements to frequency, hours of service, reliability, and cleanliness ■ Ensure public transportation is accessible for all socioeconomic groups ■ Improve paratransit and other accessible transportation options and solutions ■ Safety improvements on BART and buses
■ Improved parking options at major transit stations
■ Plan for regional connections throughout the county and beyond ■ Electrify the transportation system (public and private) and improve infrastructure ■ Explore autonomous vehicles
■ Decrease number of potholes on freeways and major roadways ■ Decrease traffic congestion
■ Improve the timing of traffic lights
EAST COUNTY:

Brentwood Farmers
Market
Saturday, March 26th 2022
from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm
Oak Street and 1st Street,
Brentwood
CENTRAL COUNTY:

Concord Farmers
Market
Tuesday, March 8th 2022
from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm
Todos Santos Plaza at 2175
Willow Pass Road,
Concord

The graph to the right indicates the percent of comments that were collected by subregion, with some subregions
more eager to comment than others. Note that the number of comments by subregion does not reflect
the number of people engaged with, but rather the
number of comments since many participants chose
to provide more than one comment.

Of the 704 comments collected, 234 of them were
comments made to indicate transportation
improvements in a specific subregion. The most
frequently mentioned topics and ideas are listed in the following pages. Note that this list is not exhaustive and are not listed in order of priority.

Incorporated Jurisdictions:

Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Richmond, El Cerrito
Feedback regarding West County focused on safe and
adequate roadways, transit improvements, bike and
pedestrian improvements and safety of all modes. There was little mention of technology, climate change, and equity. ■ Desire for well-maintained, continuous, protected/safe/ calm bike facilities that cross cities, especially connecting to waterfront destinations and regional routes, with safe and easy freeway crossings
■ Need for traffic calming techniques
■ Improve transit access for those with mobility needs
■ Give bus priority on arterial routes between Alameda
County and Contra Costa County
■ Provide timed/coordinated service between BART,
Amtrak, and various bus agencies to serve long-distance and regional travel
■ Ensure public transportation is safe, comfortable, and efficient
■ Increase frequency of BART
■ Improve streetlight issues throughout Richmond, replace traffic lights, fix potholes and paving issue areas
■ Many comments mentioning improvements to specific
roadways, including: San Pablo Ave, Cutting Blvd, Central Ave, Canal Blvd, and 15th Street
Incorporated Jurisdictions:

Martinez, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Clayton Feedback regarding Central County focused on transit
improvements, bike and pedestrian sidewalk and intercity access, need for traffic calming, and equity in the
transportation system. Few comments are made regarding
climate change and technology.
■ Address active and public transportation barriers for those with mobility needs, including ADA accessible bike and pedestrian facilities, taxi service with wheelchair access, and extended service hours
■ Increase traffic calming techniques along busy roadways ■ Desire for safe bike and pedestrian connections across the subregion, particularly when crossing roadways and
train tracks
■ Provide continuous sidewalks and bike lanes and install lighting for safe travel in the dark
■ Provide protected bike lanes to schools
■ Improve traffic light cycles and remove unprotected left turns
■ Reduce neighborhood cut-through traffic
■ Connect trail networks to transit hubs
■ Encourage public transit ridership again
Specific Comments
West County Central County
West County
Central County
East County
Lamorinda
Tri-Valley
Other
12%
20%
12%
30%
25%
12%

LAMORINDA: Orinda Farmers Market
Saturday, March 12th 2022 from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm
Orinda Village at 14 Orinda Way, Orinda
TRI-VALLEY:

Iron Horse Trail
Danville Rest Area
Sunday, March 6th
2022 from 9:00 am to
12:00 pm
East County
Incorporated Jurisdictions:

Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley
Feedback regarding East County focused on improvements
to and extension of the BART system.
■ More frequent BART service and extension to Brentwood ■ Increased BART connections and access, including
parking, carpooling, or commuter buses from outlying
communities
■ Deploy High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) commuter buses
to job centers and BART stations
■ Increase off-street bikeways and connections to BART
and railroads
■ Increase first and last mile connections from residential areas to public transportation
■ Increase lighting and shade on trails
■ Ensure adequate ADA accessibility on all modes
■ Reduce frequency of automobile speeding
Tri-Valley
Incorporated Jurisdictions:

Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore
Feedback regarding the Tri Valley area focused on
I-580/I-680 corridor connections, bike and pedestrian
improvements, general equity, and general safety concerns.

Climate change was not a specific concern mentioned.
■ Increase traffic calming techniques, especially near
schools
■ Improve crossings of bike and pedestrian facilities with roadways
■ Deploy bike and scooter share programs
■ Improve bike and pedestrian facilities, especially with better lighting and restroom facilities
■ Increase bus service to schools and other major facilities ■ Expand BART service through the Tri Valley area
■ Examine the success of HOV and toll lanes on I-680
Lamorinda
Incorporated Jurisdictions:

Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda
Feedback regarding the Lamorinda area included safe routes to schools, BART access, transportation electrification, and roadway speeding. Little mention of equity concerns or
climate change were given.
■ Increase traffic calming solutions around schools and improve general Safe Routes to Schools techniques
■ Increase controlled crossings of major roads
■ Explore first and last mile connections to BART
■ Improve bike and pedestrian facilities with traffic lights and bike activation of traffic signals
■ Expand County Connection service to middle and high
school students
■ Explore small bus options
■ Explore feasibility of autonomous vehicles
■ Reduce frequency of automobile speeding

Agenda Item: 9(d)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve by Minute Order the Request from CEMEX to Provide a Letter of Support for CEMEX’s Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Approve by Minute Order the request from CEMEX to provide a letter of support for CEMEX’s Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment that is scheduled to be heard by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission at the end of September.

BACKGROUND
CEMEX has been working for some time on an amendment to the existing reclamation plan for the quarry. On March 15, 2022, the City Council heard a report on CEMEX’s proposed revised reclamation plan and reviewed the Draft EIR for the project (staff report attached).

DISCUSSION
CEMEX’s proposed revised reclamation plan is now scheduled to be heard by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission at the end of the month and CEMEX is requesting a letter of support from the City. CEMEX has already received some letters of support including one from Save Mt. Diablo which is attached to this report. Also attached is a proposed draft letter to be sent from the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.

Subject: Approve by Minute Order the Request from CEMEX for a Letter of Support for CEMEX’s Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment
Date: September 20, 2022

Attachment:

1. March 15, 2022 Clayton City Council item on CEMEX’s Revised Reclamation Plan project

2. Letter of Support from Save Mt. Diablo for CEMEX’s Revised Reclamation Plan

3. Draft Letter of Support from City of Clayton for CEMEX’s Revised Reclamation Plan Agenda Item: 9(e)
1 AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Dana Ayers, Community Development Director
DATE: March 15, 2022
SUBJECT: Update on the Contra Costa County Land Use Permit Revision Application Pertaining to the Amendment of the CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan and Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) Prepared for the Project
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the report updating the Council on status of the CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment and corresponding Draft EIR.

BACKGROUND
The CEMEX Clayton Quarry is an existing aggregate mining facility located on an approximately 335-acre property in unincorporated Contra Costa County, just south of the municipal boundaries of the cities of Clayton and Concord at the terminus of Mitchell Canyon Road. Aggregate mining has occurred on the site under various entities since at least 1948.

CEMEX has two entitlements through Contra Costa County: 1) Land Use Permit (LUP) # 363- 67, which authorizes operation of the quarry; and 2) LUP # 2054-81, which approved a reclamation plan for use of the site following cessation of mining operations.

In 2015, in response to concerns raised by County staff that the approved reclamation plan would create offsite drainage and flooding issues, CEMEX filed Application No. CDLP15- 02031 with the County Conservation and Development Department. Application No.

CDLP15-02031 (“the project”) consists of a request to amend the entitlement, granted under LUP # 2054-81, pertaining to the approved reclamation plan for the site. No amendments are requested to LUP # 363-67 authorizing operation of the mining activities of the quarry.

The reclamation plan approved under LUP # 2054-81 calls for filling the quarry mining pit with soil, requiring significant earth movement to achieve, and turning the site into developable land. By contrast, the now proposed and revised reclamation plan would convert the site to 2 of 3
privately-owned open space and create a lake on the property from storm runoff from within the site, although the lake would not be available for recreational use. The lake would be approximately 625 feet at its deepest point, would have a surface area of approximately 32 acres, and would take approximately 158 years to fill completely. Compared to the approved reclamation plan, the proposed reclamation plan would require substantially less fill and earth movement and would result in increased depth of the quarry pit, but with a decreased footprint of aggregate mining area and less cut of an existing slope that currently provides partial shielding of views of the quarry face. Under the proposed plan, quarry operations would also cease roughly 40 or more years earlier than the approved plan that projects cessation of operations around the year 2100.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County hired a consultant to prepare an EIR for the project. Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was filed with the County Clerk on February 16, 2022, and was mailed or emailed shortly thereafter to public agencies (including the City of Clayton) and other interested parties. The Executive Summary of the Draft EIR is attached to this report, and the entirety of the Draft EIR is available on the County website at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/8528/CEMEX-Clayton-Quarry.

The Draft EIR focused its analysis on the resource areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use Planning and Noise. Other resource areas were found early on to have less than significant impacts from the proposed reclamation plan revision and were analyzed with more brevity in the project’s Initial Study. Based on the analysis in the Draft EIR, the proposed reclamation plan revision would have no significant impacts that could not be mitigated to within acceptable thresholds of significance.

Agencies and interested parties can submit written comments on the Draft EIR to the County through April 4, 2022. Following the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIR, the County and their consultant will prepare a Final EIR that consists of the Draft EIR, comments made on the Draft EIR, responses to the environmental issues raised on the analysis of the Draft EIR, and any revisions to the Draft EIR that may result from those responses.

The CEMEX Clayton Quarry Ad Hoc committee of the City Council, consisting of Councilmember Diaz and Mayor Cloven, met with City staff and representatives of CEMEX on March 8, 2022. At that meeting, CEMEX representatives shared information about the reclamation plan revision currently under consideration by the County. CEMEX representatives also expressed at that meeting a willingness to make a presentation on the proposed reclamation plan revision to the entirety of the City Council later this spring or early summer.

ANALYSIS
No specific action of the City Council is necessary at this time other than to receive this report.

Councilmembers are invited, as is the general public, to provide written comments to the County on the Draft EIR or to provide direction to City staff to include specific comments on the environmental analysis in a comment letter from the City to the County. Comments at this time should be limited to the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR rather than the 3 of 3
merits of the project or currently-entitled quarry operations. Following completion of the Draft EIR, the County Planning Commission will conduct one or more public hearings at which individuals and agencies can provide comments on the merits of the reclamation plan revision and whether they think County decision-makers should approve the revised reclamation plan.

ATTACHMENTS

1. CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment Draft EIR – Executive Summary

2. Notice of Availability of Draft EIR
February | 2022 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC (CEMEX) has applied to Contra Costa County (County) for an amendment to their approved reclamation plan (“approved reclamation plan”), which is the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is a modification of the approved reclamation plan and current land use, drainage, and encroachment entitlements (County File Number: CDLP15-2030/31) to allow for current state reclamation standards to be achieved during reclamation and updated grading and drainage plans. The project site location is identified on Figure ES1, “Regional Location.” Except as specifically described below, CEMEX proposes no change to other elements of the existing operation (e.g., mining methods, processing operations, production levels, truck traffic, hours of operation). The vested mining operations are not the subject of this application, rather only the mine reclamation activities are the subject of this application.

This Executive Summary provides an overview of the proposed project, describes alternatives to the proposed project, and presents a summary of the environmental impacts and related mitigation identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

PUBLIC REVIEW
This Draft EIR is available for public review and comment during the 45-day period identified on the notice of availability/notice of completion (NOA/NOC) of an EIR, which accompanies this document.

This Draft EIR and all supporting technical documents and reference documents are available for public review at:

Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division
30 Muir Road
Martinez, California 94553
And at the link below:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7605/Major-Planning-Applications-Under-Consid During the 45-day public comment period, written comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted to the County Department of Conservation and Development at the following address:

Attn.: Mr. Francisco Avila, Principal Planner
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Email: [email protected]

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-2 February | 2022
Oral comments on the Draft EIR are welcome and may be stated at a public meeting, which shall be held as indicated on the NOA/NOC.1
Following the public review and comment period, all written and oral comments received on the environmental analysis in this Draft EIR will receive a response. The responses and any other revisions to the Draft EIR will be prepared as a response-to-comments document. The Draft EIR and its appendices, together with the response-to-comments document will constitute the Final EIR for the proposed project.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Site Location
The project reclamation plan boundary comprises approximately 190 acres of a 335-acre property situated at 515 Mitchell Canyon Road, on the east side of Mount Zion, approximately one-half mile south of the City of Clayton in an unincorporated portion of the County, as shown on Figure ES-1.

Project Objectives
The project purpose is to revise the approved reclamation plan to respond to changed circumstances that have resulted in the approved reclamation plan’s infeasibility and to provide an environmentally superior alternative for reclamation. Carrying out reclamation under the currently approved reclamation plan would require the handling of large quantities of overburden and would result in significant uncontrolled post-reclamation drainage releases into Mitchell Creek and the residential neighborhoods below the quarry.

In response to a Notice to Comply issued by the County on November 17, 2014, CEMEX filed an application for a Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment on July 20, 2015, which the County assigned Application No. CDLP15-02031 (2015 Application). In its Notice to Comply, which required submittal of final grading and drainage plans for the quarry, the County provided an option for CEMEX to file an application to modify the conditions of approval of its current permits for an alternative drainage design for quarry reclamation. The 2015 Application presented CEMEX’s initial application to modify current permits for an alternative final grading and drainage plan that would provide for a future quarry lake with a controlled stormwater outflow. In August 2015, the County deemed the 2015 Application incomplete and requested additional information and technical study in the areas of biology, slope stability, and hydrology.

In response, CEMEX filed a new application in June 2017, which supersedes the 2015 Application in its entirety. Specifically, CEMEX proposes an amendment to the approved reclamation plan through adoption of a revised reclamation plan for the Clayton Quarry, dated October 2020 (“project” and/or “revised reclamation plan”). The project requires amendments to CEMEX’s current land use entitlements, LUP #363- 67 and LUP #2054-81. The amendment to the LUP #363-67 operating permit is only for purposes of conforming any reclamation-related conditions of approval to the revised reclamation plan. 1 This is subject to change, based on circumstances and restrictions due to Covid-19, and may involve a virtual hearing via video conference (e.g. Zoom).

Regional Location

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT

DRAFT EIR
Figure ES-1
SOURCE: Compass Land Group 2020; modified by Benchmark Resources in 2021 NOTE: Figure not to scale
CEMEX Clayton Quarry
Property Boundary
Project Site
Project Site

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-4 February | 2022

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
February | 2022 ES-5
The reclamation plan amendment provides site-specific actions designed to meet the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The proposed project includes the following objectives:
1) Complete reclamation over an anticipated period of 47 years (including monitoring) to a post‐ mining land use of open space;
2) Facilitate reduction of the surface mining footprint that leaves the east rim of the quarry intact, providing a visual buffer between the quarry and view sheds to the east; 3) Create permanent overburden fill areas to be revegetated; 4) Establish final grading contours reflecting a maximum depth of excavation at elevation 110 feet above mean sea level (msl) with finish slope angles that achieve adequate factors of safety; 5) Establish a final drainage plan that provides for the formation of a lake and control of stormwater discharge from the project site in a manner that would not result in downstream flooding; 6) Facilitate revegetation of the quarry east rim, overburden fill areas and processing plant site to a combination of chaparral and grassland habitats that feature California native seed mixes; 7) Clarify pre-Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (1976) disturbance areas, including any areas disturbed outside the boundaries of the 1983 approved reclamation plan; 8) Achieve current State reclamation standards during reclamation; 9) Maximize the extraction of the remaining available on-site hardrock resources through the anticipated reclamation end date of 2068, including a change in the final bottom elevation of excavation the quarry pit to 110 feet msl;
10) Continue to supply the regional demands for Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) grade aggregate and thereby reduce regional vehicle miles travelled (VMT); and 11) Establish a reclamation plan that limits the emission of air quality criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and dust.

Project Features
As stated previously, CEMEX has applied to the County for an amendment to their approved reclamation plan, which amendment application is the proposed project under CEQA. The project is a modification of an approved reclamation plan and existing entitlements for a vested mining operation.

Except as outlined below, the applicant proposes no change to any fundamental elements of the existing mining operation (e.g., mining methods, processing operations, production levels, truck traffic, hours of operation).

The 1983 approved reclamation plan envisions reclamation of an open-pit, multi-bench quarry over an anticipated period of 120 years. The approved plan also includes construction of an interim mining drainage slot that would provide a generally uncontrolled hydrologic connection to natural drainage courses north of the project site, removal of processing plants and equipment, revegetation of certain quarry benches with pine trees, revegetation of the backfilled quarry floor with natural grasses and wildflowers, and removal of the east rim of the quarry pit with backfill to elevation 650 feet msl providing for the reclaimed quarry to drain via sheet flow toward Mitchell Canyon Road and the reclaimed plant site to drain to the City of Concord.

The applicant seeks to amend the approved reclamation plan to include changes that are more sensitive to the environment and surrounding community, while achieving current surface mining reclamation standards. The planned postmining end use is open space. The proposed project would include:

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-6 February | 2022
• Reclamation over an anticipated period of 47 years to a post-mining land use of open space; • Reduction of the surface mining disturbance footprint relative to the existing reclamation plan that leaves the east rim of the quarry intact, providing a visual buffer between the quarry and view sheds to the east;
• Permanent overburden fill areas;
• Final grading contours reflecting a maximum depth of excavation at elevation 110 feet msl with finish slope angles that achieve adequate factors of safety; • A final drainage plan that provides for the quarry pit to slowly fill with stormwater following reclamation to form a quarry lake with a controlled outflow that conveys stormwater to natural drainage courses and man-made drainage facilities;
• Removal of facilities, structures and equipment associated with mining; • Revegetation of the quarry east rim, overburden fill areas, and processing plant site to a combination of chaparral and grassland habitats that feature California native seed mixes; • Elimination of requirements to backfill, grade, and compact the quarry floor and benches, given that the planned open space end use would provide for a future quarry lake; • Clarification of pre-SMARA (1976) disturbance areas, including any areas disturbed outside the boundaries of the approved reclamation plan;
• A tree permit request to remove 79 out of 123 existing trees, to be replaced with 400 foothill pine trees that would form a tree screen along the quarry east rim; • Compliance with current State reclamation standards to be achieved during reclamation; • A new screening berm to create a visual barrier between the existing processing plant site and residential communities to the north; and
• An exception request to Division 914 of the Contra Costa Code of Ordinances (Offsite Collect and Convey requirement).

Consistent with the approved reclamation plan, the project would continue to remove facilities, structures, and equipment associated with mining, including the plant site. Post-reclamation, the applicant would continue to own the property, which would be used for open space. Table ES-1, “Comparison of Proposed Project to Approved Reclamation Plan,” offers a comparison between major features of the approved reclamation plan and the proposed project.

TABLE ES-1

COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN Reclamation Feature 1983 Approved Reclamation Plan Proposed Project Elevations Mining floor elevation: 500 feet msl
Reclamation floor elevation: 650 feet msl
Mining floor elevation: 110 feet msl
Reclamation floor elevation: 110 feet msl
End uses Not specified.

Open space, which would provide for
the quarry pit to slowly fill with
stormwater to form a quarry lake with a
controlled outflow.

Total area disturbed by
mining and reclamation Approximately 184 acres Approximately 190 acres Quarry pit area Approximately 154 acres Approximately 85 acres

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
February | 2022 ES-7
Reclamation Feature 1983 Approved Reclamation Plan Proposed Project Quantity and type of
mineral to be mined (from
time of application):

Diabase: quantity noted as confidential
Knoxville: quantity noted as confidential
Diabase: 23.8 million tons
Knoxville: 4.6 million tons
Total: 28.4 million tons
Termination date: Anticipated 120 years from 1981, or year 2101
Anticipated 47 years from 2021, or year
2068
Quarry pit backfill:

Required to minimum floor elevation
650 feet msl, with minimum pit floor
slope gradient of 2%.

Not required, although CEMEX may
place overburden in the pit floor as part
of reclamation.

East Rim: Mined and eliminated to facilitate
backfill Left intact with tree screen.

Source: Compass Land Group 2020.

Notes: msl = above mean sea level
Required Approvals
As the local land use authority, Contra Costa County is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for approving the project as a whole and is therefore the lead agency for purposes of environmental review under both CEQA and SMARA. Other agencies may have permitting or approval authority over various aspects of the project. These agencies include the following:

Federal Agencies
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 permit)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Section 7 Consultation; Incidental Take Statement) State Agencies
• California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation (Reclamation Plan Advisory Review, Release of Financial Assurance)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Streambed Alteration Agreement and possibly a California Endangered Species Act permit)
Regional and Local Agencies
• San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 401 Certification and/or Waters of the State permit)
• Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Contra Costa County, Department of Public Works

DRAFT EIR SCOPE AND ISSUES EVALUATED
Issues Evaluated and Issues Eliminated from Further Consideration While CEQA does not require preparation of an Initial Study when the lead agency elects to prepare an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15060[d]), the County has prepared an Environmental Checklist Form / CEQA Initial Study to substantiate its scoping process in evaluating the potential significance of the project regarding the CEQA Appendix G criteria. The evaluation regarding the significance of those issues that are not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR is provided in the Initial Study (included as Appendix A-4, “Initial Study,” of the Draft EIR) and discussed further in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” of the Draft EIR.

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-8 February | 2022
As an initial step in the environmental review process, issues identified in the Environmental Checklist of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were considered to determine whether the project would have the potential to result in significant impacts associated with each issue. The initial review determined that the project may result in potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the following Appendix G Environmental Checklist resource topics:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Geology and Soils
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
The initial review determined that the project would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with the following resource topics and eliminated these issues from further consideration in the Draft EIR:
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Services Systems
• Wildfire
Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic project objectives (Guidelines Section D15126.6). The “no project” alternative, which considers what impacts would occur if conditions continue, must be considered (Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]), and the EIR must also identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the “no project” alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2]).

Summary of Alternatives
The alternatives evaluation considered several potential alternatives. Some were eliminated as they were determined to either not have the potential to feasibly achieve the basic project objectives and/or reduce significant project impacts. The following alternatives were selected and analyzed/compared to the project and are evaluated in the Draft EIR:

Alternative 1: No Project—Implementation of the Approved Reclamation Plan Alternative Under the No Project—Implementation of the Approved Reclamation Plan Alternative, the County would not approve a Reclamation Plan Amendment. Instead, the project site would be reclaimed up to the final phase (Phase 1C) of the approved reclamation plan, consistent with existing permits.

Under this alternative, mining of the quarry pit beyond the bottom elevation of 500 feet above msl specified in the approved reclamation plan would not occur. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 1 would not result in the creation of a quarry lake and would not leave the east rim intact. Instead, the east rim of the quarry would be excavated and overburden fill materials would be pushed into the quarry excavation such that a relatively flat reclaimed area with a slight slope toward the east would

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
February | 2022 ES-9
exist. The final elevation of the backfilled quarry pit area would be about 650 feet msl. Rather than a diversion control structure as included in the proposed project, drainage from the site would flow overland across the site. Drainage from the quarry area would flow generally uncontrolled into Mitchell Creek. No tree screen or berms would impede the views of the exposed quarry pit and benches under this alternative. The end use would remain open space.

Alternative 2: Prohibited Nighttime Reclamation Alternative Under Alternative 2: Prohibited Nighttime Reclamation Alternative, would be the same as the proposed project except all project-related reclamation, including construction of the control outlet structure, overburden fill areas, screening berm, and grading for final reclamation would only be permitted to take place during operating hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Some nighttime lighting of project facilities would still be required for security and safety purposes under this alternative; however, reclamation construction lighting and reclamation-related traffic traveling to and from the project site would be prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday and 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. Saturday and all-day Sunday. The current operational (i.e. non-reclamation) mining activities would not be subject to this restriction.

Alternative 2 would meet all of the proposed project objectives.

Alternative 3: In-kind Replacement for Protected Oaks Alternative Alternative 3, In-kind Replacement for Protected Oaks Alternative, would be the same as the proposed project except the 77 blue oak and valley oak trees that would be removed would be replaced with inkind species at a 3:1 ratio instead of the proposed 400 foothill pines. Alternative 3 would meet all of the proposed project objectives.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2, “Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” provides a summary of the project impacts identified and evaluated in the Draft EIR, presents mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, and lists the impact significance both without and with mitigation applied. As shown in Table ES-2, several impacts are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation. All remaining impacts would be significant or potentially significant prior to the implementation of mitigation measures but would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation applied. No impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable. The mitigation measures (e.g., Mitigation Measure 4.1-4, “Daily Limitation of Construction Hours”) do not apply to the existing, vested mine and processing plant operations which are not part of this project.

In addition to evaluating project-specific impacts, an EIR must also evaluate cumulative impacts.

Cumulative impacts are those that would result from project impacts when combined with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects. The analysis determined that the project would not result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts (see Chapter 5, “Cumulative Impacts”).

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-10
TABLE ES-2

SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1

INITIAL STUDY

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No further analysis was performed for the purposes of this Draft EIR. Please see analysis provided in Appendix A-4, “Initial Study.” Impact 5b: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5
Impact 5c: Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries
Impact 18a: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)
Impact 18b: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
PS Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The following Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project demolition/construction activities.

1. A program of on-site education to instruct all
demolition/construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted prior to the start of any grading or construction activities.

2. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA), and/or Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Wilton Rancheria Tribe, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2:

Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may be those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them.

The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor’s remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains.

LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-11
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.1-1: Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista NI None required. NI Impact 4.1-2: Substantially Damage Scenic Resources Within View of a Scenic Highway
NI None required. NI
Impact 4.1-3: Substantial Degradation of the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its Surroundings
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.1-4: Creation of a New Source of Substantial Light and Glare That Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime
Views in the Area
PS Mitigation Measure 4.1-4: Daily Limitation of Reclamation-Related Construction Activities
All reclamation-related construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday.

LTS

AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2-1: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.2-2: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for which the Project Region is Non-Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.2-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.2-4: Result in Other Emissions Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People
LTS None required. LTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.3-1: Have an Adverse Effect, Directly or Indirectly, on Habitat for Special-Status Plant or Wildlife Species due to Ground Surface Disturbance and Vegetation Removal
PS Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Conduct Botanical Surveys To avoid and minimize potential impacts to special status plants, the following shall apply:

1. Prior to the commencement of reclamation-related ground disturbing activity (which includes clearing, grubbing, or grading) in previously undisturbed areas identified as having potential special status plant species in the project biological resources assessment report, a qualified botanist or biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for special status rare plant species. The survey shall occur within 30 days prior to commencement of groundLTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-12
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
disturbing activity. If a special-status species is detected, the applicant shall avoid activity in the area if doing so is feasible in conjunction with meeting project objectives.

2. If rare plant species are found and avoidance is not feasible, and the plant is listed under CESA, then the applicant shall mitigate on a 1:1 ratio and obtain and comply with necessary permits from CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Conduct Special-status Vertebrates Surveys, Personnel Training, and Avoidance
To avoid and minimize impacts to special status vertebrates, the following shall apply.

1. No more than 48 hours prior to the commencement of reclamationrelated ground disturbing activity (i.e., clearing, grubbing, or grading) associated with the overburden fill areas, tree screen, diversion outlet structure, or other areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of suitable habitat in the project reclamation area.

2. The biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey, survey method, name of surveyor, and survey results) to the Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity.

3. Construction personnel shall receive worker environmental awareness training prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity. This training instructs workers how to recognize special status vertebrate species and their habitat.

4. If a special-status species is detected, all work will be halted until the animal has left the work area or, if necessary, has been relocated by a qualified biologist with applicable authorizations.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c: Conduct Bat Surveys, Avoidance, and Employ Approved Eviction When Necessary
To avoid and minimize potential impacts to special status bats, the following shall apply:

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-13
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1

1. If reclamation-related ground disturbing activity (which includes clearing, grubbing, or grading) is to commence within 50 feet of suitable bat habitat, including structures and trees with large cavities, during the winter hibernaculum season (e.g., November 1 through March 31), then a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 50 feet of the reclamation project footprint on the CEMEX property to determine if a potential winter hibernaculum is present, and to identify and map potential hibernaculum sites.

2. The biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey, survey method, name of surveyor and survey results) to the Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity. If no winter hibernaculum sites are found during the survey, then no further mitigation would be required.

3. If potential hibernaculum sites are found, then the applicant shall avoid all areas within a 50-foot buffer around the potential hibernaculum sites until bats have vacated the hibernaculum. Winter hibernaculum habitat shall be considered fully avoided if reclamation-related activities do not impinge on a 50-foot buffer established by the qualified biologist around an existing or potential winter hibernaculum site. The qualified biologist will determine if non-maternity and nonhibernaculum day and night roosts are present on the project site. If necessary, a qualified biologist will use safe eviction methods to remove bats if direct impacts to nonmaternity and non-hibernaculum day and night roosts cannot be avoided. If a winter hibernaculum site is present, then reclamation activities shall not occur within 50 feet until the hibernaculum is vacated, or, if necessary, safely evicted using methods acceptable to CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d: Wildlife Exclusion Fence
A temporary wildlife exclusion fence shall be installed around the perimeter of any previously undisturbed area prior to the initiation of new grounddisturbing activities to discourage small wildlife from entering the site. The

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-14
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
fence shall have escape funnels pointing outwards to allow small wildlife to exit the work area.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e: Biologist Presence
A qualified biologist shall be present for all initial reclamation-related ground-disturbing activities in areas that have not been previously disturbed.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f: No Monofilament Plastics
To prevent the entrapment of Alameda striped racers and other wildlife, monofilament plastics shall not be used for erosion control.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1g: Conduct Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance To avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds, the following shall apply:

1. If reclamation-related ground disturbing activity is to commence within 50 feet of nesting habitat between February 1 and August 31, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active migratory nests within 5 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.

2. The biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey, survey method, name of surveyor and survey results) to the Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity. If no active nests are found during the survey, then no further mitigation would be required.

3. If active nests are found in the survey area, then a non-disturbance buffer centered on the nest and of a size determined by a qualified biologist shall be established and maintained around the nest to prevent nest failure. Active nests shall be monitored weekly to ensure that the exclusion zones are intact and that the young are developing. All construction activities shall be avoided within this buffer area until a qualified biologist determines that nestlings have fledged and are foraging independently as determined by a qualified

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-15
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
biologist, unless otherwise approved by the Conservation and Development Department and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h: Burrowing Owl Protection
To avoid and minimize potential impacts to western burrowing owl, the following shall apply:

1. If reclamation-related ground disturbing activity is to commence in previously undisturbed areas within 500 feet of suitable owl burrow habitat, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl. The survey shall occur within 30 days prior to the date that reclamation activities will encroach within 500 feet of suitable habitat. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
a) A survey for burrows and owls shall be conducted by walking through suitable habitat over the proposed reclamation
construction site and in areas within 500 feet of the project disturbance area.
b) Pedestrian survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be no more than 30 meters, and should be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. Surveyors should maintain a minimum distance of 50 meters from any owls or occupied burrows.
c) If no occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found in the survey area, then the biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey, survey method, name of surveyor and survey results) to the Conservation and
Development Department and no further mitigation is
necessary.
d) If occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found, then a complete burrowing owl survey is required. This consists of a

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-16
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
minimum of four site visits conducted on four separate days, which must also be consistent with the Survey Method, Weather Conditions, and Time of Day sections of Appendix D of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (March 2012). The
applicant shall then submit a survey report to the Planning Division which is consistent with the CDFW 2012 Report. e) If occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found during the complete burrowing owl survey, then the applicant shall contact the Planning Division and consult with CDFW prior to
construction, and will be required to submit a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan (subject to the approval of the Planning Division and CDFW). This plan must document all proposed measures, including avoidance, minimization, exclusion, relocation, or other measures, and include a plan to monitor mitigation success. The CDFW “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation” (March 2012) should be used in the development of the mitigation plan.

2. Comply with the mitigation requirements and conditions of any Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement (Agreement), if any, with CDFW for project reclamation activities, as applicable to burrowing owl. If there is a conflict between the terms of mitigation item 1 above and the Agreement, then the Applicant shall abide by the terms of the Agreement.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i: Bumblebee Protection
To minimize the take of Crotch’s and western bumblebee species, a qualified entomologist shall conduct a take avoidance survey for active bumblebee colony nesting sites in any previously undisturbed area prior to each phase of reclamation-related construction, if the work will occur during the flying season. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW prior to implementing reclamation-related ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall take place during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 and September 1.

The surveys shall occur when temperatures are above 60 degrees Fahrenheit

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-17
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
(°F), on sunny days with wind speeds below 8 miles per hour, and at least 2 hours after sunrise and 3 hours before sunset. Surveyors shall conduct transect surveys focusing on detection of foraging bumble bees and underground nests using visual aids such as binoculars. At minimum, a survey report should provide the following: If no Crotch’s or western bumble bees or potential Crotch’s or western bumble bees are detected, no further mitigation is required. If potential Crotch’s or western bumble bees are seen but cannot be identified, the applicant shall obtain authorization from CDFW to use nonlethal netting methods to capture bumble bees to identify them to species. If protected bumble bee nests are found, a plan to protect bumble bee nests and individuals to ensure no take of Crotch’s and western bumblebee species shall be developed by a qualified entomologist in consultation with the Conservation and Development Department. The Conservation and Development Department shall approve the plan prior to implementation.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1j: Take Coverage for Federally Listed Species If required by the USFWS for certain previously undisturbed areas to support reclamation-related construction activity, the applicant shall obtain take coverage for federally listed species (Alameda striped racer and California red-legged frog). This may be from a Section 7 Consultation resulting in a Biological Opinion (BO) or a Section 10 consultation resulting in a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). All avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the BO or HCP shall be implemented as a condition for operating in that area.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1k: Trapping Federally Listed Species If necessary, a qualified biologist approved under an active BO or HCP will be contracted to trap and move federally listed species (Alameda striped racer and California red-legged frog) to nearby suitable habitat.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1l: Take Permit for State Listed Species If required by CDFW, the applicant shall obtain a California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the Alameda striped racer associated with new reclamation-related disturbances in previously undisturbed areas. If further future information warrants their inclusion, the permit shall cover Crotch’s and/or western bumble bee as well. All avoidance,

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-18
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
minimization, and mitigation measures in the ITP shall be implemented as a condition for operating in that area.

Impact 4.3-2: Have an Adverse Effect, Directly or Indirectly, on Habitat for Special-Status Plant or Wildlife Species due to Exposure to Quarry Pit Lake Water
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.3-3: Have an Adverse Effect on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities
S Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c,

4.3-1d, 4.3-1e, 4.3-1f, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l (see Impact 4.3-1) and Mitigation Measures 4.3-6a through 4.3-6i (see Impact 4.3-6).

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: Acquire Necessary Permits for Jurisdictional Features
The applicant shall mitigate these impacts at an approved ratio and shall obtain required permits to impact the jurisdictional ephemeral stream from the relevant regulatory agencies, including the USACOE, CDFW, and RWQCB, as applicable. These permits will include conditions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the quarry shall implement during construction. These permits may also specify mitigation, which the quarry shall provide as specified by the agencies. All terms of the permits shall be implemented as a condition of the project. If permits require mitigation at a higher ratio than 1:1, that requirement will be met.

LTS
Impact 4.3-4: Have an Adverse Effect on Protected Wetlands PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (see Impact 4.3- 3)
LTS
Impact 4.3-5: Interfere with Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species Movement, Corridors, or Nursery Sites
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1d, 4.3-1e,

4.3-1f, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l (see Impact 4.3-1).

LTS
Impact 4.3-6: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
S Mitigation Measure 4.3-6a: Tree Avoidance
The project reclamation plan shall avoid as many protected trees as feasible.

The project plan shall incorporate placement of tree protection fencing outside of the avoided trees’ drip line, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12.

Preserved trees on the project site shall be avoided during construction by following best management practices as outlined in the following measures.

LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-19
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Mitigation Measure 4.3-6b: Tree Maintenance During Construction, Root Zones
Tree roots often extend far beyond the canopy drip line, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12. Excavation work within the drip line of avoided trees shall not be allowed.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6c: Tree Protection Fencing
Prior to the start of fill disposal, Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) shall be installed. The TPF shall be maintained during the entire fill disposal process to prevent direct damage to trees and their growing environment. The TPF shall consist of blaze orange barrier fencing supported by metal “Trail” fence posts, unless wildlife exclusion fencing is in place. The TPF shall be placed at a distance that is at or outside of the drip lines, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12, of avoided trees. The TPF shall be installed as part of the site preparation before fill disposal or tree removal/trimming begins and shall be installed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. The TPF shall not be altered in any way that would increase the encroachment on the avoided trees during fill activities.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6d: Use of Heavy Equipment
Heavy machinery shall not be allowed to operate (excavation, grading, drainage and leveling) or park within the drip line, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12, of avoided trees unless approved by a qualified arborist.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6e: Storage of Construction Materials and Debris Fill materials shall not be placed against the trunks of avoided trees. Disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drip line, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12, is prohibited.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6f: Incidental Damage to Protected Trees The attachment of wires, signs, and ropes to any protected tree is strictly prohibited. Workers may be allowed to rest under trees, but they must not injure trees by any means. The County shall be notified if any damage occurs

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-20
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
to a retained tree during fill disposal so that proper treatment may be administered.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6g: Trimming
All pruning of protected trees shall be performed by a licensed contractor familiar with International Society of Arboriculture pruning guidelines and shall comply with the guidelines established by the International Society of Arboriculture, Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning, and any special conditions as determined by a certified arborist or the County’s Director. A certified arborist shall coordinate all activities involving protected trees near the construction zone that are not permitted for removal.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6h: Tree Planting Monitoring and Establishment Tree planting shall be monitored according to the methods outlined in Section 2.9.6 of the Reclamation Plan for successful establishment of installed trees. Establishment will be considered successful if 50 percent of the number of plantings required by the County have become established with no significant intervention for at least two years.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6i: Oak Tree Plan
The operator of the Clayton Quarry shall consult with an arborist to develop a plan that identifies where oak trees can be planted within the project site upon the completion of mining without substantially exacerbating wildfire risk on the site. The oak tree plan shall be provided to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and to the Planning Division for review and comment, to confirm that the additional oaks would not substantially exacerbate wildfire risk by connecting the two very high fire hazard severity zones on the project site. Oak trees shall be planted on the site during final reclamation activities as indicated in the final oak tree plan. Tree planting shall be monitored according to the methods outlined in Section 2.9.6 of the Reclamation Plan for the successful establishment of installed trees. The monitoring shall verify that the following performance standard is met: the planted trees must be healthy and must survive three years without intervention to be considered established. If the survival rate is less than 80 percent after three years, the trees that did not survive shall be replaced. The verification monitoring shall continue until the 80 percent survival rate of the

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-21
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
trees planted under the oak tree plan has been achieved for three consecutive years.

Impact 4.3-7: Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other Local or Regional Plan Protecting Biological
Resources
LTS None required. LTS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 4.4-1: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Rupture of a Known Fault LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-2: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Strong Seismic Ground
Shaking
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-3: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, as Result of SeismicallyInduced Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Settlement LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-4: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Rockfalls and Landslides within the Quarry
PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-4: Slope Stability Monitoring The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator) shall retain a Countyapproved qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer experienced in evaluating the stability of slopes within the Knoxville formation at the diabase/Knoxville contact. These slopes shall be inspected every 5 years, or at an alternative frequency, if recommended by the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and approved by the County.

The results of the inspection and any recommendations by the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer shall be documented and submitted to the County within 30 days following the inspection. The report shall be accompanied with the Board of Supervisor’s approved fee for review by the County Geologist. Inspections shall summarize the rock types observed, provide detailed rock mass descriptions and measured discontinuity orientations, observed seepage conditions, and compare the observed conditions relative to those identified in the project geotechnical evaluation completed for the revised reclamation plan by Golder Associates Inc. [Golder] in 2017 (“Geotechnical Evaluations for Revised Reclamation Plan, LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-22
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Clayton Quarry, Clayton, California”). The geotechnical evaluation shall be appended to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. If the conditions vary from the geotechnical evaluation document characterization, the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer shall evaluate whether the changes have an adverse impact on slope stability, and, if so, provide feasible recommendations to mitigate the slope stability concerns to achieve a minimum static factor of safety of 1.3 and a pseudo-static factor of safety greater than 1.0. Recommendations shall be implemented within 6 months by the Operator, if feasible, otherwise as soon as practicable thereafter, upon approval by the County.

Impact 4.4-5: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Landslides within the
Overburden Fill Areas
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-6: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Landslides within the Plant Site Area
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-7: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-4a and 4.6-4b (see Impact 4.6-4).

LTS
Impact 4.4-8: Be Located on a Geologic Unit or Soil That Is Unstable, or That Would Become Unstable as a Result of the Project and Potentially Result in On- or Off-Site Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction or Collapse PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 (see Impact 4.4- 4).

LTS
Impact 4.4-9: Be Located on Expansive Soil, as Defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), Creating Substantial Risks to Life or Property
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-10: Directly or indirectly Destroy a Unique
Geological Feature
NI None required. NI
Impact 4.4-11: Directly or indirectly Destroy a Unique
Paleontological Resource
PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-11: Paleontological Resources The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator) shall inform its employees and contractors involved in ground disturbing activities associated with reclamation of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-23
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
and shall include the following directive in employee and contractor training materials:
“The subsurface of the quarry may be sensitive for paleontological resources in the Knoxville formation (the east side of the quarry pit) and in the alluvium (east side of the Clayton Quarry property). If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface disturbance, all ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Employees and contractors shall not collect or move any paleontological materials.

Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as animal tracks. Employee/contractor acknowledges and understands that excavation or removal of paleontological material is prohibited by law and constitutes a misdemeanor under California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5.” A copy of the training materials and documentation of completed training shall be provided to the County for review upon request.

If a paleontological resource is encountered during implementation of the revised reclamation plan, the Operator shall notify the County and all activity within 100 feet of the find shall halt until it can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and determine its significance. If significant, the paleontologist shall notify the County and the Operator, in consultation with the County and the paleontologist, shall prepare a treatment plan such that the fossil would be recovered and scientific information preserved. The paleontologist shall implement the treatment plan in consultation with the County and Operator prior to allowing work in the 100-foot radius to resume.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 4.5-1: Gas Emissions Generated By Reclamation
Activities Could Have a Significant Impact on Global
Climate Change
PS Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a: Idling Times
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure CCR Title 13, Section 2485). Clear LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-24
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. [Measure applies to idling times for all equipment other than diesel‐powered equipment].

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b: Idling Times for Diesel-powered Equipment Minimize the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes. [Measure applies to idling times for diesel-powered equipment only].

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c: Equipment Maintenance
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1d: Alternative Fuel Plan
Prior to construction, develop a plan demonstrating that alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment will represent at least 15 percent of the construction fleet if commercially available.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1e: Local Building Materials
Use at least 10 percent local building materials in construction (e.g., construction aggregates, concrete pipe).

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1f: Recycle or Reuse Construction and Demolition Materials
Recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials (e.g., during decommissioning and removal of processing plant facilities).

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1g: Generator Alternative Fuel
Use alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power, as feasible for each construction site.

Impact 4.5-2: Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans,
Policies, or Regulations.

LTS None required. LTS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.6-1: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements or Substantial Degradation of
Surface Water or Groundwater Quality
PS Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a: Compliance with General Permit Requirements Compliance with requirements set forth in applicable NPDES and SWPPP.

The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator) shall comply with the LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-25
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
requirements set forth in any applicable NPDES program or SWPPP requirements, including, but not limited to, submitting a Notice of Intent prior to the start of activities under the Construction General Permit, updating the existing SWPPP as required by the Industrial General Permit based on changes to site conditions, and implementing typical BMPs for the protection of water quality.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: RWQCB Discharge Approvals
The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator) shall submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to discharging any pit lake water. The report shall include information on the estimated characteristics of the quarry pit lake water quality as described in the “Quarry Lake Water Quality and Aquatic Life Criteria” Technical Memorandum, prepared by EMKO Environmental, Inc., July 2, 2021. The Operator shall implement any WDRs issued by the RWQCB in response to the Report of Waste Discharge. The Operator shall inform the County that a Report of Waste Discharge has been submitted, and shall provide the County with evidence of NPDES coverage and WDR compliance prior to any off-site discharge and at any time thereafter upon County request.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c: Funding Mechanism
Within 30-days after the effective date of this permit, the Operator shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Conservation and Development, or designee, (“Director”) a proposed funding mechanism (e.g., a bond) and cost basis to secure costs related to the required post-reclamation activities. The funding mechanism shall be in a form and an amount reasonably acceptable to the Director and shall be sufficient to cover costs associated with those post-reclamation activities described in Table 1 below, including the activities required by Mitigation Measure 4.6-7. The funding mechanism shall be held by the County, or held and managed by a third party approved by the Operator and County, as determined by the Director. On the fifth anniversary of this permit’s effective date, and at five-year intervals thereafter, the Operator shall submit an updated post-reclamation activity funding mechanism and cost basis to the Director for review and approval.

The updated cost basis must be calculated to account for inflation and

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-26
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
updated materials, construction, and maintenance costs, sufficient for the Director to determine whether the funded amount sufficiently secures anticipated costs related to the required post-reclamation activities. The Operator shall submit a Condition of Compliance review application (or equivalent) and associated deposit with each 5-year review to cover County time and material costs related to the Director’s review of the updated funding mechanism and cost basis.

Table 1
Clayton Quarry Lake Drainage Post‐Reclamation Inspection and Maintenance Activities
Item Description Implementation Timing
Inspection Items
1 Quarry pit drainage outlet
structure, including:
a. Condition of concrete
bulkhead (e.g., spalling,
exposed reinforcing,
cracks, joint openings)
b. Condition of steel plate
(e.g., abrasion, rust)
c. Condition of debris
screen (e.g., abrasion,
rust, connection to steel
plate)
Annual inspection
2 24‐inch HDPE drainage pipe
(culvert), including:
a. Condition of pipe at
inlet
b. Condition of pipe at
manholes (2)
c. Condition of pipe
connection at Mitchell
Canyon Rd.

Annual inspection

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-27
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
3 Rip‐rap mound above
drainage outlet (e.g., scour,
undermining, washout, or
other damage)
Annual inspection
4 Quarry lake perimeter fencing Annual inspection
Maintenance Items
5 Repairs to quarry pit
drainage outlet structure
(e.g., concrete facing and
reinforcement)
Deficiencies to be addressed prior
to next inspection; immediate
repair if structural integrity of
drainage outlet is in jeopardy
6 Clean‐out of 24‐inch
HDPE drainage pipe
(culvert)
Deficiencies to be addressed
prior to next inspection; clean
out sediment and debris prior
to onset of rainy season, if
needed
7 Maintenance of rip‐rap
mound (e.g., clean‐out of
sediment and debris and
replacement of rip‐ rap
rock)
Deficiencies to be addressed
prior to next inspection; clean
out sediment and debris and
re‐establish rip‐rap protection
prior to onset of rainy season,
if needed
8 Repair damaged quarry lake
perimeter fencing
Deficiencies to be addressed
prior to next inspection; repair
wire mesh and barbed wire, if
needed
Impact 4.6-2: Substantially Decrease Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Recharge such that the Project May Impede Sustainable Groundwater
Management of the Basin
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.6-3: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a Manner Which Would Result in Erosion or Siltation Within Areas That Drain to the Northern Watershed
LTS None required. LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-28
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Impact 4.6-4: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a manner which would result in Erosion or Siltation within the Quarry, Mitchell Creek, and Transitional Watershed Areas PS Mitigation Measure 4.6-4a: Incorporate Haul Road Erosion Control Measures
Incorporate erosion control measures into the revised reclamation plan consistent with recommendations of the “Runoff from East Rim Access and Upper Quarry Haul Roads” Memorandum, prepared by EMKO
Environmental, Inc., April 18, 2017. The memorandum shall be appended to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. Erosion control measures include, but are not limited to the installation of drainage controls such as cross slopes and rock-lined ditches along the portion of east rim haul road located in the Knoxville formation.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-4b: Incorporate Quarry Pit and Overburden Fill Area Erosion Control Measures
Incorporate erosion control measures into the revised reclamation plan consistent with recommendations of the “Geotechnical Evaluations for Revised Reclamation Plan, Clayton Quarry, Clayton, California” Report, prepared by Golder Associates, May 2017. The geotechnical evaluation shall be appended to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. These erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, the placement of rip-rap and vegetation along the quarry pit lake shore, as well as the following measures to be implemented within the overburden fill areas:
• 2.5H:1V or flatter slopes with wheel and track rolling compactive effort;
• Slope heights under 50 feet vertical, unless interim benches are used for drainage control;
• Use of “J‐ditches” or functional equivalent where beneficial to direct drainage horizontally across fill areas to designated drainage channels;
• Fill slopes revegetated with appropriate erosion control seed mix; and
LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-29
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
• Erosion control fabric, wattles and other BMPs implemented as needed to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.

Impact 4.6-5: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a manner which would result in On-Site Flooding or Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Storm Drainage System
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.6-6: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a manner which would result in Off-Site Flooding or Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Storm Drainage System
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.6-7: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a manner which would result Uncontrolled Discharges from
the Quarry Pit Lake and Thereby result in On- Or Off-Site Flooding or Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Storm
Drainage System
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1c (see Impact 4.6- 1).

Mitigation Measure 4.6-7: Quarry Pit Lake Outlet Structure and Pipeline Maintenance
Following the construction of the quarry pit lake outlet structure and drainage pipeline, the operator of the Clayton Quarry shall retain a qualified professional engineer approved by the County to conduct inspection and asneeded repair of the drainage pipeline annually, in the late summer/early fall, and after any earthquake in Contra Costa County that generates strong (modified Mercalli Intensity VI) or greater ground shaking. Reports documenting inspection findings and any repair completed shall be submitted to the County after each inspection.

LTS
Impact 4.6-8: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a Manner Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
NI None required. NI
Impact 4.6-9: Release of Pollutants in Flood Hazard,
Tsunami, or Seiche Zones Due to Project Inundation
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.6-10: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater
Management Plan
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1a and 4.6-1b (see Impact 4.6-1).

LTS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 4.7-1: Physically Divide an Established Community NI None required. NI Impact 4.7-2: Conflict with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
LTS None required. LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-30
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
NOISE
Impact 4.8-1: Generation of a Substantial Temporary or
Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of The Project Site in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable
Standards of Other Agencies
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 (see Impact 4.1- 4).

Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: Noise Reduction During Removal of Processing Plant and Support Structures
To reduce potential construction-equipment reclamation-related noise impacts associated with the removal of processing plant and support structures on the project site, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented during the removal of the processing plant and support structures:
• The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator), employees, and the demolition contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment are equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The demolition contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. In addition, the construction contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• The demolition contractor shall locate, to the maximum extent practical, on-site equipment in staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The demolition contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
• An on-site complaint and enforcement manager (manager) shall be available to respond to and track noise complaints. The telephone number of the manager shall be posted at the entrance to the quarry site. The manager shall be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to noise complaints. The manager shall be responsible for responding to any noise complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the demolition team to LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-31
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible, such as noise curtains, temporary sound walls, berms, etc.) to correct the problem. The complaints and noise reduction measures shall be documented and provided to the County upon request.
• At least one week prior to commencement of the removal of the processing plant and supporting structures, the Operator shall prepare a notice that the demolition work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall include the telephone number of the complaint and enforcement manager. A copy of the notice shall be mailed to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development.
• This mitigation measure 4.8-1 only applies to reclamation activities, not to operational activities.

Impact 4.8-2: Generate Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise from Reclamation Activities
LTS None required. LTS

OTHER CEQA TOPICS
Impact 7-1: Substantially Degrade the Quality of the
Environment, Reduce Habitat of a Fish or Wildlife Species, cause a Fish or Wildlife Population to Drop Below SelfSustaining Levels, Threaten to Eliminate a Plant or Animal Community, Substantially Reduce the Number or Restrict
the Range of a Rare or Endangered Plant or Animal or
Eliminate Important Examples of the Major Periods of
California History or Prehistory
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c,

4.3-1d, 4.3-1e, 4.3-1f, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, 4.3-1l, 4.3-3, 4.3-6a, 4.3- 6b, 4.3-6c, 4.3-6d, 4.3-6e, 4.3-6f, 4.3-6g, 4.3-6h, and 4.3-6i (see Section 4.3), CUL1, and CUL-2 (see Appendix A-4).

LTS
Impact 7-2: Impacts that are Individually Limited but
Cumulatively Considerable
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a, 4.5-1b, 4.5-1c,

4.5-1d, 4.5-1e, 4.5-1f, and 4.5-1g
LTS
Impact 7-3: Environmental Effects which will Cause
Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-4, 4.4-4, 4.5-1a,

4.5-1b, 4.5-1c, 4.5-1d, 4.5-1e, 4.5-1f, 4.5-1g, 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b, 4.6-1c, 4.6-4a, 4.6-4b,

4.6-7, 4.8-1.

LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-32 February | 2022

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

Department of
Conservation and
Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone:1-855-323-2626
February 16, 2022
Contra
Costa
County
John Kopchik
Director
Aruna Bhat
Deputy Director
Jason Crapo
Deputy Director
Maureen Toms
Deputy Director
Amalia Cunningham
Assistant Deputy Director

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse #2020020323
County File #’s CDLP15-02030/31
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970” as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Division of the Department of Conservation and Development of Contra Costa County has prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the following project:

PROJECT TITLE: CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment APPLICANT: CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC
Attn: Steve Grace, Ph. (831) 970-9559
2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 120
Folsom, CA 95630
LOCATION: The project site is located at 515 Mitchell Canyon Road, Clayton, CA 94517.

This location is with unincorporated Contra Costa County. The project site and immediate unincorporated County lands are surrounded to the east by the Town of Clayton and City of Concord to the north. (Assessor Parcel No.: 122-020-013 and 122-020-007) (Zoning: A-2 General Agricultural District, A-2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The applicant is requesting approval of two land use permits (County File #’s LP15-2030 and 2031) for the purposes of amending its reclamation plan and corresponding operations, which includes the following components:
• Reclamation over an anticipated period of 47 years to a post-mining land use of open space; • Reduction of the surface mining disturbance footprint relative to the existing reclamation plan that leaves the east rim of the quarry intact, providing visual buffer between the quarry and view sheds to the east;

• Permanent overburden fill areas;
• Final grading contours reflecting a maximum depth of excavation at elevation 110 feet above mean sea level (msl) with finish slope angles that achieve adequate factors of safety; • A final drainage plan that provides for the quarry pit to slowly fill with stormwater following reclamation to form a quarry lake with a controlled outflow that conveys stormwater to natural drainage courses and man-made drainage facilities;
• Removal of facilities, structures and equipment associated with mining; • Revegetation of the quarry east rim, overburden fill areas, and processing plant site to a combination of chaparral and grassland habitats that feature California native seed mixes; • Elimination of requirements to backfill, grade, and compact the quarry floor and benches, given that the planned open space end use would provide for a future quarry lake; • Clarification of pre-Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (1976) disturbance areas, including any areas disturbed outside the boundaries of the approved reclamation plan; • Removal of 79 out of 123 existing trees, to be replaced with 400 foothill pine trees that would form a tree screen along the quarry east rim;
• Compliance with current State reclamation standards to be achieved during reclamation; and • An exception request to Division 914 of the Contra Costa Code of Ordinances (Offsite Collect and Convey requirement).

In addition, and in response to stakeholder input, CEMX has incorporated into the project a new screening berm (between the existing processing plant site and residential communities to the north).

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT:

Pursuant to Article 9 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR describes the proposed Project; identifies, analyzes, and evaluates the environmental impacts which may result from the proposed Project; and identifies measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. The mitigations identified in this document and designed for the proposed Project ensure that the Project will not cause a significant impact on the environment. The Draft EIR for the proposed Project identified potentially significant impacts in the environmental topics of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology & soils, GHG emissions, hydrology/water quality, and noise. Environmental analysis determined that measures were available to mitigate potential adverse impacts to less-than-significant levels. As a result of the above, a Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

WHERE TO REVIEW THE DRAFT EIR:

The Draft EIR can be viewed online at the following link: (https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7605/MajorPlanning-Applications-Under-Consid). Any sources of information referenced in the Draft EIR can be provided upon request by contacting the project planner.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:

Prior to adoption of the Draft EIR, the County will be accepting comments on the adequacy of the document during a 45-day public comment period; the Draft EIR may be certified at a future date in a public hearing following the public comment period. The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental document will begin on Friday, February 18, 2022 and extends to Monday, April 4, 2022, until 5:00 P.M. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address:

Francisco Avila, Principal Planner
Community Development Division
Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
OR emailed to [email protected]
Sincerely,
Francisco Avila
Francisco Avila
Principal Planner
(925)655-2866
[email protected]
cc: County Clerk’s Office (2 copies)
Adjacent Occupants and Property Owners Notification
List
attach: Vicinity Map

VICINITY MAP
LEGEND

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA

CEMEX CLAYTON QUARRY
1 CEMEX CLAYTON QUARRY
DRAFT
Board of Directors
Jim Felton
President
Liz Harvey Roberts
Secretary
Burt Bassler
Treasurer
Keith Alley
John Gallagher
Claudia Hein
Scott Hein
Garrett Girvan
Giselle Jurkanin
Margaret Kruse
Carol Lane
Frank Martens
Bob Marx
Phil O’Loane
Robert Phelps
Malcolm Sproul
Jeff Stone
Achilleus Tiu
Directors
Staff Directors
Edward Sortwell Clement Jr.

Executive Director
Seth Adams
Land Conservation Director
Sean Burke
Land Programs Director
Monica E. Oei
Finance & Administration Director
Karen Ferriere
Development Director
Founders
Arthur Bonwell
Mary L. Bowerman
Proud Member of
Land Trust Alliance
California Council of Land Trusts
Bay Area Open Space Council

September 9
th
, 2022
Francisco Ávila
Senior Planner
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development 30 Muir Rd
Martinez, CA 94553

Save Mount Diablo Letter of Support for CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment (LP15-2030/31)
Dear Mr. Ávila,
Save Mount Diablo (SMD) is a non-profit conservation organization founded in 1971 which acquires land, or interests in land, for conservation purposes and often for addition to parks on and around Mount Diablo. We also monitor land use planning which might affect protected lands. We build trails, restore habitat, and are involved in environmental education. In 1971, there was just one park on Mount Diablo totaling 6,778 acres; today there are almost 50 parks and preserves around Mount Diablo totaling 120,000 acres. We have a constituency of 14,000 donors, members, and weekly e-news readers.

We are writing in support of CEMEX’s (Applicant) proposed Reclamation Plan Amendment LP15-2030/31 (Project), to be considered during the Contra Costa County (County) Planning Commission meeting on September 28th.

We have been involved in the proposed Project since 2015 by providing comments to the Applicant and County staff, meeting with the Applicant and stakeholders, leading walks of the area near the Project site within Mount Diablo State Park (State Park), touring the Project site and educating the public about the Project and its progress.

As a result of much dialogue and work between SMD and the Applicant, we applauded the announcement in February of this year that the Applicant will donate the 101-acre parcel (APN 122-010-016) of land it owns adjacent the State Park and the existing quarry footprint to the State of California so that it can become part of the State Park. It had been SMD’s goal to see this important land protected. The parcel to be donated contains beautiful chaparral and oak trees within the canyon slopes of Mount Zion and lies adjacent to Mitchell Canyon. Many wildlife species can be spotted on the land including deer, birds, and protected species such as the Alameda whipsnake. A portion of the Black Point Trail, which has been popular with hiking enthusiasts at the State Park for decades, also runs through the property. All contribute to a high conservation value for the community.

The public benefit that will be realized through this land donation to the State Park and formalization of the popular Black Point Trail will provide a significant public benefit to the local community that will help offset ongoing dust and noise impacts related to the operation of the quarry. The Project will also yield drainage improvements related to runoff into Mitchell Creek. In addition, we note the benefits of reduced fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution of having an aggregate source (the Applicant’s quarry) located near where the aggregate will be used instead of hauling it over long distances. We also note that in April of this year the Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) stated that its concerns related to the Project have been addressed.

We appreciate the Applicant’s partnership with us and look forward to working with the Applicant and State Parks to complete the donation process.

Regards,
Juan Pablo Galván Martínez
Senior Land Use Manager