“Demonstrates continued progress toward key plan goals” of housing, transportation, economy and environment in the nine counties including “a gradual shift away from the use of single-occupancy cars and trucks.”

Includes over $1.2 trillion to maintain existing transportation system, build and buy affordable housing, “Provide an income-based monthly payment to all Bay Area households” and to “Adapt to Sea Level Rise.”

Also working on parallel Transit 2050+ plan

Public input opportunities

By MTC & ABAG staff

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s newly released Plan Bay Area 2050+ Draft Blueprint analysis outlines how the nine-county region can advance an affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and vibrant Bay Area for all residents by the year 2050. 

The Blueprint is essentially a draft version of the plan. It is a foundational framework for a future vision of the Bay Area that includes: 

• Forecasts and Assumptions about the Bay Area’s future (population, jobs, financial needs and revenues, sea level rise, etc.);
• Strategies for public investment and policy reform; and
• Geographies where future housing and/or job growth can be focused under the plan’s Strategies.

The Blueprint is then analyzed through computer-generated models and simulations to measure how successful the strategies are in achieving shared goals for the future, such as housing affordability, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and much more.

As the first draft of the Bay Area’s next long-range plan, the Draft Blueprint demonstrates significant progress toward reaching key goals for housing affordability, post-pandemic economic recovery and environmental health and sustainability. This includes the addition of 840,000 affordable homes, with a total of nearly 1 million permanently affordable homes regionwide by 2050; a 17 percent increase in the number of lower-income households living within a half-mile of transit service; and a gradual shift away from the use of single-occupancy cars and trucks. MTC and ABAG planning staff stress that the expected progress would only come about if all the strategies to be detailed in Plan Bay Area 2050+ are implemented.

The full range of performance and equity outcomes from the Plan Bay Area 2050+ Draft Blueprint analysis may be found in the Draft Blueprint Compendium, which also demonstrates how the Bay Area can accommodate some 1.3 million additional jobs and nearly 1 million new households by the year 2050.

The Compendium shows the following proposed budget highlights for three of the Plan’s categories:

Transportation Strategies

$382 billion for T1 – Operate and Maintain the Existing System. Commit to operate and maintain the Bay Area’s roads and transit infrastructure while transitioning to zero-emission transit vehicles.

Housing Strategies

$250 billion for H2 – Preserve Existing Affordable Housing. Acquire homes currently affordable to low- and middle-income residents for preservation as permanently deed-restricted affordable housing, including opportunities for resident ownership.

$302 billion for H4 – Build Adequate Affordable Housing to Ensure Homes for All. Construct enough deed-restricted affordable homes to fill the existing gap in housing for the unhoused community and to meet the needs of low-income households.

Economic Strategies

$205 billion for EC1 – Implement a Statewide Guaranteed Income. Provide an income-based monthly payment to all Bay Area households to improve family stability, promote economic mobility and increase consumer spending.

Environment Strategies

$94 billion for EN1 – Adapt to Sea Level Rise. Adapt shoreline communities, infrastructure and ecosystems affected by sea level rise.

These outcomes were first presented at the May meeting of MTC’s Policy Advisory Council, and then at the June 14 joint meeting of the MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee.  

The Draft Blueprint also identifies challenges that will have to be addressed as part of the Final Blueprint process over the coming months. More work is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as to identify transportation investment priorities for the plan’s fiscally constrained transportation project list. The Draft Blueprint does not include significant transportation expansion or enhancement investments, as these will be identified through Transit 2050+ and the Final Blueprint process. 

What’s Next?

In light of the pandemic’s lasting impact to public transportation, MTC is collaborating with the region’s transit operators on Transit 2050+ , a parallel planning effort to re-envision the future of public transit in the nine-county Bay Area. Two key updates in this process will be released in July: the Draft Project Performance Assessment and the Transit 2050+ Draft Network. It will be a comprehensive overhaul of the six transit-related strategies included in Plan Bay Area 2050.

The Draft Project Performance Assessment will analyze the costs and benefits of major capacity-increasing projects being considered for inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2050+, the vast majority of which are transit projects. These investments, including those adopted in Plan Bay Area 2050, now face a significantly reduced projected revenue stream. This is due largely to slow post-pandemic transit ridership recovery and other economic changes.

The Transit 2050+ Draft Network will identify strategies and investments (capital and operating) envisioned through 2035 and over the long term through 2050. Development of the Draft Network has been guided in part by public engagement conducted in summer 2023, when nearly 3,000 Bay Area residents provided input on the future of Bay Area transit. The Draft Network also is being informed by an existing needs and gaps assessment conducted in partnership with local transit agencies, the Draft Project Performance Assessment, local priorities and improvements to transit network connectivity and customer experience.

Summer 2024 Public Engagement

Beginning in August, MTC staff will conduct a second round of public engagement for Plan Bay Area 2050+, the content of which will focus on:

• Sharing both the Draft Blueprint outcomes and the Transit 2050+ Draft Network
• Gathering feedback to inform the development of the Final Blueprint and address identified Draft Blueprint challenges
• Identifying early priorities for implementing Plan Bay Area 2050+

There will be a variety of in-person and virtual opportunities for the public to participate. Stay up-to-date on upcoming engagement activities in your community by subscribing to the Plan Bay Area 2050+ mailing list. There also will be dedicated engagement opportunities for technical partners and stakeholders, which will be publicized on the Plan Bay Area website’s Partner Engagement page.

Following an analysis of public input, the Commission and the ABAG Executive Board are expected to consider approval of the Final Blueprint in late 2024.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Will bring back for future votes: more street cameras, ordinance requiring native plant species for new developments, city owned property and resolution opposing Amtrak Station closure.

Ogorchock, Hernandez-Thorpe agree City needs to maintain historic murals

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting last Tuesday night, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council adopted the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2024-29 which includes $176.85 million for projects in multiple categories including roads, parks and trails, water, sewer system and city-owned buildings. They also agreed to move forward, for future council votes, additional street cameras and an ordinance requiring plants included in new developments and on city-owned property be at least 70% native species.

Finally, the council agreed to return with a resolution opposing the closure of the Antioch Amtrak station and sending a letter to the San Joaquins Joint Powers Authority which governs the service in and through the city. Plus, the mayor and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock agreed the City must maintain the historic murals it owns. District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was absent for the meeting.

Council Approves 5-Year CIP Budget

The council heard from Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting about the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program for 2024-29 with a budget covering $176.85 million for a variety of projects in various main categories. The CIP also shows $7.7 million in projects completed during the 2023-24 Fiscal Year which runs from July 1st to June 30th. The CIP also provides the list of $171.1 million of projects currently in progress of which $116.1 million is for the Brackish Water Desalination Plant. A total of $2.19 million for Community Facilities improvement projects was added to the list which includes $1 million for the police department’s Dispatch Communications Center Improvements and $550,000 for Antioch Water Park improvements.

The category to receive the greatest level of funding was $52.9 million for Roadway Improvements followed by $45.8 million for the City’s Water System, not including the desal plant for which $22.95 million was allocated. Community Facilities (City-owned buildings) were allocated $21.8 million followed by $18.85 million for Parks & Trails. The Wastewater & Storm Drain System will receive $10.25 million, and Traffic Signals were allocated $4.3 million.

$20.629 Million for L Street Improvements

Under the Roadway Improvements category, the greatest amount of funding received by a project, $20,629,000, is for the L Street Improvements from Hwy 4 to the marina which includes widening from Sycamore Drive to W. 10th Street. With planned completion in 2028, the project will provide four lanes of traffic, as well as curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the street, and landscaping.

CIP Budget Sources of Funds

Sources of funding for the projects include $60 million from sewer and water Enterprise Fund and $41.2 million from Special Revenue Funds including Measure J, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation, state gas tax and federal ARPA funds approved during COVID. An additional $27.8 million is from Grant Funds, including federal and state program sources, $16.9 million from the State Revolving Loan program, almost $10 million from the City’s General Fund and $2.4 million from Capital Improvement Funds. Over 10 percent of the CIP budget, a total of about $18.6 million, is currently unfunded.

See complete 5-Year CIP for 2024-29

Council Moves Forward Two Proposed Items for Future Votes

The council also discussed matters proposed by two council members. With Torres-Walker absent, her proposed items were held over to the council meeting in late July including creating a new Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging Officer position and a Health and Safety Analyst position for the Human Resources Department.

“I would like to put this back on the agenda when she can speak on it in late July,” Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe stated. The others agreed.

Street Cameras

“It’s very important to have these cameras back in our community….capture vital information,” said Ogorchock about her proposed agenda item. “Currently we have 130 cameras. If we had another 130 that would cover all intersections coming in and going out of the city.”

“The cost would be $250 per camera to maintain,” she continued. “They will be huge in capturing drivers and spectators of sideshows.”

“Is there consensus to bring back the cameras for discussion?” the mayor asked.

“I support cameras coming back and the discussion,” Barbanica said.

“OK. That will be coming back,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated.

Taxpayer Protection Act Opposed, But No Vote As It Was Removed from Nov. Ballot

Ogorchock, who asked for this item to be on the agenda for discussion and a vote by the council to oppose it, said, “I have really good news about this. The California Supreme Court ruled the Taxpayer ‘Deception’ Act would be removed from the November ballot.”

However, the measure was actually entitled the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and if passed would have required all new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate. (See related article)

Ralph Hernandez said, “Unfortunately, you don’t have really any information there in the packet. At this time without a lot of the information…if you’re looking at tax increases, I’m against it. I think the public already suffered enough in this economy.”

“This was a ballot measure sponsored by the California Business Roundtable that would impact cities like us negatively,” the mayor explained. “The Supreme Court decided it can’t even be on the ballot.”

Policy on Use of Native Plant Species in New Developments

Ogorchock also asked for this item to be on the agenda for discussion. One speaker asked that the policy, “include private developments and city land and parks. There are a variety of nurseries that offer native plants. Native plants can be acquired at reasonable costs.”

“Direct staff that when native plants – more than 70% be native plants,” she continued. “Without that, birds in general can’t reproduce. They need lots and lots of caterpillars. Keystone species provide the habitat for caterpillars.”

Another speaker, Alexander Broom, said, “A mandate or an ordinance would be a huge step in the right direction for new developments and city property. There’s just so many benefits.”

Ogorchock said, “I do believe we need to start looking at adding this to the General Plan. This is something we can do within our city, not only with new developments but with City property. I’m for having a 70% policy of native species.

I definitely concur,” District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said. “Invasive species of plants have been planted and wreaked havoc on our environment. I think this is a plus for our city to do. It can play a part in our Climate Action Plan.”

“I’m definitely in favor of it coming back, at least 70%,” Barbanica stated.

Asked if the requirement on new development can be done with developers, Acting Community Development Director Kevin Scudero said, “I can’t find a city in the state that has one.”

“I think it’s not that difficult to do it we just need to do it,” Ogorchock added.

“That will come back,” the mayor said in conclusion.

Agree to Bring Back Resolution Opposing Amtrak Station Closure

Before the council discussed the Antioch Amtrak Station closure Ogorchock, who had requested the item to be on the agenda, suggested Hernandez-Thorpe public comments on the matter first, which he did.

One resident, Tashena Garret said, “We are still fighting to save our train. We, again, are not giving up.”

Another resident, who the mayor referred to as Mr. Gums, said, “I’m in support of the Amtrak train station staying. I would like all the council members to show their support for the Amtrak station staying.” He wanted the council to issue a press release stating that.

“I did meet with ACCE and a couple other individuals regarding the Amtrak station,” Ogorchock stated. “And in order for them to have a really good conversation with Senator Glazer, Assemblyman Grayson, Supervisors Federal (Glover) and maybe Burgis, we would like to have a resolution regarding the need, why we need that station and how important it is to our community.”

“So, I think that when they have the resolution in hand and they go and meet with these elected officials then they have something from the City stating why it’s so important,” she reiterated.

“What we’re asking for is a resolution to come back saying we never agreed to this,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated.

“I don’t know if it needs to say, that we didn’t agree to it,” Ogorchock responded. “Basically, it needs to say who it impacts, how many people, ridership, people go to work, basically…actually I started a resolution.”

“You guys had a draft,” the mayor said to City staff members.

“Well, the attorney said you would give me one,” Ogorchock stated.

“Do you want it to come back late July?” Hernandez-Thorpe asked, referring to the next council meeting (as they won’t hold one the second Tuesday in July). “We could call a special meeting.”

He then mentioned that the July 19th Board of Directors meeting of the San Joaquins Joint Powers Authority, which oversees and operates the Amtrak line in and through Antioch, had been cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 20th in Martinez, according to the organization’s website.

“Oh, but you want it for your advocacy efforts,” the mayor said to staff.

The council members then agreed to bring back a resolution for a vote opposing the closure of the Antioch Amtrak Station at their meeting on July 23rd.

“But I think it’s important that we include language we were never asked to weigh in, we were never asked our opinion,” Hernandez-Thorpe said, “Whoever made the decision, according to the San Joaquins, and you’ve all seen the video – I sent it to you – that this was the city manager, former city manager Ron Bernal who made this decision. He never told us about it. He never asked us to make a decision or weigh in. For the city manager to singularly make that decision on his own, I just think it was inappropriate and it needs to be noted.”

“So, everybody agree to that?” the mayor asked. “OK. So, consensus, there.

Ogorchock, Hernandez-Thorpe Agree City Must Maintain Historic Murals

During Council Communications and future agenda items, Ogorchock spoke about the murals in the city following the removal of the historic, council-commissioned mural on W. 4th Street this past week. (See related articles here and here)

“The mural on 2nd Street, we do have an easement on that property, next to the Nick Rodriguez building,” she stated. “It does need some repairs. I don’t want to go through the same issues. We need to make sure because we have an agreement, that is a written agreement, that we would maintain these. So, we need to go back and do what we need to do on that mural because there’s parts of it…that is weathered.”

“Then we need to make sure, we have the one at the Marina,” Ogorchock continued. “So, we need to make sure that all the murals are being maintained and repaired along with the (utility) boxes that we have.”

“The ones we own, I think the issue is with the easements on a few of them,” said Hernandez-Thorpe. “If we could take that back and I had an understanding…it’s really hard. And we do have all that money we set aside for murals, and we need to use some of that for the ones we’ve said, historically that we’re going to maintain.”

“On that, we do need to make sure that the mural money that we put aside was for a new mural,” Ogorchock pointed out. “That Mayor Pro Tem Wilson has asked for, too.”

With no further discussion on the matter, the council then voted to adjourn the meeting.

Nearly $2 billion in statewide investments to improve, protect state’s infrastructure

By Edward Barrera, Division Chief of Public Affairs, California Department of Transportation 

SACRAMENTO — Earlier this month, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) allocated $1.9 billion to support transportation infrastructure projects that play a starring role in powering the world’s fifth largest economy. The approved funding provides significant investments for bridges, roadways, transit and improved facilities for people who walk and bike.

The latest allocations also include nearly $430 million from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) and $740 million via Senate Bill (SB) 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. 

A total of $10.183 million was allocated for improvements in Contra Costa County with most of it for 20 miles of BART track and $3.6 million for I-680 in San Ramon and Danville. 

Among the efforts spurred by the $1.9 billion commitment include several projects prioritizing the state’s vital bridge network, highlighted more than $4 million to repair bridge damage along Interstate 80 in Alameda County.

Also included are projects that will build or renovate shoreline embankments, bus, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and railroad overcrossings. 

“California’s transportation infrastructure is critical to the economic and cultural lifeblood of our state, and this funding provides key support in our mission to provide a safe, equitable and sustainable transportation system for all users,” said Tony Tavares, Caltrans Director.

Contra Costa County Projects

• $6 million allocation for BART Expansion and Contraction of Steel Rail in Contra Costa County which will destress twenty miles of rail track within the BART operating corridor that has been identified as being affected by such conditions in Contra Costa County. (Funding description and source: Locally-Administered Local Transportation Climate Adaptation Program Project off the State Highway System – Resolution LTCAP-A-2324-04)
• $3.6 million allocation for I-680 in San Ramon and Danville, from Alcosta Boulevard to north of Diablo Road. Rehabilitate pavement, upgrade guardrail, and upgrade facilities to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
• $500,000 allocation for the Pavement Resurfacing Project, which will focus on applying pavement rehabilitation treatments in various streets located in the southeast area of the City of Martinez to improve the City’s overall pavement condition index and reduce on-going maintenance. Project will also include ADA curb ramp improvements, restoration of vehicle detection sensors at signalized intersections, striping restoration, and green infrastructure improvements. (Funding description and source: Locally-Administered SB 1 Local Partnership Program (LPP) (Formulaic) Projects Off the State Highway System – Resolution LPP-A-2324-38)
• $83,000 allocation for the Morello Avenue sidewalk gap closure in Martinez will address gaps of concrete sidewalk on the east side of Morello Avenue, south of Village Oaks Drive; and the east side of Morello Avenue, north of Arnold Drive. Improvements will also new curb and gutter, and a new ADA curb ramp at the southeast corner of Morello Avenue/Village Oaks Drive. (Funding description and source: Locally-Administered SB 1 LPP (Formulaic) Projects Off the State Highway System – Resolution LPP-A-2324-38)

The Contra Costa projects funded are among multiple approved projects in District 4 – Bay Area / Oakland which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties.

IIJA, known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” is a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure to improve the sustainability and resiliency of our energy, water, broadband and transportation systems. Since 2021, California has received more than $42 billion in IIJA funds, including more than $29 billion for transportation-related projects.

In addition, SB 1 provides $5 billion in transportation funding each year that is shared between state and local agencies. Road projects progress through construction phases more quickly based on the availability of SB 1 funds, including those partially funded by SB 1. 

See the complete list of the latest CTC-approved projects in each of the other nine Caltrans Districts in the state:

District 1 – Eureka (Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake and Mendocino counties)

District 2 – Redding (Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity counties)

District 3 – Marysville / Sacramento (Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties)

District 5 – San Luis Obispo / Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties)

District 6 – Fresno / Bakersfield (Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Madera and Kern counties)

District 7 – Los Angeles (Los Angeles and Ventura counties)

District 8 – Riverside and San Bernardino counties

District 9 – Bishop (Inyo, Kern and Mono counties)

District 10 – Stockton (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tuolumne counties)

District 11 – San Diego (San Diego and Imperial counties)

District 12 – Orange County

For more information about California transportation projects funded by IIJA and SB-1, visit RebuildingCA.ca.gov and www.build.ca.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Expected to boost Bay Area housing bond prospects; Cal Chamber opposes; requires majority of voters to approve

By Allen D. Payton

MTC/ABAG-backed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1, which would lower the vote threshold for local special taxes and bonds to fund affordable housing, transportation, resilience and other public infrastructure projects from two-thirds to 55%, will go to voters in November 2024.

The state Legislature last month approved sending the amendment, authored by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, to voters with the backing of the entire Bay Area legislative delegation. MTC and ABAG sent letters of support to Sacramento and MTC/ABAG legislative staff actively lobbied the bill to help get it over the finish line.

Similar bills have been proposed over the past two decades but until now none were approved by the house of origin, a hurdle that itself requires a two-thirds vote. Other supporters included Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, Enterprise Community Partners, the California Professional Firefighters, and individual cities and counties. 

The Bay Area is preparing to place a regional housing bond on the November 2024 ballot, with 80% of funds flowing to counties and several large cities and 20% designated for regionwide programs administered by the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA).

“While Bay Area voters have a long history of generously supporting taxes to fund transportation and housing improvements, measures in some parts of the region have repeatedly fallen short of the two-thirds margin,” MTC-ABAG Executive Director Andrew Fremier noted.  “ACA 1 would reinstate the ability of voting majorities to address vital community needs.”

The election of ACA 1 co-author Robert Rivas to the Assembly speakership helped build momentum for the proposed amendment, as did the nonprofit housing community’s raising of $10 million to gather signatures for a citizen’s initiative if the legislature didn’t approve the amendment.  

California Chamber of Commerce Opposes

The constitutional amendment is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce. In a report by policy advocate Preston Young before it passed, he claims ACA1 would increase costs for key sectors, will erode taxpayer safeguards and would harm California workers.

Preston wrote, “This would provide increased tax authority for many local government agencies in California—not just cities and counties, but thousands of potentially overlapping special districts.

In a letter sent to legislators recently, the CalChamber pointed out that while it’s important to improve infrastructure and increase housing availability, higher property, sales and parcel taxes on working Californians run counter to the goal of making the state more affordable for all.

Businesses engaged in manufacturing, research and development, teleproduction and post-production, and agriculture face a significant sales and use tax burden in California.

The sales and use tax is supposed to be a tax on the final point of sale of a product, yet many businesses—including businesses conducting research and development, manufacturing, filming activities, and agriculture—are taxed for equipment purchases.

Taxation of business inputs for these industries leads to a pyramiding effect throughout the production process, leading to higher costs for purchases made by consumers, the CalChamber explained in its letter. To counter this pyramiding effect and incentivize business growth in the state, California offers a partial state-level sales tax exemption for purchases made by these industries. However, purchases made by these businesses are still subject to local transactions and use taxes.

Equipment purchases represent a significant portion of capital investment for existing businesses and start-ups. Tax increases promoted by ACA 1 would defeat the purpose of the state-level exemption provided by the state and make it more cost-prohibitive to conduct these business activities in California, the CalChamber warned.

ACA 1 would allow local jurisdictions to approve Bradley-Burns sales tax increases with a 55% vote of the electorate, eliminating the uniformity and certainty provided by the Bradley-Burns sales tax.

This would represent a monumental change to sales and use tax policy in the state, the CalChamber said. Unlike the transactions and use tax—which is capped at 2% per county and requires statutory authority to exceed the cap—the local 1.25% sales tax (referred to as the Bradley-Burns sales tax) is uniformly applied across the state and voters are not authorized to approve increases to the rate.

“California already has the highest state-imposed sales tax in the country, and the combined sales tax rates in some jurisdictions are among the highest in the United States,” the CalChamber said. “Allowing localities to modify their Bradley-Burns sales tax rates, without a cap on rate increases, paves the way for excessive combined sales tax rates in parts of the state—increasing costs for residents and businesses.”

More than four decades ago, prompted by years of rising taxes, Californians resoundingly approved Proposition 13 to provide a check on local governments’ taxing authority, and to ensure a greater representative voice for those who would be taxed. Proposition 13 also limits taxes on property to 1% of the property’s assessed value.

Reducing the vote threshold would diminish the people’s voice on tax increases and would erode property tax safeguards. The CalChamber pointed out that a May 2022 Public Policy Institute of California poll found that 64% of registered voters believe Proposition 13 has benefitted taxpayers, and this support reaches across nearly every major demographic.

After comparing the costs of operating in California versus other states, many employers left the state in recent years. A Hoover Institution report found that from 2018 to 2022, at least 352 companies relocated their headquarters out of California—with many businesses citing the state’s tax burden as the deciding factor in their relocation.

The relocation of these companies and their employees to lower-cost states has a major impact on state and local tax revenue, causes unemployment for workers who cannot move to the new location, and is a sign that California must find ways to be more competitive, the CalChamber stressed.

“Tax increases such as those promoted in ACA 1 would be a step in the wrong direction and would encourage more companies to move workers and investments to other states,” the CalChamber said.

Indeed, Californians are sensitive to this problem. A 2020 Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll found that 78% of voters “agreed that taxes in California were already so high that they were driving many people and businesses out of the state.”

Majority Vote Needed to Pass

According to a report by the California Globe,  Article XVIII, Section 4 of the California Constitution, “requires a proposed amendment or revision to be submitted to the electors and, if approved by a majority of votes, takes effect on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election at which the measure is voted on, but the measure may provide that it becomes operative after its effective date.”

One large quake last Wednesday, two more smaller quakes on Monday

By CA Department of Water Resources

News of yet another earthquake in the heart of the Delta in the last week is a serious reminder about the importance of modernizing and protecting water supply infrastructure. The quake on Wednesday, Oct. 18th measured 4.2 and was centered 5 kilometers southwest of Isleton.

Two more quakes measuring 2.9 magnitude and 2.5 mag, with epicenters 4 km southeast of Rio Vista, occurred on Monday, Oct. 23, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS).

In a report by CBS News last week, Austin Elliott with the USGS said that “a very large earthquake, centered near the Delta, would pose a particularly significant threat to both protective systems that the levees provide, as well as the water distribution and intake systems.”

He also said that “Larger earthquakes magnitude — five or six — would begin to produce liquefaction and damage some of the infrastructure and geotechnical work there.” And according to the USGS, there is a 72 percent chance of a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake occurring in the Bay Area by 2043.

The Delta Conveyance Project is meant to help the State Water Project guard against these seismic threats.

DWR has also invested millions of dollars to reinforce many Delta levees through the Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects programs. Additionally, DWR has been planning for and strategizing how to address the earthquake risk and potential disruption to California’s water supply and has developed detailed plans to guide response and recovery efforts.

For more information on how the proposed Delta Conveyance Project would make California’s water supply more earthquake resilient, check out this digital article and these two in-depth videos (Part 1 and Part 2). 

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

For Mokelumne Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing

By Linsey Willis, Director of External Affairs, CCTA

BRENTWOOD, CA – In partnership with the City of Brentwood, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is constructing the Mokelumne Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing to provide safe access to cyclists and pedestrians for commuting and recreational travel, reconnecting two sides of the trail that were separated by the expansion of State Route 4.  The overnight closure will enable the contractor to pour concrete for the superstructure as part of the construction work installing the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing over State Route 4.  This closure will impact State Route 4 in both the Eastbound and Westbound directions.  CCTA and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) have scheduled the closure during the early morning hours in order to minimize impacts to the motoring public.

Overnight Freeway Closure of State Route 4 between Lone Tree Way and Sand Creek Road

In order to ensure crew and public safety during the planned construction work, a temporary nighttime freeway closure in both directions of State Route 4 will occur between Friday, May 19, 2023 and Saturday, May 20, 2023 on the following schedule (weather permitting): Eastbound and Westbound Highway 4 will be closed from 9:00pm on Friday, May 19 until 6:00am on Saturday, May 20, 2023. 

Detours

Detours will be in place to reroute drivers around the closure and are planned as follows:

Eastbound traffic will be directed to exit at Lone Tree Way, go eastbound to Shady Willow Lane, then southbound on Shady Willow Lane to Sand Creek Road, before proceeding westbound on Sand Creek Road to the eastbound State Route 4 on-ramp.

Westbound drivers having to detour will exit on Sand Creek Road and go eastbound on Sand Creek Road to Shady Willow Lane, then northbound on Shady Willow Lane to Lone Tree Way, and proceed westbound on Lone Tree Way to the westbound State Route 4 on-ramp.

Future Freeway Closures

Additional overnight closures will be needed over the course of the next eight weeks (weather dependent) to facilitate concrete pours for the stem and soffit and deck of the future Mokelumne Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing.  Additional information regarding dates and detours will be provided once the schedule is confirmed. This project is anticipated to be complete in late summer or early fall of 2023.

About the Mokelumne Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing

In partnership with the City of Brentwood, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is constructing the Mokelumne Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing to provide safe access to cyclists and pedestrians for commuting and recreational travel, reconnecting two sides of the trail that were separated by the expansion of State Route 4.

When completed, the overcrossing will provide access to the future East County Intermodal Transit Center and BART Station in Brentwood, as well. It is part of the larger Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail which also includes the Delta de Anza Regional Trail that runs through Antioch and Oakley,  that will, when completed, connect six counties across California from the East Bay to the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

The cost to design and build the bridge is approximately $13 million, with funding provided through Measure J taxpayer dollars, the State Route 4 Bypass Authority, and bridge toll funds.

About the Contra Costa Transportation Authority

The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a public agency formed by Contra Costa voters in 1988 to manage the county’s transportation sales tax program and oversee countywide transportation planning efforts. With a staff of twenty people managing a multi-billion-dollar suite of projects and programs, CCTA is responsible for planning, funding and delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects and programs that connect our communities, foster a strong economy, increase sustainability, and safely and efficiently get people where they need to go. CCTA also serves as the county’s designated Congestion Management Agency, responsible for putting programs in place to keep traffic levels manageable. More information about CCTA is available at ccta.net.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Outlines actions needed now to invest in new sources, transform water management

Without action, state officials believe California’s water supply could diminish by up to 10% by 2040

Introduces former L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa as state’s new infrastructure czar

ANTIOCH – Hotter and drier weather conditions could reduce California’s water supply by up to 10% by the year 2040. To replace and replenish what we will lose to thirstier soils, vegetation, and the atmosphere, Governor Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced in California’s latest actions to increase water supply and adapt to more extreme weather patterns caused by climate change. Click here to read California’s Water Supply Strategy.

Thursday’s announcement at Antioch’s $110 million Brackish Desalination project follows $8 billion in state investments over the last two years to help store, recycle, de-salt and conserve the water it will need, generating enough water in the future for more than 8.4 million households by 2040.

The actions, outlined in a strategy document published by the Administration called “California’s Water Supply Strategy, Adapting to a Hotter, Drier Future” calls for investing in new sources of water supply, accelerating projects and modernizing how the state manages water through new technology.

This approach to California’s water supply management recognizes the latest science that indicates the American West is experiencing extreme, sustained drought conditions caused by hotter, drier weather. It means that a greater share of the rain and snowfall California receives will be absorbed by dry soils, consumed by thirsty plants, and evaporated into the air. This leaves less water to meet the state’s needs.

“The best science tells us that we need to act now to adapt to California’s water future. Extreme weather is a permanent fixture here in the American West and California will adapt to this new reality,” Governor Newsom said. “California is launching an aggressive plan to rebuild the way we source, store and deliver water so our kids and grandkids can continue to call California home in this hotter, drier climate.”

To help make up for the water supplies California could lose over the next two decades, the strategy prioritizes actions to capture, recycle, de-salt and conserve more water. These actions include:

• Creating storage space for up to 4 million acre-feet of water, which will allow us to capitalize on big storms when they do occur and store water for dry periods
• Recycling and reusing at least 800,000 acre-feet of water per year by 2030, enabling better and safer use of wastewater currently discharged to the ocean.
• Freeing up 500,000 acre-feet of water through more efficient water use and conservation, helping make up for water lost due to climate change.
• Making new water available for use by capturing stormwater and desalinating ocean water and salty water in groundwater basins, diversifying supplies and making the most of high flows during storm events.

These actions are identified broadly in the Newsom Administration’s Water Resilience Portfolio – the state’s master plan for water released in 2020 – but they will be expedited given the urgency of climate-driven changes. To advance the infrastructure and policies needed to adapt, the strategy enlists the help of the Legislature to streamline processes so projects can be planned, permitted and built more quickly, while protecting the environment.

Over the last three years, at the urging of the Governor, state leaders have earmarked more than $8 billion to modernize water infrastructure and management. The historic three-year, $5.2 billion investment in California water systems enacted in 2021-22 has enabled emergency drought response, improved water conservation to stretch water supplies, and enabled scores of local drought resilience projects. The 2022-23 budget includes an additional $2.8 billion for drought relief to hard-hit communities, water conservation, environmental protection for fish and wildlife and long-term drought resilience projects.

Newsom also introduced former Los Angeles Mayor and Speaker of the Assembly Antonio Villaraigosa as the state’s new infrastructure czar.

“With this influx of federal dollars, we have an incredible opportunity to rebuild California while creating quality jobs, modernizing crucial infrastructure and accelerating our clean transportation progress, benefiting communities up and down the state,” Newsom said. “Antonio has the extensive experience and relationships to deliver on this promise and bring together the many partners who will be key to our success. I look forward to his collaboration with the administration as we build up communities across California.”

Construction on Antioch’s desalination plant, located behind the city’s water treatment plant at 401 Putnam Street is expected to be completed next year, city Public Works Director John Samuelson shared following the governor’s press conference.

Executive Order on Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

NOVEMBER 15, 2021

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to effectively implement the historic infrastructure investments in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the Act), it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Background.  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a once-in-a-generation investment in our Nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness. It will help rebuild America’s roads, bridges, and rails; expand access to clean drinking water; work to ensure access to high-speed Internet throughout the Nation; tackle the climate crisis; advance environmental justice; and invest in communities that have too often been left behind.  It will accomplish all of this while driving the creation of good-paying union jobs and growing the economy sustainably and equitably for decades to come.

Critical to achieving these goals will be the effective implementation of the Act by my Administration, as well as by State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments.

Sec. 2.  Implementation Priorities.  In implementing the Act, all agencies (as described in section 3502(1) of title 44, United States Code, except for the agencies described in section 3502(5) of title 44), shall, as appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, prioritize:

(a)  investing public dollars efficiently, working to avoid waste, and focusing on measurable outcomes for the American people;

(b)  increasing the competitiveness of the United States economy, including through implementing the Act’s Made-in-America requirements and bolstering United States manufacturing and supply chains;

(c)  improving job opportunities for millions of Americans by focusing on high labor standards for these jobs, including prevailing wages and the free and fair chance to join a union;

(d)  investing public dollars equitably, including through the Justice40 Initiative, which is a Government-wide effort toward a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits from Federal investments in climate and clean energy flow to disadvantaged communities;

(e)  building infrastructure that is resilient and that helps combat the crisis of climate change; and

(f)  effectively coordinating with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments in implementing these critical investments.

Sec. 3.  Infrastructure Implementation Task Force.  (a)  There is established within the Executive Office of the President the Infrastructure Implementation Task Force (Task Force).  The function of the Task Force is to coordinate effective implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and other related significant infrastructure programs within the executive branch.

(b)  The Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council shall serve as Co‑Chair of the Task Force.

(c)  There is established within the Executive Office of the President the position of White House Infrastructure Coordinator, who shall serve as Co-Chair of the Task Force.

(d)  In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Task Force shall consist of the following members:

(i)     the Secretary of the Interior;

(ii)    the Secretary of Agriculture;

(iii)   the Secretary of Commerce;

(iv)    the Secretary of Labor;

(v)     the Secretary of Transportation;

(vi)    the Secretary of Energy;

(vii)   the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(viii)  the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(ix)    the Director of the Office of Personnel Management;

(x)     the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council;

(xi)    the Assistant to the President and National Climate Advisor; and

(xii)   the heads of such other executive departments, agencies, and offices as the Co-Chairs may from time to time invite to participate.

(e)  The Co-Chairs may coordinate subgroups consisting of Task Force members or their designees, as appropriate.

Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

November 15, 2021.