Agenda — Pittsburg City Council, August 7, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF PITTSBURG
AGENDA
AUGUST 07, 2023

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER
65 CIVIC AVENUE, PITTSBURG, CA

CLOSED SESSION
6:00 P.M.

REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.

CITY COUNCIL

PITTSBURG ARTS AND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

PITTSBURG POWER COMPANY

SOUTHWEST PITTSBURG GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT II

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

PRESIDING
Shanelle Scales-Preston, Mayor/Chair
Juan Antonio Banales, Vice- Mayor/Chair
Jelani Killings, Council Member/Board Member
Dionne Adams, Council Member/Board Member
Angelica Lopez, Council Member/Board Member
FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY:

S.L. Floyd, Housing Authority Member
Annie Hill Herring, Housing Authority Member
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pittsburg City Council meetings are held the first and third Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. The Housing Authority meets in conjunction with the City Council on the third Monday of each month. The Pittsburg City Council meets regularly in the Council Chamber at 65 Civic Avenue, unless otherwise noted above. The City Council also sits as the Board of Directors of several other City agencies. The stipends for all agency members conform to state statutes governing compensation amounts. All other Agencies meet on an as needed basis and will be listed above if applicable. Copies of the open session agenda packets, which are distributed to the City Council, are on file in the office of the City Clerk, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California, and are available for public inspection, beginning 72 hours in advance, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except from noon to 1:00 p.m. and City holidays). The agenda and reports are also located on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov. Additionally, if any reports or documents, which are public records, are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, those reports and documents will also be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office and on the day of the meeting in the Council Chamber at the public counter area below the dais. 1 AUDIENCE REMARKS
The Audience Remarks period is for the public to comment on any items scheduled to be heard during the Closed Session portion of the meeting, if applicable.
6:00 PM - CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Section 54956.9(d)(4) Number of cases: two
7:00 PM - CONVENE IN OPEN SESSION FOR REGULAR MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENTATIONS

2. New Employee Introductions

3. Presentation by Healthy Hearts Institute

4. Presentation by the Chamber of Commerce

PROCLAMATIONS

5. In Memory of Dr. Carol Conner, Founder of White Pony Express

CITY MANAGER REPORTS/REMARKS
The City Manager may make brief announcements or informal comments at this time and brief the Council on items of interest. (No Action Required)

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the audience who wish to address the City Council or Agency Boards on issues that are not scheduled for the agenda and on any items listed as part of the Consent Calendar should complete a Speaker's Card available at the dais. Please read the card carefully in order to fill out the card properly.

Submit the completed card to the City Clerk before the item is called, preferably before the meeting begins. Individuals will be given three minutes to address the Council unless additional time is allowed as provided for spokespersons. Prior to speaking, each member of the public shall state their name and business and City of residence in a clear and audible tone of voice. (No Action Required)

COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Members may make a report on their committee assignments at this time. (see attached list of adhoc committees and other public agencies in which Council members particiapte). (No Action Required) 2 PUBLIC HEARING

6. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Approving an Update to the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fees
On April 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 approving the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, a regional conservation and mitigation plan for natural resources in East County. HCP/NCCP chapter 9, “Funding,” outlines estimated costs for implementing the HCP/NCCP and identifies development-based mitigation fees as a source of funding to offset development impacts to natural resources. The development mitigation fee amounts were established by City Council Resolution 07-10898 and have since been adjusted annually according to housing and consumer price indices. The HCP/NCCP requires periodic audits in years three, six, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of implementation to assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs require an additional adjustment of the mitigation fees.

CONSIDERATION

7. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Supporting House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 16 - Efforts to Exonerate the Port Chicago 50 On February 17, 2023, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Barbara Lee (CA-12), and John Garamendi (CA-08) introduced House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 16 – Recognizing the victims of the Port Chicago explosion of July 17, 1944, the 79th anniversary of the greatest homeland loss of life of World War II, and exonerating the 50 African-American sailors known as the Port Chicago 50, who were unjustly court-martialed by the Navy (H. Con. Res. 16).

This resolution is part of the ongoing effort to right the historic injustice of the wrongful conviction.

8. Adoption of City Council Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Deferred Replacement Vehicles and Equipment from FY 2022/23 and Budgeted for FY 2023/24
The City maintains a fleet of vehicles and equipment necessary for operations and for maintenance of the city’s infrastructure. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain shortages, and short purchasing windows, the majority of vehicle and equipment purchases have been postponed since 2020. If approved, the resolution authorizes the procurement of 48 deferred vehicles and equipment not to exceed $3,211,400 and vehicles and equipment budgeted for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 not to exceed $945,700 for a combined total not to exceed amount of $4,157,100.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
City Council/Agency Members may make any conflict of interest declarations pertaining to Consent Calendar items at this time.
3 COMBINED CITY COUNCIL, PITTSBURG ARTS AND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION,

PITTSBURG POWER COMPANY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND SOUTHWEST

PITTSBURG GHAD II CONSENT CALENDAR

9. Minutes of July 17, 2023

10. Adoption of a Minute Order to Approve a City Council Recess for Labor Day Holiday
Historically, the City Council takes a recess during the summer months to allow for both staff and City Council vacations. The recess and scheduled dates are at the discretion of the City Council.

11. Adoption of a Minute Order to Select Appointments for Vacancies on the Measure M/P Citizens Oversight Committee
Pursuant to a 2013 Minute Order, the Measure M/P Citizens Oversight Committee (“Oversight Committee”) is comprised of three members of the Community Advisory Commission and two members from the Chamber of Commerce.

Members must be residents of the City of Pittsburg as well as registered voters.

12. Adoption of a Minute Order Authorizing a Letter of Support for ABAG's Regional Technology and Innovation Hub Program Proposal
The U.S. Economic Development Administration's (EDA) Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs (Tech Hubs) Program is an economic development initiative to drive regional technology and innovation growth by investing directly in regions to create innovation centers that catalyze the creation of good jobs for American workers of all skill levels. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is submitting a proposal to establish a Next-Generation Solid-State Battery Technology Innovation Hub (NSBT-Hub) to the EDA under this program. Adoption of a minute order would authorize staff to forward a letter of support for ABAG's proposal.

13. Adoption of a City Council Resolution to Modify Overtime Pay and Amend the IBEW Agreement
The City Manager, upon recommendation from the Director of Human Resources, recommends amendments to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1245 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The City Council is asked to approve the amendment to the IBEW Memorandum of Understanding.

14. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Chemtrade Chemicals US LLC for the Water Treatment Chemical Supply – Aluminum Sulfate
The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the City’s Water Treatment Plant and each year solicits bids for necessary chemical supplies. If approved, the resolution will authorize a purchase contract with vendor Chemtrade Chemicals US LLC as the only responsive bidder for Aluminum Sulfate in the amount of $84,000.
4 15. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Accepting the Adjusted Budget Summary for Project 1200 California Theatre Balcony Renovation
Project 1200 California Theatre Balcony Renovation (the “Project”) constructed multiple retrofit improvements to the upper and lower sections of the California Theatre balcony to allow it to be occupied and utilized as seating during theater events. The Project was accepted as complete in February 2023. This resolution will accept an Adjusted Budget Summary for the Project to include additional design and project management expenditures previously omitted from the record.

16. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Awarding a Purchase Contract to JAM Services for Project 1752 Streetlight LED Replacement
Project 1752, Streetlight LED Replacement (Project), was recently established to improve city lighting. Supplies needed for the project will be ordered in bulk. If approved, the resolution will award a purchase contract in the amount of $400,000 with JAM Services of Livermore, CA as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.

17. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Authorizing the Application for a Land and Water Conservation Fund Funding for the Pittsburg Premier Fields Project The City is pursuing Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant funds for development of the Pittsburg Premier Fields Project (Project). The LWCF application requires a Resolution demonstrating City Council approval of the application.

18. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement with Contra Costa County Department of Information Technology
The City is the owner of real property known as 200 Shadybrook Court, Pittsburg, California (Property). The City and Contra Costa County Department of Information Technology (County) propose to enter into a lease agreement (Lease) for a portion of the Property located in a fenced area of approximately 1,200 square feet and includes the road that leads to the fenced area from Shadybrook Court (Premises).

19. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Accepting Project 2039, Manville Avenue Speed Humps as Complete and Authorize the City Engineer to File a Notice of Completion
Project 2039, Manville Avenue Speed Humps Project (the “Project”), included the construction of three speed humps with white thermoplastic pavement marking, six speed hump signs, and six 15 MPH signs along Manville Avenue between Riverview Drive and Madoline Street. This Resolution will accept the construction contract as completed and authorize the City Engineer to file a notice of completion.
5 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council Members may request items to be considered for future agendas. An item will only be brought forward with a majority vote and will appear on a future agenda with staff recommendations for further Council consideration.

COUNCIL MEMBER REMARKS
Council Members may make brief announcements or informal comments at this time. (No Action Required) ADJOURNMENT TO AUGUST 21, 2023
6 NOTICE TO PUBLIC

GENERAL INFORMATION
Copies of the open session agenda packets, as distributed to the City Council, are on file in the office of the City Clerk, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California, and are available for public inspection, beginning 72 hours in advance, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except City holidays). Full agenda packets are also located on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov. If any reports or documents, which are public records, are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, those reports or documents will be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office and on the day of the meeting in the Council Chamber at the public counter area below the dais.

SPEAKER’S CARD
Members of the audience who wish to address the City Council on issues that are not scheduled for the agenda and on any items listed as part of the agenda should complete a Speaker’s Card available at the dais. Please read the card carefully in order to fill out the card properly. Submit the completed card to the City Clerk before the item is called, preferably before the meeting begins. Individuals will be given up to three minutes to address the Council unless additional time is allowed as provided for spokespersons. Speakers are not permitted to yield their time to another speaker. Prior to speaking, each member of the public shall state their name and business and City of residence in a clear and audible tone of voice. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action may be taken by the City Council on items not already scheduled on the agenda; however, the City Council may refer your comments/concerns to staff or request that the item be placed on a future agenda.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the Public Hearing is opened, except on Public Hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment. After the public has commented, the item is closed to public comment and brought to the Council/Agency level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council/Agency.

There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting.

NOTICE TO THE DISABLED AND VISUALLY OR HEARING IMPAIRED In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Pittsburg will provide special assistance for disabled residents. Upon request, an agenda for any meeting shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats. The Council Chamber is equipped with sound amplifier units for use by the hearing impaired. The units operate in conjunction with the Chamber’s sound system. You may request the sound amplifier from the City Clerk for personal use during Council meetings. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, or are requesting a specially formatted agenda, please contact the City Clerk at (925) 252-4850. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II)

DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT
The Council requests that you observe the order and decorum of our Council Chamber by turning off or setting to vibrate all cellular telephones and electronic devices, and that you refrain from making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks. Boisterous and disruptive behavior while the Council is in session, and the display of signs in a manner which violates the rights of others or prevents others from watching or fully participating in the Council meeting, is a violation of our Municipal Code and any person who engages in such conduct can be ordered to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor.

LIVE MEDIA BROADCASTING ADVISEMENT
City Council meetings are webcast live on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov on the Agendas and Live Meetings page. Past meetings and approved minutes are also archived on that webpage. Watch the live meeting via the City’s webcast (www.pittsburgca.gov - Agendas and Live Meetings), on Comcast Channel 24 Delta TV, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 Delta TV. Contact the City Clerk’s office at (925) 252-4850 for more information 7 City Council Outside Agency / Liaison / Sub-Committees Assignments - 2023 Updated July 17, 2023

OUTSIDE AGENCY BOARDS COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS TIME STAFF ABAG Shanelle Scales-Preston / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing Annual G. Evans Delta Diablo* Juan Banales / Shanelle Scales-Preston Alt. Standing 2 nd Wednesday 4:30 pm J. Samuelson East Co. Co. County Habitat Conservancy Juan Banales / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing 4 th Monday 2:00 pm J. Davis Bi-Monthly
East County Water Management Juan Banales / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing Annual J. Samuelson MCE Clean Energy Board Shanelle Scales-Preston / Angelica Lopez Alt. Standing Quarterly 7:00 pm D. Buchanan TRANSPLAN / ECCRFFA Shanelle Scales-Preston / Juan Banales Alt. Standing 2 nd Thursday 6:30 pm J. Samuelson Tri-Delta Transit (2 reps)** S. Scales-Preston & Dionne Adams / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing Last Wednesday 4:00 pm J. Samuelson

LIAISON TO COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS TIME STAFF
East Bay League of Calif. Cities Shanelle Scales-Preston / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing 3 rd Thursday G. Evans Los Medanos Health Advisory Committee Shanelle Scales-Preston & Jelani Killings Ad Hoc As needed M. Aliotti Mayor’s Conference Shanelle Scales-Preston / Juan Banales Alt. Standing 1 st Thursday 6:30 pm G. Evans School Districts Committee (2x2) Jelani Killings & Angelica Lopez / Dionne Adams Alt. Standing 2 nd Thursday 4:00 pm M. Aliotti Quarterly
Pittsburg Police Activities League (PAL) Shanelle Scales-Preston & Angelica Lopez / Dionne Adams Alt. Standing Monthly S. Albanese

SUBCOMMITTEES COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS TIME STAFF
Community and Economic Development Jelani Killings & Angelica Lopez / Juan Banales Alt. Standing As needed J. Davis Finance Management Shanelle Scales-Preston & Juan Banales / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing As needed P. Rodrigues Government Performance Juan Banales & Jelani Killings Ad Hoc As needed J. Brizel Infrastructure and Transportation Juan Banales & Dionne Adams / Angelica Lopez Alt. Standing As needed J. Samuelson Life Enrichment Dionne Adams & Angelica Lopez / Shanelle Scales-Preston Alt. Standing As needed K. Simonton Public Safety Shanelle Scales-Preston & Jelani Killings / Dionne Adams Alt. Standing As needed S. Albanese Tobacco, Cannabis, Alcohol Policy Review Shanelle Scales-Preston & Jelani Killings Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans *Stipend of $170 per month
**Stipend of $100 per month
8 9

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Garrett Evans, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a City Council Resolution Approving an Update to the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fees
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 approving the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, a regional conservation and mitigation plan for natural resources in East County. HCP/NCCP chapter 9, “Funding,” outlines estimated costs for implementing the HCP/NCCP and identifies development-based mitigation fees as a source of funding to offset development impacts to natural resources. The development mitigation fee amounts were established by City Council Resolution 07-10898 and have since been adjusted annually according to housing and consumer price indices. The HCP/NCCP requires periodic audits in years three, six, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of implementation to assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs require an additional adjustment of the mitigation fees.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund budget as a result of the mitigation fee audit and adjustment to the HCP/NCCP mitigation fees. Development-based mitigation fees that the City collects in accordance with the HCP/NCCP are passed through to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy), the implementing entity for the HCP/NCCP, to be used to pay for land acquisition, habitat restoration/creation and related construction costs, and management and monitoring costs associated with implementation of the HCP/NCCP. The City will continue to collect an administrative fee to cover its costs in staff time spent implementing the HCP/NCCP.

RECOMMENDATION
City Council open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, and adopt the attached Resolution adjusting the HCP/NCCP development fees to the amounts described in the Resolution.
10 BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 making findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving the HCP/NCCP.

Participating jurisdictions in the HCP/NCCP include Contra Costa County and the cities of Pittsburg, Brentwood, Clayton and Oakley. HCP/NCCP chapter 9, “Funding,” outlines estimated costs for implementing the HCP/NCCP and identifies development-based mitigation fees, state and federal funding programs, and grants as sources of funding for Plan implementation.

On November 19, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance 07-1293 adding Chapter

15.108, “Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan Implementation,” to the Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC), thereby codifying the HCP/NCCP into local ordinance. PMC section 15.108.070 authorized the collection of mitigation fees to offset impacts by development that disturbs open space, wetlands and waters, habitat, and sensitive special status species covered by the HCP/NCCP. The mitigation fee amounts were established by City Council Resolution 07-10898.

PMC section 15.108.070 includes a provision for automatic adjustment of mitigation fees according to market inflation or deflation, by March 15 of each year, as required by the HCP/NCCP. A periodic audit and adjustment of the mitigation fees is required to be done in years three, six, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of Plan implementation to assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs over time require an additional adjustment of the mitigation fees.

The fee audit for year 10 occurred in 2017 but was subject to litigation that was not settled until January 2021. On February 22, 2021, the HCP Conservancy Governing Board adopted a 2017 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study reflecting updated mitigation fees. On March 7, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 22-14061 updating mitigation fees in accordance with the adjustments resulting from the 2017 Fee Study.

On February 27, 2023, the HCP Conservancy Governing Board directed participating agencies to begin utilizing the most recent mitigation fees reflected in the 2022 Fee Study.

On May 9, 2023, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study and Ordinance No. 2023-10 to update HCP mitigation fees.

The procedures included in the proposed ordinance for implementing the HCP/NCCP are unchanged from those adopted by the County in 2007.

SUBCOMMITTEE FINDINGS
This item was not presented to a Subcommittee.

STAFF ANALYSIS
HCP/NCCP development-based mitigation fees applicable to Pittsburg development projects are generally categorized into two categories: Development Fees and Wetland Fees.
11 The former are collected on a per-acre basis as mitigation for impacts to open space, habitat and species covered by the HCP/NCCP, while the latter are collected on a per-foot basis as mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters, riparian woodland/scrub, and stream buffers.

Fees are higher for lands with higher habitat value (such as in open space areas south of the City) and lower for lands with less habitat value (such as disconnected or small infill sites without wetlands). All construction or capital improvement projects that would disturb specified undeveloped lands within the HCP/NCCP permit area are subject to payment of the Development Fee, while the Wetland Mitigation Fee would be added in the event that the project would also permanently disturb a wetland, stream or other water feature.

Each of the HCP/NCCP’s participating agencies are required to take action to adopt the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study’s updated fees, as adjusted to include automatic annual adjustments. In addition to the periodic fee audit, the mitigation fees are automatically adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Home Price Index (HPI) using a formula in the HCP/NCCP. The fees calculated in the Fee Study are for 2022. These have further been updated to reflect the annual adjustments made in 2023, as shown in the table below.

2023 Mitigation Fee Schedule Based On 2022 Fee Study
Land Cover Fee Basis Current 2023
Fee
Updated 2023 Fee
Based On 2022
Fee Study
Change from
Current 2023
Fee
Development Fee
Zone 1 per acre $19,611.52 $19,871.91 1.31%
Zone 2 per acre $39,223.04 $39,743.83 1.31%
Zone 3 per acre $9,805.76 $9,935.96 1.31%
Wetland Mitigation Fee
Riparian per acre $110,667.08 $111,060.40 0.35%
Perennial Wetland per acre $167,718.29 $170,908.06 1.87% Seasonal Wetland per acre $392,489.03 $401,479.18 2.24% Alkali Wetland per acre $396,778.59 $405,871.63 2.24% Ponds per acre $215,976.51 $221,421.23 2.46%
Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $107,988.87 $110,711.14 2.46% Slough / Channel per acre $154,206.78 $156,815.09 1.66% Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per ln ft. $569.07 $580.00 1.88% Streams (>25 ft. wide) per ln ft. $854.23 $869.47 1.75% The updated Development Fees reflect an approximate 1.31% increase from those currently charged by the County.  For the non-stream wetlands, the costs of restoration are slightly higher than the existing fees (between 0.35% and 2.46%). Similarly, the costs of restoration for streams are slightly higher than the existing fees (between 1.75% and 1.88%). The 2022 Fee Study compares current actual costs to the cost assumptions used to calculate current mitigation fee amounts.
12 ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Resolution

2. East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, dated February 2023

3. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, Memorandum to Governing Board, February 27, 2023

4. Public Hearing Notice
Report prepared by: Alison Hodgkin, Associate Planner
13 Resolution No. 23- Page 1 of 6 August 7, 2023

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG
In the Matter of:

Resolution Approving an Update to the ) RESOLUTION NO. 23-_____ Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural )
Community Conservation Plan )
(HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fees )
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 making findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); approving the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP, or “Plan”); authorizing the City Manager to execute the Implementing Agreement for the HCP/NCCP; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, the agency that performs the duties assigned to the Implementing Entity in the HCP/NCCP and Implementing Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the HCP/NCCP, as implemented in accordance with the Implementing Agreement, provides comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem conservation and contributes to the recovery of endangered species within East Contra Costa County; balances open space, habitat, and urban development; encourages, where appropriate, multiple uses of protected areas; shares the costs and benefits of the HCP/NCCP as widely and equitably as possible; and protects the rights of private property owners; and WHEREAS, the HCP/NCCP also reduces the cost and increases the clarity and consistency of federal and state permitting and consolidates and streamlines these processes into one, locally controlled plan. On July 25, 2007, and August 6, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services and California Department of Fish and Game issued permit numbers TE 160958-0 and 2835-2007-01-03 (respectively) to the City of Pittsburg, authorizing the City of Pittsburg to conduct and authorize activities that could result in take of threatened and endangered species subject to compliance with, and implementation of, the HCP/NCCP; and
WHEREAS, HCP/NCCP chapter 9, “Funding”, outlines estimated costs for implementing the HCP/NCCP and identifies mitigation fees on development; state and federal funding programs; and grants as sources of funding for Plan implementation; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance 07-1293 adding chapter 15.108, “Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan Implementation,” to the Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC), thereby codifying the HCP/NCCP into local ordinance; and
WHEREAS, PMC section 15.108.070 authorizes the collection of mitigation fees to offset impacts by development that disturbs open space, wetlands and waters, habitat, and sensitive special status species covered by the HCP/NCCP. The mitigation fee amounts were established by City Council Resolution 07-10898; and 14 Resolution No. 23- Page 2 of 6 August 7, 2023
WHEREAS, PMC section 15.108.070 includes an automatic adjustment of mitigation fees according to market inflation or deflation, by March 15 of each year, as provided in the HCP/NCCP. A periodic audit and adjustment of the mitigation fees is required to be done in years three, six, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of Plan implementation to assess whether actual land costs and experience in implementing the HCP/NCCP since adoption of the Plan necessitate an additional adjustment of the mitigation fees; and WHEREAS, the fee audit for year 10 occurred in 2017 but was subject to litigation that was not settled until January 2021; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2021, the HCP Conservancy Governing Board adopted the 2017 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-14061 approving updated mitigaton fees to reflect the 2017 Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2023, the HCP Conservancy Governing Board directed participating agencies to adopt increases to mitigation fees; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the Contra Costa County Board of Directors adopted the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study and Ordinance No. 2023-10 to update HCP mitigation fees; and
WHEREAS, each of the participating agencies in the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP must now take action to adopt the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study’s updated fees, as adjusted to include automatic annual adjustments since the 2022 performance of the audit, to facilitate consistency in implementation of the HCP/NCCP across the participating agencies; and
WHEREAS, on or prior to July 27, 2023, notice of the August 7, 2023, public hearing was posted at City Hall, at the Pittsburg Library, at the City Housing Authority, and on the ‘Public Notices’ section of the city’s website; was mailed via first class or electronic mail to local developers; and was published in the East County Times; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and given consideration to all written material and spoken testimony presented before and during the hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pittsburg finds and determines as follows:

Section 1. Findings
Based on the Staff Report entitled, “Adoption of a City Council Resolution Approving an Update to the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fees,” dated August 7, 2023, and based on all the information contained in the Planning Division files on this item, incorporated here by reference and available for review in the Planning Division located at 65 Civic Avenue in Pittsburg, and based on all written and oral testimony presented at the meeting, the City Council finds that:
15 Resolution No. 23- Page 3 of 6 August 7, 2023
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

B. For purposes of this Resolution, the terms defined in section 15.108.020 of the PMC are incorporated by reference herein.

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

D. Based on the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, and the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees authorized by this Resolution and the type of development projects subject to the fees. The fees updated herein were adopted and are implemented by the City Council in reliance on the comprehensive studies that have been prepared for the HCP/NCCP. The updated Development Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the acquisition of land, the enhancement and management of habitat and the other activities to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat and covered species caused by affected Development Projects. The updated Wetland Mitigation Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the restoration, creation and management Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub and other actions to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian areas caused by Affected Development Projects. The HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees will not apply to all types of Development Projects; rather, it will only apply to those Development Projects that impact open space, habitat suitable for one or more covered species, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas.

In this way, the HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees will be used only for purposes reasonably related to the types of development projects that will be subject to the updated fees.

E. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities to be funded by the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the need for these facilities, which include the acquisition of land and the management, enhancement, restoration, and creation of habitat, arises from the development projects to which the fees will apply, i.e., development projects of all types that disturb open space, habitat, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas.

F. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development projects on which the fees will be imposed. The costs of the public facilities needed to mitigate cumulative impacts from development projects subject to the fees were estimated by projecting the extent of future development impacts, calculating the open space or habitat acreage to be acquired, managed, enhanced, restored, and created to offset these impacts, and estimating the overall costs of 16 Resolution No. 23- Page 4 of 6 August 7, 2023
acquiring and preserving this acreage for the 30-year term of the state and federal permits. The fees were then calculated based on these costs, as follows:

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

A fee equal to 50 percent of the highest fee amount is imposed in Development Fee Zone I, which is deemed to have substantial but lower intrinsic value per acre, and a fee equal to 25 percent of the highest fee amount is required in Development Fee Zone III, which is deemed to have the lowest intrinsic value per acre.

2. The method of calculating the Wetland Mitigation Fee amount for individual Affected Development Projects reflects the cost of the public facilities attributable to those individual Affected Development Projects based on:
a. Type of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be impacted by the Affected Development Project, as the type of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be restored or created must effectively replace the type being impacted by the particular project. The cost of restoring or creating Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub depends on (1) the specific construction tasks necessary to restore or create these areas and (2) the different mitigation ratios applicable to the restoration or creation of various types of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, these ratios having been established in the HCP/NCCP to require relatively more restoration or creation of those types of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub that have a higher habitat value and function for covered species and/or are more difficult to restore or create, and therefore must be restored or created in larger amounts to offset the anticipated failure of a portion of the acreage restored or created; and b. Area of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be impacted by the Affected Development Project, as the cost of restoring or creating Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub is directly proportional to the acreage 17 Resolution No. 23- Page 5 of 6 August 7, 2023
being restored or created, which in turn is directly proportional to the acreage being impacted by the project.

G. On April 16, 2007, prior to approving the HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance and fees, the City Council City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 making findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving the HCP/NCCP. This update of the adopted schedule of fees is an administrative action that is not considered a “project” pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5,) and is, therefore, exempt from CEQA.

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

Section 2. Implementation Fees Imposed
A. The applicability and application procedure for the payment of the HCP/NCCP Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee and procedure for payment of such fees shall remain as specified by Chapter 15.108 of Pittsburg Municipal Code.

B. Development Fee.

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

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

2. The Development Fee Zones are set forth in Contra Costa County Board of Directors Ordinance No. 2023-10, Exhibit A, which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.

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

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

1. The Development Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit C and based on the formula in Exhibit D, as explained in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.

As shown in Exhibit C and Exhibit D, both of which are incorporated herein by reference, one portion of the Development Fee’s amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Office of Federal Housing Finance Agency Annual Home Price Index for the Oakland- Berkeley-Livermore, California Metropolitan Division for the prior calendar year. The remaining portion of the Development Fee’s amounts shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco- 18 Resolution No. 23- Page 6 of 6 August 7, 2023
Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for prior calendar year.

2. The Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit C. As shown in Exhibit C, the Wetland Mitigation Fee’s amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the prior calendar year.

Section 3. Effective Date
The fees provided in this Resolution shall be effective 60 days after the adoption of this Resolution.

Section 4. Severability
All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any provision of this Resolution be judged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the fees shall be fully effective except as to the portion that has been judged to be invalid.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pittsburg at a regular meeting on the 7th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:
________________________________
Shanelle Scales-Preston, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Alice E. Evenson, City Clerk
19 Exhibit A: Development Fee Zones - Pittsburg
20 Exhibit B: Wetland Mitigation Fee and Acreage Determination Methods (Adapted from Table 9-5 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee amounts applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) 21 Exhibit C: Fee Adjustment Indices
(Adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee adjustment procedures applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) 22 Exhibit D: Automatic Development Fee Increase Formula (Adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee adjustment procedures applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) 23 EAST CONTRA COSTA

COUNTY HCP / NCCP

MITIGATION FEE AUDIT

AND NEXUS STUDY

Prepared For:

East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy

Prepared By:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Rural Road and Temporary Impact Fees ....................................................................................40 25 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report ii
Rural Road Fee .......................................................................................................................40 Temporary Impact Fee .........................................................................................................42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.4 percent and 2.5 percent compared to the current fee, depending on the land cover type.
29 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report vi

Table E.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison
Land Cover Type Fee Basis
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit

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

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

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

Background
The HCP/NCCP was completed in 2006 after an extensive planning process initiated in 1999 that built on prior efforts begun in 1995. 1 The HCP/NCCP enables the protection of natural resources in east Contra Costa County while streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on endangered species covered by the Plan. Adoption of the Plan allowed state and federal wildlife agencies to issue various permits for a 30-year term (the permits).

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

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

The five local agencies responsible for implementing portions of the Plan that relate to the development entitlement process are the County of Contra Costa and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg. The City of Antioch chose not to participate in the Plan. These five participating local agencies formed a joint powers authority (JPA) known as the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (the Conservancy) to perform the many implementation duties assigned to the “Implementing Entity” by the Plan.

1 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 1, pp. 1-1 to 1-2.
2 The permittees include Contra Costa County, the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Contra Costa County Flood Control And Water Conservation District, and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.
31 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 2
In late 2006 and through 2007 the local agencies formed the JPA, the Conservancy, permittees, and wildlife agencies executed the Implementing Agreement, and the wildlife agencies issued the permits. The local agencies and the Conservancy began collecting mitigation fees in 2008. The first full year of implementation was 2008. The Conservancy’s fiscal year (FY) is from January 1 to December 31.

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

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

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

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

The Plan includes a separate rural road fee based on a multiple of the development fee for specifically-identified rural transportation projects in the Plan. These projects generally have a greater per-acre impact than other types of development projects.

3 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 2, pp. 2-16 to 2-18, Figure 2-3. Excludes City of Antioch that is not covered under the Plan.
32 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 3
Covered activities that temporarily disturb habitat pay the temporary impact fee. The fee is calculated based on the permanent fee that otherwise would apply (development, rural road, or wetland) adjusted for the length of time of the temporary impact and its recovery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.
33 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 4
audits, this audit uses the same approach as the HCP/NCCP to calculate the development fee based on a specified fair share of total Plan costs (see Chapter 6 for more explanation).

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

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

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

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

5 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-30.
34 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 5
The following finding is not required though this audit makes this finding as well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This audit evaluates the amount of fees collected under the current fee schedule and the underlying cost assumptions and finds revenue insufficient to fully fund new development's fair share of the Plan costs. See Chapters 5 and 6.
35 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 6
(5)(A) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

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

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

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

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

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

The permittees (excluding the Conservancy) have adopted the HCP/NCCP that is a "capital improvement plan" as defined in section 66002(a). 36 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 7
Funding Mitigation and Conservation Goals
A Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) under California law provides unique regulatory benefits in addition to those provided by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under federal law. An NCCP must not only mitigate impacts to the maximum extent practicable as required by an HCP. An NCCP must also contribute to the recovery and continued viability of species whether or not those species are protected under the California Endangered Species Act.6 This “conservation” component of the Plan is in addition to Plan “mitigation” requirements It is accomplished by protecting habitat, natural communities, and species diversity on a landscape or ecosystem level through the creation and long-term management of large habitat reserves.

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

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

1. Update cost assumptions underlying the mitigation fees

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

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

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

This audit uses the most recently available data on financial transactions and covered activities through December 31, 2021.

6 California Fish & Game Code, Sections 2050 through 2089.25 and 2890 through 2835. 37 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 8
This audit is not a comprehensive audit of the Conservancy’s finances. The Conservancy separately has an annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. The data and methods used by this audit are sufficient to achieve the objectives described above.

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

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

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

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

The appendices provide additional supporting documentation for the audit.

7 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.
38 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

The urban development area covered under the Plan at the end of the permit term could fall anywhere in the range defined by the initial urban development area and the maximum urban development area. The ultimate boundaries depend on local land use decisions occurring during the permit term. The conservation requirements of the Plan are greater for the maximum UDA

8 Excluding some areas within the County urban limit line surrounding the Byron Airport. See HCP/NCCP, p. 2-17.
39 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 10
compared to the initial UDA to accommodate the greater impacts under the maximum UDA scenario.

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

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

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

The amount of the Zone I fee is between the fees in the other two zones because cultivated and other disturbed uses have greater habitat value than

9 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-20 to 9-21.
10 Ibid.
11 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 4, pp. 4-14 to 4-22.
40 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 11
vacant lots but less value than natural areas. Chapter 4 of the Plan includes several findings to support this approach. 12 An acre of permanent impact in Zone I is given a weight of two for the purposes of allocating the fair share of total plan costs to the development fee (twice the weight of impacts in Zone III and half the weight of impacts in Zone II).

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

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

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

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

12 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 4, pp. 4-6, 4-15, and HCP/NCCP, Appendix D, Species Profiles. 13 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-20.
14 See, for example, HCP/NCCP, Chapter 3, pp. 3-2 to 3-5. 41 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 12
Table 2.1: Permanent Impacts, 2008 Through 2021
Location Land Conversion
Urban Development Area (UDA)
Zone 1 931.44 acres
Zone 2 211.33 acres
Zone 3 34.05 acres
Subtotal UDA 1,176.82 acres
Rural (outside UDA)1 76.94 acres
Total Land Conversion 1,253.76 acres
Wetlands2

Wetlands (except streams) 4.32 acres
Streams (linear feet) 1,089.31 linear feet
1 Covered activities occurring outside the urban development area (UDA) could occur in either zones 1 or 2. Includes rural road projects as shown in Table 9 -6 of the HCP/NCCP, plus rural infrastructure projects and activities, and activities within the Preserve System (see Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4 of the HCP/NCCP).
2 Wetland impacts are included in land conversion impacts. Wetland impacts pay wetland fees in addition to the applicable development fee or rural road fee.

Sources: Appendix A, Table A.1.

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

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

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

15 For seasonal wetlands, the total restored acreage for the initial [maximum] UDA scena rio equals 45.2 [53.6] acres based on: (42 [56] impact acres x 2:1 mitigation ratio x 30 percent adjustment for mapping overestimate) + 20 acres contribution to recovery. See Tables 5-16 and 5-17 and Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP. 42 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 13
Table 2.2: Permanent Impacts (acres)

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

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

43 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 14
Table 2.3: Wetland Impacts

Estimated Impacts
(2008-2037)1
(acres or linear feet)
Actual
Wetland
Impacts
(2008-
2021)2
Remaining Impacts
(Years 2022-2037)
(acres or linear feet)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Impacts Based on Acres
Riparian 30.00 35.00 1.29 28.71 33.71
Perennial Wetland 22.20 22.50 0.07 22.13 22.43 Seasonal Wetland 12.60 16.80 1.61 10.99 15.19 Alkali Wetland 8.40 9.30 0.14 8.26 9.16 Pond 7.00 8.00 0.10 6.90 7.90
Aquatic (open water) ]12.00 12.00 0.47 11.53 11.53 Slough / Channel 72.00 72.00 0.65 71.35 71.35 Subtotal (acres) 164.20 175.60 4.32 159.88 171.28 Impacts Based on Linear Feet

Streams (<=25 ft. wide) 21,120 26,400 685 20,435 25,715 Streams (>25 ft. wide) 3,168 4,224 404 2,764 3,820
Subtotal (linear feet) 24,288 30,624 1,089 23,199 29,535 Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.

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

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

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

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

The HCP/NCCP does not provide the detail needed to separate mitigation 44 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 15
from conservation costs. 16 So the HCP/NCCP does not provide a basis to adjust conservation costs based on lower mitigation estimates and fee revenues without a reconsideration of Plan goals.

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

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

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

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

Based on this discussion, we recommend that the Conservancy work with members of the JPA, other permittees, and the wildlife agencies to extend the permit term.

16 Only in the case of wetland restoration does the Plan have specific conservation goals in addition to mitigation requirements and that are costed out separately in the cost model (see HCP/NCCP, Chapter 5, Tables 5-16 and 5-17).
17 HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum).
45 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 16

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

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

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

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

1. Program administration

2. Land acquisition

3. Planning and design

18 See also HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 30-31 and Table 9-7, and Appendix F, Table F.1. 46 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 17

4. Habitat restoration/creation

5. Environmental compliance

6. Preserve management and maintenance

7. Monitoring, research, and adaptive management

8. Remedial measures

9. Contingency.

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

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

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

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

19 Unless those pre-Plan impacts were also counted against the Plan’s permit limits. 47 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 18
updated based on current housing values. Detailed data on the transactions used to update the cost model land cost factors are provided in Appendix B.

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

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

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

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

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

48 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 19
Table 3.1: Wetland Mitigation Unit Costs (2021 $)
Cost Category
Cost
Factor
Riparian
Perennial
Wetland
Seasonal
Wetland
Alkali
Wetland Pond
Aquatic
(open
water)
Slough/
Channel Stream
(per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per ln. ft.) Construction $51,800 $84,500 $100,800 $102,000 $112,100 $112,100 $76,800 $287 Construction-related costs
Plans, specs., allowance
for remedial measures1 33% $17,094 $27,885 $33,264 $33,660 $36,993 $36,993 $25,344 $95 Bid assistance1 1.5% $777 $1,268 $1,512 $1,530 $1,682 $1,682 $1,152 $4 Construction oversight1 10% $5,180 $8,450 $10,080 $10,200 $11,210 $11,210 $7,680 $29 Post-construction maint.1 10% $5,180 $8,450 $10,080 $10,200 $11,210 $11,210 $7,680 $29 Environmental compliance2,3 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $22 Pre-construction surveys2,4 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $5 Construction monitoring2,4 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $11 Staff and related costs2,5 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $15

Subtotal $95,531 $146,053 $171,236 $173,090 $188,695 $188,695 $134,156 $495 Contingency1 20% $10,360 $16,900 $20,160 $20,400 $22,420 $22,420 $15,360 $57

Total Unit Cost $105,891 $162,953 $191,396 $193,490 $211,115 $211,115 $149,516 $553 Adjustment Factor for Streams >25 Feet Wide 1.50 Total Unit Cost (Streams >25 feet wide) $829

1 Percentage applied to construction costs.
2 Stream costs per linear foot estimated based on the average percent of construction costs for the respective cost category ac ross all the other wetland land cover types. 3 Based on CEQA, CWA 401, CDFG 1602, and other permit costs for "small" project, divided by two (assume a two -acre project). NHPA permit unlikely to be applicable. 4 Cost Model estimate divided by two (estimate based on a t wo-acre project). 5 Midpoint of staffing costs per acre (all costs except construction and contractors) between initial and maximum UDA cost models for habitat restoration/creation cost category.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Administration
The original 2006 model estimated staff costs based on direct salary costs plus benefits, and separately estimated overhead costs (human resources, information technology, office space, etc.). With the 2013 audit, staff costs were budgeted based on a fully burdened hourly rate that includes benefits and all overhead costs and this audit maintains that approach. The staffing plan is updated to reflect experience with staff allocation by function and the ability to rely on fractions of a full-time employee. Other overhead costs such as travel, insurance, legal, and financial analysis and audits that are not included in staff hourly rates are updated based on actual costs and projected needs. 50 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 21
Planning and Design
Costs include Conservancy staff and overhead and contractor services. Costs are based on current Conservancy budgeting and expectations of management planning needs over the remainder of the permit term.

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

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

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

This update shifts the cost of law enforcement for habitat and species protection from the program administration cost category to the preserve management cost category. Costs are based on the current contract between the Contra Costa Water District and the Contra Costa County Sheriff to provide law enforcement services at the 20,000-acre Los Vaqueros watershed.

20 See “Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Initial/Maximum Urban Development Area” tables in Appendix C and Appendix D.
21 Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan (draft), prepared by ICF for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, November 2018.
51 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 22
Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management
Contractors are the most significant component of monitoring costs. Costs are based on review of current contracting and assumptions about how that activity will intensify over time. Monitoring activity is expected to increase with the completion of more restoration projects and with implementation of preserve management plans and associated monitoring protocols.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For endowment management services, the Conservancy will pay the

22 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-40 to 9-42 and Table 9-9. 23 See Mitigation Lands: Nonprofit Organizations ( California Government Code , section 65965-65968) and the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (Probate Code, section 18501 et seq.). 24 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Endowment Agreement, October 2020. 55 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 26
Foundation a management fee of 0.55 percent of assets on deposits up to $10 million and 0.50 percent of assets on deposits above $10 million.

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

1. An opening balance as of December 31, 2021

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

3. Lease revenues from private activities on preserve lands

4. Re-invested earnings from endowment investments.

These funding sources are discussed in the subsections that follow.

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

See Table F.2 in Appendix F for details.

Investment earnings on those endowment contributions has resulted in a fund balance of $3.9 million by December 31, 2021.
56 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 27
Development Project Revenue
Development project revenue, particularly mitigation fees generated by the HCP/NCCP, will provide the primary contributions to the endowment through the end of the permit term. Other types of development project revenue applied to the endowment include specific one-time and ongoing payments from development projects typically paid in lieu of the development fee (see Table F.3 in Appendix F for details).

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

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

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

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

The Conservancy and the Park District entered into a lease revenue allocation agreement in 2020 that allocates revenue to the following HCP/NCCP costs:
w Land acquisition
w Preserve management
w Endowment.25

25 Lease Revenues Allocation Agreement between the East Bay Regional Park District and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, October 2020.
57 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 28
The endowment model assumes that at the end of the permit term all lease revenue will directly offset post-permit term preserve management costs.

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

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

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

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

These assumptions are based on a current habitat endowment management program operated by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) under agreements with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These programs assume a long-range real rate of return of 3.25 percent to 3.50 percent. The endowment model for this audit uses the more conservative rate of 3.25 percent. This rate is the same rate being used for endowment modeling by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan, 58 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 29
and the Placer County Conservation Program mentioned at the start of this chapter.

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

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

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

Table 4.2: Post-Permit Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-23 to 9-24 and Table 9-5. 60 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 31
Table 5.1: Wetland Mitigation Fee Schedule
Land Cover Type
Habitat Restoration /
Creation Cost
Mitigation
Ratio Wetland Mitigation Fee
Riparian $105,891 per acre 1:1 $105,891 per acre
Perennial Wetland 162,953 per acre 1:1 162,953 per acre Seasonal Wetland 191,396 per acre 2:1 382,792 per acre Alkali Wetland 193,490 per acre 2:1 386,980 per acre Ponds 211,115 per acre 1:1 211,115 per acre
Aquatic (open water) 211,115 per acre 0.5:1 105,558 per acre Slough / Channel 149,516 per acre 1:1 149,516 per acre Streams (<=25 ft. wide) 553 per linear foot 1:1 553 per linear foot Streams (>25 ft. wide) 829 per linear foot 1:1 829 per linear foot

Sources: HCP/NCCP, Tables 5 -16 and 5-17; Table 3.1 (this report).

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

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

Table 5.2: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison
Land Cover Type Fee Basis
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit

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

5.1. Estimated restoration costs and revenues associated with wetland land cover impacts are shown in Table 5.3. The table multiplies the wetland land cover acreage impacts from Table 2.3 by the update fee schedule in Table 5.1. The 30-year revenue estimates in the table are used in the development fee calculation presented in Chapter 6.
61 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 32
Table 5.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue
Land Cover Type
Wetland
Mitigation
Fee
Fee Revenue
(2022-2037)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Riparian $105,891 per acre $3,040,000 $3,570,000
Perennial Wetland $162,953 per acre $3,610,000 $3,660,000 Seasonal Wetland $382,792 per acre $4,210,000 $5,810,000 Alkali Wetland $386,980 per acre $3,200,000 $3,550,000 Ponds $211,115 per acre $1,460,000 $1,670,000
Aquatic (open water) $105,558 per acre $1,220,000 $1,220,000 Slough / Channel $149,516 per acre $10,670,000 $10,670,000 Subtotal $27,410,000 $30,150,000
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) $553 per ln. ft. $11,300,000 $14,220,000 Streams (>25 ft. wide) $829 per ln. ft. $2,290,000 $3,170,000 Total $41,000,000 $47,540,000

Fee Revenue
(2008-2037)

Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Actual (2008-2021) $1,570,000 $1,570,000
Estimated (2022-2037) $41,000,000 $47,540,000
Total (2008-2037) $42,570,000 $49,110,000
Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.

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

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

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

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

62 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 33

Section 66001(a)(2)
The wetland mitigation fee will fund the capital costs associated with wetland restoration/creation the mitigate related wetland impacts. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP explains the conservation strategy for wetland restoration/creation, and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.

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

The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 and presented in detail in Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP explains the costs associated with the restoration or creation of wetlands, ponds, and streams. Updated costs are shown in Table 3.1 in Chapter 3 of this report and include:
w All costs associated with the habitat restoration/creation cost category (includes construction costs and staff-related costs)
w The share of environmental compliance costs associated with one-time costs for habitat restoration/creation
63 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 34
w Costs for pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring for restoration sites (costs included in the monitoring, research and adaptative management tab in the cost model).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6.1 shows that share of total HCP/NCCP costs allocated to the development fee. Costs are shown net of estimated wetland mitigation fee revenue drawn from Table 5.3 in the prior chapter. Development fee revenue

27 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-17 to 9-22, Figure 9-1, Table 9-4. 28 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.
65 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 36
to date is deducted from the fair share allocated to the development fee to calculate the net revenue still required from the development fee for the remainder of the permit term. Using this approach ensures that at the end of the permit term covered activities would have paid the fair share of plan costs as determined by the nexus analysis in the Plan.

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

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

Development Fair Share Allocation2 e 52% l = k / m 43%

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

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

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

The updated development fee is shown in Table 6.2. The fee is based on the fair share costs calculated in Table 6.1 divided by the equivalent acres of impact remaining under each scenario from Table 2.2. The bottom of Table 6.2 shows the fee per acre by zone based on the weighting factors explained in Chapter 2. 66 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 37
Table 6.2: Development Fee Schedule (2021 $ for 2022 Fee Schedule)

Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Mid-
Point
Fee per Equivalent Acre (based on remaining costs & impacts, 2022-2037) Remaining Development Fair Share Costs $186,020,000 $274,180,000 Remaining Development Impacts (equivalent acres) 19,046 29,160 Development Fee (per equivalent acre) $9,767 $9,403 $9,585 Fee Schedule (per acre of impact) Weight
Zone 1 2 $19,534 $18,806 $19,170
Zone 2 4 $39,068 $37,612 $38,340
Zone 3 1 $9,767 $9,403 $9,585
Source: Tables 2.2 and 6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 of the Plan and presented in detail in Appendix G of the Plan explains and estimates the costs associated with implementation. Updated costs are shown in Chapter 3 of this report and include nine cost categories necessary to implement the Plan: program 68 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 39
administration, land acquisition, planning and design, habitat restoration/creation, environmental compliance, preserve management and maintenance, monitoring, research, and adaptive management, remedial measures, and contingency fund. As explained in the Chapter 3 of this report costs related to wetland, pond, and stream habitat restoration/creation are not included in the development fee.

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

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

29 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 5, p. 5-51.
69 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-24 to 9-25, Table 9-6.
70 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 41
Section 66001(a)(1)
The rural road fee is intended to pay the costs of the HCP/NCCP associated with mitigating permanent impacts from specified transportation projects outside the urban development area, excluding habitat restoration/creation costs for wetland land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee.

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

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

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

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

Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the rural road fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP explains the relationship between the 17 animal species, 11 plant species, and 71 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 42
associated habitats covered under the Plan and terrestrial land cover types (see Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 of the Plan). Chapter 4 of the Plan explains the impacts of covered activities by land cover type on these animal and plant species, and more broadly on their habitats and natural communities.

Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the rural road fee and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs for the following reasons:
w The fee is based on the development fee discussed in Chapter 6 and applied to the permanent disturbance of land associated with a specific list of transportation projects.
w The fee is adjusted by a multiplier applicable to each specified transportation project to reflect each project’s level of additional effects on the fragmentation of habitat and creation of barriers and hazards to wildlife movement.
w The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres affected.

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

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

Chapter 9 of the Plan provides a detailed explanation of the calculation of the temporary impact fee. Covered activities with temporary impacts pay a fee based on the development fee. In addition, covered activities with temporary impacts on wetland land cover types also pay a fee based on the wetland mitigation fee. The temporary impact fee is calculated based on the frequency of the temporary impact and habitat recovery over the 30-year permit term; 72 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 43
the amount of the fee is equal to the applicable development or wetland mitigation fee multiplied by the proportion of the Plan’s 30-year term affected by the temporary impact.

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

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

Section 66001(a)(2)
The temporary impact fee will fund HCP/NCCP costs to mitigate temporary impacts. Chapter 5 of the Plan explains the conservation strategy for the Plan and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.

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

The conservation strategy in Chapter 5 of the Plan identifies biological goals and objectives that are supported by specific conservation measures: five measures related to landscape-level conservation, 11 measures related to natural community-level conservation, and nine measures related to species- level conservation.

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

Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the temporary impact fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP 73 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 44
explains the relationship between the 17 animal and 11 plant species covered under the Plan and all land cover types (see Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 of the Plan).

Chapter 4 of the Plan explains the impacts of covered activities on these animal and plant species.

Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the temporary impact fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs based on the fee schedules shown in Table 5.1 and Table 6.2 for three reasons:
w As explained in Chapter 5 regarding the wetland mitigation fee and Chapter 6 regarding the development fee, the fees are based only on Plan costs associated with permanent impacts. Temporary impacts are reasonably like permanent impacts when adjusted for the duration of the temporary impact, so it is reasonable to establish the temporary fee based on the wetland mitigation and development fees.
w As explained in detail in Chapter 2, Development Fee Zones, the fee is adjusted for three zones that reflect the relative amount of impact from urban development on natural habitats and covered species. The mapping of the zones was completed at a level of detail sufficient to provide a reasonable relationship between all land within a specific zone and the relative weight of impacts assigned to that zone.
w The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres affected.
w The total fee is proportional to the duration of the temporary impact.

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

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

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

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

Consistent with prior audits, mitigation fee revenues assume that total impacts allowed under the permit occur by the end of the 30-year permit term. The permit term likely will need to be extended because impacts are occurring at a slower pace than anticipated by the HCP/NCCP. The funding plan will continue to use a 30-year planning horizon for occurrence of all allowable impacts until a permit term extension is approved by the permittees and the wildlife agencies. See Chapter 2, Permit Term Extension, for more discussion. 75 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 46
Other Fees and Exactions
w Administrative charges are for costs associated with processing mitigation fees paid by participating special entities. Participating special entities generate impacts covered by the Plan but are not one of the permittees.31 Revenue for the remaining permit term equals the prior five- year annual average.
w Payments for non-covered activities are reduced to zero over the permit term because this revenue cannot be used for impacts under the Plan and must be used for additional conservation measures.
w Other development exactions are primarily from participating special entities and are for conservation beyond the mitigation requirements of the Plan (“contribution to recovery”). Revenue for the remaining permit term equals the prior five-year annual average.

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

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

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

These funding sources have declined substantially in the past five years. The 10-year average for these sources combined is more than double the five-year average (see Table F.5 in Appendix F). Funding for the remainder of the

31 Entities not subject to the jurisdiction of the permittees under the Plan may request coverage under the Plan for covered activities. Such organizations may include, for example, school districts, water districts, other utilities or special districts , or private companies . These entities, known as participating special entities, can receive coverage under the HCP/NCCP during Plan implementation on a case -by-case basis and by paying the appropriate fees as determined by the Conservancy.
32 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-33 and 9-36.
33 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-37.
76 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 47
permit term is estimated to be more than the prior five-year average and less than the 10-year average (130 and 160 percent of the five-year average for state and federal funds and local capital funds, respectively). This level of funding is estimated such that:
w The Plan remains fully funded based on total plan resources (total revenues plus FY 2021 ending fund balance) versus total plan costs w Total funding from each source over the permit term for land acquisition, when converted to acreage based on average costs per acre, does not exceed the land acquisition estimates for each source included in the Plan.

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

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

The Conservancy and the Park District are currently negotiating a cost sharing agreement for preserve management. Guiding principles for this agreement are the Park District fund land management at a level sufficient “to achieve its internal management standards”. Other sources (such as the Conservancy) would fund “those costs related to implementing the HCP/NCCP that would not otherwise be incurred by the Park District to manage its lands.”36 Applying these principles, local operating funds from the Park District are estimated based on the Park District funding 41 percent of total preserve management costs for the remainder of the permit term. This estimate is based on a preliminary estimate provided by Conservancy and subject to negotiation between EBRPD and the Conservancy.

34 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-33 to 9-34 and Appendix H (first memorandum). 35 The only acquisition that is not held by the Park District is the 165-acre Viera North Peak parcel. 36 Implementing Agreement for the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, January 22, 2007, p. 22. 77 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 48
The Park District has also funded a share of due diligence and closing costs for land acquisitions. Based on funding and costs to date (through 2021), the District’s funding has equaled one percent of total land acquisition costs. The funding plan assumes that the District will continue to fund these costs at this same level through the remainder of the permit term.

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

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

Table 8.1: Future Local Operating Funds (Park District) (2022-2037)

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

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

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

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

The share of total revenue provided by each of these sources continue to remain constant across the three funding plans (+/- two percent). 79 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 50
Table 8.2: Funding Plan (2021 dollars)
Initial UDA Maximum UDA
2007-2021 2022-2037 Total 2022-2037 Total
Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate

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

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

Sources: Tables 3.2, 3.3, 5.3, 6.1, 7.1, and 8.1, Appendix F, Table F.5, ECCC Habitat Conservancy (fund balance). 80 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 51
Table 8.3: Funding Plan Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $)

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

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

81 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 52
Table 8.4: Funding Plan Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $)

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

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

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

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

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

Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2009 CCC LP07-2033: Verizon Wireless Martin Cell Tower Project 1.39 2009 CCC LP09-2002: US Coast Guard/SBA Cell Tower Project 1.158 2009 PSE: State Route 4 Bypass, Segment 4, Phase 2 24.69 23.81 2010 PSE: CalTrans SR4 Median Buffer & Shoulder Widening Project 7.34 2010 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Safety Improvements 6.201 2010 CCC LP09-2033: Horizon Cell Tower Project 1.19 2010 PSE: eBart Phase 1 Project 0.3
2011 CCC LP10-2070: Morgan Territory Rd Telecommunications Facility Project 0.901
2011 CCC LP09-2037: Camino Diablo Vasco Telecommunications Facility Project 2.35
2011 CCC LP10-2082: J4 Byron Hot Springs Communications Facility 0.8 2011 CCC PWD: Balfour Rd Culvert Repair Project 0.01 2011 CCC PWD: Byron Hwy Shoulder Widening Project-Phase 1 0.44 2011 CCC PWD: Vasco Camino Diablo Intersection 1.94 2011 PSE: ConocoPhillips Line 200 Repair & Anode 0.003 2011 City of Oakley: Stonewood III-Unit #1 Sub #9183 2.21 2011 City of Pittsburg: Trash Capture Demonstration Project 0.02 2011 City of Brentwood: New Meetinghouse Brentwood 3.4 2012 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Safety Improvement Project 0.53 2012 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Should Widening near Round Valley Regional Preserve Project 2.79
2012 CCC BIG12-0004598: EBRIX Los Vaqueros Communication Facility 0.026
2012 CCC LP10-2009: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park
Emergency H2O Pipeline Extension 0.5
83 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-2
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2012 EBRPD Round Valley Pedestrian Bridge Project 0.15 2012 City of Oakley: iPark Oakley Project 9.14
2012 PSE: eBart Phase II Extension 37.91
2012 PSE: eBart Phase II Extension-1st & 2nd Amend 2.56 2012 Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin Expansion 6.89
2013 City of Brentwood: AutoZone Store 4136 0.9
2013 City of Oakley: Emerson Ranch 138.25
2013 CCC: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park Stormdrain Outfall 0.2 2013 PSE: SR160/SR4 Bypass Phase II Connectors 18.01
2013 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM Site 1357 Repair 0.007 2014 City of Brentwood: Ferro/Ronconi 42.23
2014 CCC PWD: Pacifica Ave Sidewalk 0.204
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Bridge Scour Repair 0.003 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek 142 Wingwall Repair 0.009 2014 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Shoulder Widening 1.77 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Detention Center Bridge Replacement 0.18 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements 1.3 2014 CCC LP13-2097: Verizon Wireless Bethel Island 0.036 2014 CCC LP13-2111: AT&T Co-location Marsh Creek Monopine 0.000226 2014 CCC LP13-2069: Marsh Creek Cell Tower 0.019
2015 City of Brentwood: Bella Fiore 13.5
2015 City of Brentwood: Celebration Preschool 0.87
2015 City of Brentwood: Mangini 9.77
2015 CCC LP14-2044: Mariner's Discovery Church 3.49
2015 City of Oakley PW: Marsh Creek Pedestrian Bridge 0.02 2015 City of Brentwood: Mission Grove 15.6
2015 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase I 20.64
2015 Duane Martin Jr. Vasco Caves 0.1
2015 City of Pittsburg: Greystone Place 4.9
2015 Hess Water Trough Installation 0.01
2015 City of Brentwood PW: John Muir Parkway-Phase II 0.33 2.36 2015 Vaquero Farms S. Wetland Creation & Repair 0.01 2015 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Embankment Repair 0.02
2015 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Safety Improvement Project (Fed. No.

HRRL-5928 (095)) 0.76
2016 City of Brentwood: Maffeo 9.1
2016 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase II 38.7
2016 City of Brentwood: Sparrow at Marsh Creek 6.71
2016 City of Brentwood: Cornerstone Church 4.51
2016 City of Brentwood: Elite (Pacific Union) Self Storage 4 2016 City of Oakley: Verizon Wireless Empire Oakley Road 0.33 84 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-3
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2016 City of Pittsburg: Sonic Drive-In Project 1.22 2016 City of Brentwood: Tractor Supply Project 2.8
2016 City of Pittsburg: Delta Gateway Pad No. 12 1.8
2016 CCC PWD: Port Chicago Hwy-Willow Pass Sidewalk
Improvements 0.156 0.143
2016 CCC PWD: Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lanes Project 0.4709 2016 CCC LP15-2029: Timber Rd Communication Facility 0.05 2016 CCC TP12-0026: Moita Road Improvement Project 0.36 0.9 2016 PSE: Oakley Generating Station (Original-3rd Amendment) Project 16.72 [see footnote 2]
2016 PSE: SR4/Balfour & First Amendment 29.58 [see footnote 2] 2017 Canal Road Bridge Replacement Project 0.01
2017 Morgan Territory Road Slide Repair and Temporary Access Road Alignment 0.03
2017 Palermo Subdivision 18.84
2017 Sellers Pointe Subdivision 13.82
2017 Verna Way 1.96
2017 Oakley Recreation Center 4.294
2017 Gilbert Property Phase I 51.91
2017 Oakley Gateway 3.63
2017 iPark Oakley Phase 2: Executive RV and Boat Storage 0.67 2017 PG&E Walnut Crossover Rebuild Project 0.1
2018 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing Lane - Inside 3.12 2018 Marsh Creek Road Bridge #141 Replacement Project 0.09 2018 Sciortino Ranch Development 51.94
2018 Bella Verde Development 6.1
2018 Tri-City Plaza - Parcel D 0.87
2018 Shops at Lone Tree (Center Pointe Commercial Development) 7.64 2018 City of Brentwood Recycled Water Project - Phase 1 0.9 2018 Cypress Self Storage Project 3.24
2018 Bay Point Family Apartments (DP15-3023) 7.61
2018 Shell Pipeline AC Mitigation Site at Valve 158 0.03 2018 Empire Ave Development - Hovnanian Homes Project 8 2018 30 Technology Court 1.46
2018 PG&E RMSCC15-303 Project 0.48
2018 Gilbert Property Phase 2 70.626
2019 Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements Project 0.00015 2019 Alicante (The Village at Main) 20.06
2019 The Vines at Oakley 9.9
2019 Liberty Residential Subdivision 4.24
2019 Praxair Pittsburg Cylinder Storage Facility - Phase 1 0.16 85 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-4
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2019 Praxair Pittsburg Cylinder Storage Facility - Phase 4.93 2019 eBART Phase II Extension - 4th Amendment 0.21
2019 EBRPD FEMA Pond Repair Projects 2019 0.002
2020 Quick Quack Car Wash and 7-11 2.64
2020 Brentwood Goddard School 0.86
2020 The Groves 19.47
2020 Silvergate Condominium Community 8.35
2020 City of Brentwood Recycled Water Project Phase 2 - Non- Potable Water Distribution System 0.17
2020 Oakley Logistics Center 66.046
2020 Acacia Development 12.56
2020 Twin Oaks Senior Residence 6.06
2020 Diablo Energy Storage 10.41
2020 Tuscany Meadows 168.86
2020 Department of Water Resources Old Banks Landfill Cap Project 6.49 2020 CCTA Mokelumne Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project 1.85 2021 Tuscany Estates Project- at the Baldocchi Property 23.26 2021 Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery Park 10.26
2021 Diablo Meadows Residential Development 8.28
2021 Byron Highway Solar Project 34.13
2021 Byron Highway/Byer Road Safety Improvements Project 0.18 2021 Rotten Robbie Brentwood 2.11
2021 Amber Lane Apartments 13.91
2021 Orchard Trails (Walnut Villas) 27.88
2021 Zip Thru Car Wash 1.42

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

Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.

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

0.064 0.064 29
2012 Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin
Expansion 0.17 0.11 0.04 0.02 295
2013 CCC: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park
Stormdrain Outfall 0.1 0.1
2013 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM Site 1357
Repair 0.007 0.007
2014 CCC PWD: Pacifica Ave Sidewalk 0.044 0.044 36 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Bridge Scour
Repair 0.003 0.003 23
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek 142 Wingwall
Repair 0.009 0.009
2014 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Shoulder
Widening 0.1 0.1
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Detention Center
Bridge Replacement 0.132 0.132 60
87 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-6
Table A.2: Permanent Wetland Impacts, 2008 Through 2021 (continued) Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Wetlands Streams
Total
Ripar-
ian/
Wood-
land
Perma-
nent
Wet-
land
Sea-
sonal
Wet-
land
Alkali
Wet-
land Pond Aquatic Slough ≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Safety
Improvements 148
2015 City of Oakley PW: Marsh Creek
Pedestrian Bridge 15
2015 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase I 25 2015
CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Safety
Improvement Project (Fed. No. HRRL-5928
(095)

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

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

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

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

Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.

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

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

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

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

LAND ACQUISITION COST FACTOR

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update

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

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

INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE - BYRON AIRPORT
13 na na $8,000 $8,800 $10,300 $6,200 $10,700 $13,200 23% Source: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Per Acre Land Value Factor
Per Acre Land Value Factor
Note: The 2022 land cost factor for the Byron Airport Area is based on the $8,000 per acre value estimated in 2003, adjusted by the 2022 percentage change from values originally estimated in 2003 for Cost Category 10--about 65 percent. 91 Appendix B - page 3
Table B.3
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels > 120 acres (nominal dollars)

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

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

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

1. This is a relatively old sale but is included as a comparable because it was an abandoned golf course in an "agricultural" area in the same region, purchased for mitigation.
92 Appendix B - page 4
Table B.4
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels > 40 - 120 acres (nominal dollars)

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

North Vasco Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

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

Ruess Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.

Deer Valley Road, Brentwood
Deer Valley Road, Brentwood
Whispering Pines Road, Clayton
Alhambra Valley Road, Martinez
Franklin Canyon Road, Martinez
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
93 Appendix B - page 5
Table B.5
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 10 - 40 acres (nominal dollars)

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

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

Bragdon Way, Clayton
Deer Valley Road & Balfour Road, Antioch
Sunset Road, Knightsen
Kellogg Creek Road, Byron
Briones Valley Road, Brentwood
Silver Hills Drive, Byron
Morgan Territory Road, Clayton
94 Appendix B - page 6
Table B.6
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 5 - 10 acres (nominal dollars)

EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years (none in this size category) Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2015 6.42 $295,000 $45,950
2015 5.01 $220,000 $43,912
2017 5.32 $360,000 $67,669
2016 5.00 $350,000 $70,000
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Rural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 23 Byron 2020 9.99 $200,000 $20,020 Assessor 24 Knightsen 2018 9.88 $370,000 $37,449 Assessor 25 Knightsen 2018 9.88 $370,000 $37,449 Assessor 26 Knightsen 2018 9.84 $370,000 $37,602 Assessor 27 Brentwood 2019 9.60 $475,000 $49,479 Assessor 28 Knightsen 2018 9.51 $460,000 $48,370 Assessor 29 Brentwood 2020 8.21 $75,000 $9,135 Assessor 30 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $400,000 $80,000 Assessor 31 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $350,000 $70,000 Assessor 32 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $350,000 $70,000 Assessor 33 Brentwood 2021 5.00 $480,000 $96,000 Overall Weighted Average $47,165
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $47,000
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Bragdon Way, Clayton
Bragdon Way, Clayton
Leon Drive, Clayton
Morgan Territory Road, Clayton
95 Appendix B - page 7
Table B.7
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels less than 5 acres (nominal dollars)

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

Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Bollinger Canyon Road, Moraga
96 Appendix B - page 8
Table B.8
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Basis for price per acre calculation for parcels inside the Urban Limit Line

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

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

Sources: "Annual New Home Sale Data for Selected Contra Costa County Cities ," Contra Costa Association of REALTORS® MLS (CCAR); Insight Data & Economic Analysis
97 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report C-1
APPENDIX C: I NITIAL UDA COST MODEL UPDATE
The following tables provide comprehensive documentation for the cost model update based on estimated impacts for the initial urban development area.

98 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Initial Urban Development Area
99 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary (rounded) Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total (2021)
Program Administration $220,000 $14,590,000 $6,660,000 $6,260,000 $7,500,000 $35,240,000 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,240,000 $48,440,000 $48,440,000 $58,060,000 $294,180,000 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $250,000 $4,390,000 $1,920,000 $1,920,000 $2,300,000 $10,780,000 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $820,000 $8,260,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,050,000 $13,430,000 $13,430,000 $16,110,000 $50,020,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,410,000 $1,220,000 $1,020,000 $0 $3,650,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,650,000 $7,430,000 $9,340,000 $13,900,000 $37,320,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,200,000 $1,710,000 $2,340,000 $3,520,000 $9,760,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $260,000 $210,000 $2,810,000 $3,280,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,370,000 $1,840,000 $4,480,000 Total $470,000 $180,080,000 $83,800,000 $85,780,000 $106,860,000 $456,970,000 Implementation Period (Years)
100
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary table Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program Administration $223,698 $14,594,336 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,495,644 $35,236,418 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,241,000 $48,437,737 $48,437,737 $58,059,276 $294,175,751 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,919,403 $1,919,403 $2,303,284 $10,783,217 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,853 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,051,220 $13,427,192 $13,427,192 $16,112,631 $50,018,236 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,411,927 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,648,120 $7,429,960 $9,336,250 $13,902,207 $37,316,537 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,195,918 $1,710,132 $2,335,132 $3,520,011 $9,761,193 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Contingency $0 $0 $1,276,931 $1,370,752 $1,835,652 $4,483,335 Total $476,864 $180,081,334 $83,792,958 $85,763,202 $106,855,569 $456,969,927 Implementation Period (Years)
101
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
BLS Data CPI_ECI_CCI_2021 Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 NOTE: Original unit cost estimates for the 2006 HCP/NCCP were in 2005 dollars, inflated to 2006 dollars for use in the plan document.

Series Id:

Data extracted on: August 2, 2022
Series Title:

Area:

Item:

Base Period:

Years:

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

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

All items
1982-84=100
2005 to 2022
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Current dollar index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
Professional and related, Index
Private industry workers
All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all
Total compensation
Professional and related occupations
All workers
Employment Cost Index (NAICS)
Original Data Value
CIU2010000120000I
Not seasonally adjusted
102
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Legend Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Legend
red numbers are assumptions or data entered directly into the worksheet blue numbers are links from other worksheets in the workbook black numbers are calculations based on the above numbers Cost factors are colored coded by primary source considered:

EBRPD (for HCP)
CCWD (for HCP)
Average of CCWD/EBRPD
ECCC Habitat Conservancy
J&S and EPS (for HCP)
AECOM, 2012
Updated by Insight Data & Economic Analysis, 2022
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 14
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-14 Summary actuals supercede model detail
103
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
ReserveAcresAcquiredRestored Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
Initial UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 24,250 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
Total preserve acres acquired per period - 12,050 3,813 3,813 4,575 24,250 Total preserve acres managed, cumulative - 12,050 15,862 19,675 24,250 24,250 Assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
104
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Personnel Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel (Conservancy Staffing)
2022 Update

POST PERMIT

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

UPDATE STAFFING
2022 UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
included in per acre cost factors
Included in overhead rates
Included in overhead rates
105
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Program Administration for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Contractor assistance with administration $400,000 $400,000 $480,000 Other administrative costs $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Vehicle / mileage allowance $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Travel $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Insurance $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Legal assistance $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Other permitting costs $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Financial analysis assistance $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Financial audit (annual) $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Public relations and outreach $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Total $223,698 $4,671,472 $3,168,141 $6,754,723 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,495,644 $35,236,418 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.70 0.70 0.70 Senior Planner and support $156 0.70 0.70 0.70 Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $132 0.70 0.70 0.70 Assistant Planner and support $109 0.80 0.80 0.80 Planning Technician and support $119 0.35 0.35 0.35 Accountant and support $157 0.40 0.40 0.40

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

Position
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
106
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 Contractor Assistance with Administration
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $400,000 $400,000 $480,000
Assumption:
$80,000 annual contractor cost per 2022 budget: for assistance with database, annual report, and permitting Other Administrative Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Memberships $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 Cost per period $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Assumption:
$10,000
$1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Assumption:
$7,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Insurance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Assumption:
$23,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
annual cost for Institute for Ecological Health (state and national), Bay Area Open Space Council, and East County Water Management Agency, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
107
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 Legal Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Assumptions:
$115,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 15 - 19 $50,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 19 Note: The legal assistance category covers legal assistance required for program administration and (for years 6 - 10) the environmental compliance category.

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

Legal assistance is also estimated for the environmental compliance category.

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

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

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

Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per year $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Cost per period $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
108
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Acquisition $0 $139,241,000 $47,498,780 $47,498,780 $56,998,536 $291,237,096 Site improvements $0 $0 $938,957 $938,957 $1,060,740 $2,938,655 Staff and overhead na na $494,440 $494,440 $593,328 $1,582,208 Due diligence $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,424,963 $1,424,963 $1,709,956 $9,201,009 Total $253,166 $143,628,960 $50,357,141 $50,357,141 $60,362,560 $304,958,967 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 14 + Projections Years 15 - 30 (2021 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year period) Total Remainder 15-30 Zone 1 $0 $12,711,000 $4,470,888 $4,470,888 $5,365,065 $27,017,841 $14,306,841 Zone 2 $0 $52,222,000 $19,210,120 $19,210,120 $23,052,144 $113,694,384 $61,472,384 Zone 3 $0 $3,553,000 $356,768 $356,768 $428,121 $4,694,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $10,748,000 $13,557,880 $13,557,880 $16,269,455 $54,133,214 $43,385,214 Zone 5 $0 $42,738,000 $7,909,303 $7,909,303 $9,491,163 $68,047,769 $25,309,769 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $8,523,000 $1,444,275 $1,444,275 $1,733,130 $13,144,680 $4,621,680 Outside Inventory Area $0 $0 $546,523 $546,523 $655,828 $1,748,873 $1,748,873 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $8,746,000 $3,024 $3,024 $3,629 $8,755,677 $9,677 Total $0 $139,241,000 $47,498,780 $47,498,780 $56,998,536 $291,237,096 $151,996,096 Assumptions: 48% 52%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.

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

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

Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
109
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
110
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Management Planning and Design for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $433,340 $433,340 $306,365
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total $0 $1,772,511 $938,155 $1,840,187 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.10 0.10 0.05 Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05 Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 0.02 Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.02

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

Number of FTEs
111
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Management planning $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total per period $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Assumptions:

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

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

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

Revised cost per unit for oak
savanna to $15K based on
review/input from H.T. Harvey
Revised cost per LF for stream
restoration by eliminating the low
cost outlier from the list of
example projects. Also did not
reduce unit cost by applying a
10% discount to be more
conservative.
113
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $132 0.10 0.10 0.10

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

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

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

Monitoring of restoration sites covered in the Monitoring cost category.

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

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

Contractor category
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Cost includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
percent of total construction cost required to complete restoration design and plans, specifications, engineering and provide allowance for remedial measures Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
114
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $276,548 $276,548 $0
Legal assistance $250,000 $50,000 $0
NEPA/CEQA $558,300 $558,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $11,000 $11,000 $0
CDFG 1602 $23,500 $23,500 $0
NHPA $60,200 $60,200 $0
Other $41,800 $41,800 $0
Total $0 $887,562 $194,053 $330,312 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Note: Detail is not intended to be prescriptive; it is used as a means to generate an overall environmental compliance cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
include in wetland fee
calculation
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Total projects remainder of permit term
Size RangeProject size
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE with
Overhead & Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies. 115
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2021 dollars) Minimum Maximum CEQA CWA 404 CWA 401 CDFG 1602 NHPA Other Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles $ 2,000 $ 25,000 0.001 0.01 $7,346 $0 $968 $1,130 $3,673 $3,482 Medium/more complex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance Category
116
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program staff and overhead $261,320 $261,320 $495,982
Invasive Plant Control $1,433,728 $1,814,986 $2,681,245 Invasive Wildlife Control $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Grazing Management $716,864 $907,493 $1,340,622
Wildfire Management $1,218,669 $1,542,738 $2,279,058
Security $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Roads and Trails $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Maintenance and Support $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Annual Reporting $71,686 $90,749 $134,062
Law Enforcement $1,075,296 $1,361,240 $2,010,934
Administrative and General Expense $1,648,787 $2,087,234 $3,083,432 Total $0 $548,525 $2,478,883 $3,620,712 $7,429,960 $9,336,250 $13,902,207 $37,316,537 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and Support $206 0.05 0.05 0.07 Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.10 Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 0.15

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

Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Position
Hourly Cost per
FTE with
Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
117
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Preserve Acres Managed
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Total preserve acres acquired per period 12,050 3,813 3,813 4,575 Acres acquired and managed by end of period 12,050 15,862 19,675 24,250 Assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost estimates assume preserve system land is acquired and managed in equal annual increments over the remainder of the implementation period and that cost increases incrementally as acreage under management increases. 118
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Security
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for security maintenance and repair Gate and fence installation, inspection, and repairs.

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation Period
119
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $120,132 $120,132 $305,011
Contractors $875,000 $1,500,000 $2,400,000
Directed research $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive management $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Total $0 $654,741 $604,793 $936,384 $1,710,132 $2,335,132 $3,520,011 $9,761,193 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.03 0.03 0.08 Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of FTEs
Contract value per period
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
120
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Directed Research
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average cost per year to fund directed research $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total cost per period $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average Independent Conservation Assessment
Team cost per period $36,000 $36,000 $36,000
Average Science Advisors cost per period $179,000 $179,000 $179,000 Total cost per period $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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

An Independent Conservation Assessment Team meets once every 4 years and has:
5 members $7,200 stipend per member per 5-year period
Science Advisors Panel consists of:
10 members $17,900 stipend per member per 5-year period
121
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Remedial Measures Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Remedial Measures for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation and preserve management cost categories.

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

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

The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire. 122
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Contingency Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Contingency for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition/site improvements and habitat
restoration/creation construction costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,538,618 $27,415,041 $36,713,036 $89,666,695 Contingency fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,276,931 $1,370,752 $1,835,652 $4,483,335 Assumptions:

5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency 123
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Post Permit Costs Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $548,300 Reduced staffing and no legal and financial contractor costs Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Environmental Compliance $0 Not required, post permit
Preserve Management and Maintenance $2,317,000 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $293,300 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $3,158,600
Total preserve system acres 24,250
Annual average cost per acre managed $130
Percent of average annual cost years 25 - 30 18%
124
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report D-1
APPENDIX D: M AXIMUM UDA COST MODEL UPDATE
The following tables provide comprehensive documentation for the cost model update based on estimated impacts for the maximum urban development area.
125
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Maximum Urban Development Area
126
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary (rounded) Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total (2021)
Program Administration $220,000 $17,350,000 $6,660,000 $6,260,000 $7,500,000 $37,990,000 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,240,000 $67,360,000 $67,360,000 $80,710,000 $354,680,000 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $250,000 $4,390,000 $2,480,000 $2,480,000 $2,980,000 $12,580,000 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $820,000 $8,260,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,050,000 $16,620,000 $16,620,000 $19,950,000 $60,240,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,410,000 $1,220,000 $1,020,000 $0 $3,650,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,650,000 $7,990,000 $10,820,000 $16,910,000 $42,370,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,200,000 $1,840,000 $2,710,000 $4,120,000 $10,860,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $260,000 $210,000 $3,480,000 $3,950,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,400,000 $1,550,000 $2,150,000 $5,100,000 Total $470,000 $182,840,000 $107,280,000 $110,480,000 $138,620,000 $539,680,000 Implementation Period (Years)
127
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary table Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program Administration $223,698 $17,346,583 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,498,644 $37,991,665 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,241,000 $67,361,587 $67,361,587 $80,711,223 $354,675,397 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $253,166 $4,387,960 $2,480,940 $2,480,940 $2,977,127 $12,580,133 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,853 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,051,220 $16,620,916 $16,620,916 $19,945,099 $60,238,151 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,411,927 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,648,120 $7,987,773 $10,823,750 $16,914,392 $42,374,035 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,195,918 $1,835,132 $2,710,132 $4,120,011 $10,861,193 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304 $3,948,328 Contingency $0 $0 $1,395,470 $1,548,281 $2,151,289 $5,095,040 Total $476,864 $182,833,581 $107,273,265 $110,482,298 $138,616,454 $539,682,462 Implementation Period (Years)
128
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
BLS Data CPI_ECI_CCI_2021 Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 NOTE: Original unit cost estimates for the 2006 HCP/NCCP were in 2005 dollars, inflated to 2006 dollars for use in the plan document.

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

Area:

Item:

Base Period:

Years:

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

All items
1982-84=100
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
Professional and related, Index
Private industry workers
2005 to 2022
129
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Legend Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Legend
red numbers are assumptions or data entered directly into the worksheet blue numbers are links from other worksheets in the workbook black numbers are calculations based on the above numbers Cost factors are colored coded by primary source considered:

EBRPD (for HCP)
CCWD (for HCP)
Average of CCWD/EBRPD
ECCC Habitat Conservancy
J&S and EPS (for HCP)
AECOM, 2012
Updated by Insight Data & Economic Analysis, 2022
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 14
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-14 Summary actuals supercede model detail
130
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
PreserveAcresAcquiredRestored Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
Maximum UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 30,200 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
Total preserve acres acquired per period - 12,050 5,672 5,672 6,806 30,200 Total preserve acres managed, cumulative - 12,050 17,722 23,394 30,200 30,200 Assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Defining sites:
wetlands and pond sites by acreage conversion
stream sites by linear feet conversion:
131
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Personnel Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx date printed:1/31/23 Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel (Conservancy Staffing)
2022 Update

POST PERMIT

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

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

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

Position
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
All Costs
133
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractor Assistance with Administration
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $400,000 $400,000 $480,000
Assumption:
$80,000 annual contractor cost per 2022 budget: for assistance with database, annual report, and permitting Other Administrative Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Memberships $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 Cost per period $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Assumption:
$10,000
$1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Assumption:
$7,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Insurance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Assumption:
$23,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
annual cost for Institute for Ecological Health (state and national), Bay Area Open Space Council, and East County Water Management Agency, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021
134
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 Legal Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Assumptions:
$115,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 15 - 19 $50,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 19 Note: The legal assistance category covers legal assistance required for program administration and (for years 6 - 10) the environmental compliance category.

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

Legal assistance is also estimated for the environmental compliance category.

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

Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per year $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Cost per period $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
135
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Land Acquisition $0 $139,241,000 $66,216,653 $66,216,653 $79,459,983 $351,134,289 Site improvements $0 $0 $1,144,934 $1,144,934 $1,251,240 $3,541,108 Staff and overhead na na $494,440 $494,440 $593,328 $1,582,208 Due diligence $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,986,500 $1,986,500 $2,383,799 $10,997,925 Total $253,166 $165,742 $69,842,527 $69,842,527 $83,688,351 $223,792,311 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 14 + Projections Years 15 - 30 (2021 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total Remainder 15-30 Zone 1 $0 $12,711,000 $5,405,441 $5,405,441 $6,486,530 $30,008,413 $17,297,413 Zone 2 $0 $52,222,000 $20,527,038 $20,527,038 $24,632,446 $117,908,522 $65,686,522 Zone 3 $0 $3,553,000 $356,768 $356,768 $428,121 $4,694,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $10,748,000 $21,381,668 $21,381,668 $25,658,001 $79,169,336 $68,421,336 Zone 5 $0 $42,738,000 $13,737,272 $13,737,272 $16,484,726 $86,697,269 $43,959,269 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $8,523,000 $3,742,794 $3,742,794 $4,491,353 $20,499,940 $11,976,940 Outside Inventory Area $0 $550,443 $550,443 $660,532 $1,761,417 $1,761,417 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $8,746,000 $515,230 $515,230 $618,276 $10,394,735 $1,648,735 Total $0 $139,241,000 $66,216,653 $66,216,653 $79,459,983 $351,134,289 $211,893,289 Assumptions: 40% 60%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.

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

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

Actual acquisition cost through year 14, in 2021 dollars. Updated 2021 land cost factors by cost category applied to remaining acquisition targets. Total remaining cost allocated evenly over remaining 16 years of the permit term.
136
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
137
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Management Planning and Design for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Program staff and overhead $433,340 $433,340 $306,365
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total $0 $1,772,511 $938,155 $1,840,187 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.10 0.10 0.05 Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05 Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 0.02 Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.02

Number of FTEs
138
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Management planning $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total per period $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Assumptions:

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

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

Revised cost per unit for oak savanna
to $15K based on review/input from
H.T. Harvey
Revised cost per LF for stream
restoration by eliminating the low
cost outlier from the list of example
projects. Also did not reduce unit cost
by applying a 10% discount to be
more conservative.
140
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $132 0.10 0.10 0.10

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

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

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

Monitoring of restoration sites covered in the Monitoring cost category.

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

Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
141
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $276,548 $276,548 $0
Legal assistance $250,000 $50,000 $0
NEPA/CEQA $558,300 $558,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $11,000 $11,000 $0
CDFG 1602 $23,500 $23,500 $0
NHPA $60,200 $60,200 $0
Other $41,800 $41,800 $0
Total $0 $887,562 $194,053 $330,312 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Note: Detail is not intended to be prescriptive; it is used as a means to generate an overall environmental compliance cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
142
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2021 dollars) Minimum Maximum CEQA CWA 404 CWA 401 CDFG 1602 NHPA Other Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles $ 2,000 $ 25,000 0.001 0.01 $7,346 $0 $968 $1,130 $3,673 $3,482 Medium/more complex