Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08061996 - D6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 6, 1996 SUBJECT: Hearing on the Revision of the South County Area of Benefit Fee Schedule and Boundaries. Project No. 0676-2310-6P4045; CDD-CP # 94-43 RESOLUTION NO. 96/3" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: A. It is recommended that the Board take the following actions: I. ADOPT and APPROVE the Revised Development Program Report pertaining to the revision of the South County Area of Benefit. 2. DETERMINE that the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) CEQA guidelines. 3. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. 4. DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $ 25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk for the filing of the Notice of Exemption. 5. DETERMINE that a majority protest does not exist. 6. INCORPORATE in this resolution by reference the boundaries, costs, and method of fee apportionment set forth in the Revised Development Program Report and the attached ordinance. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: lYrl�� _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON CkA& (off (-196 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_ The Public Hearing on the above matter was opened, and no one appearing to speak, the hearing was closed. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ✓ UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: HJB:ML:ds g:14ranseng\B06SCAoB.t8 Orig. Div: Public Works(T/E) Contact: Martin Lysons,Tel. 313-2295 f f mby m*60 fhfa Is•tw awd arra 00p�a1 M aC&M taken and entered on " niYwM 72,00 cc: M. Shiu, Deputy PW Director =of t3upefv oa on the ata dmwft Community Development Arresm o County Auditor-Controller of HILB TCH and CouMyordwbmd Treasurer-Tax Collector P.W.Accounting �y�� — fuq► P.W. Design-Environmental D-(v Hearing on the Revision of the South County Area of Benefit. August 6, 1996 Page 2 I. Recommended Action: (Cont.) 7. DIRECT the Director of Public Works and Auditor/Controller to continue the existing trust fund for the South County subarea, that was established by Board Resolution 88/122 on March 15, 1988, and that this trust fund shall now be specific for the South County Area of Benefit, and that the Treasurer shall continue the investment of said monies with interest to accrue in the trust fund account. 8. DIRECT the Public Works Department and Department of Community Development to review the fee schedule periodically, and to adjust for the effects of inflation as described in the attached ordinance. The adjustment for inflation is not subject to CEQA. 9. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the South County Area of Benefit, and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the South County Area of Benefit. 10. DIRECT the Public Works Department and Department of Community Development to comply with CEQA on development applications and road projects to be constructed pursuant to the Revised Development Program Report for the South County Area of Benefit. B. It is recommended that the Board ADOPT the attached ordinance, which revises the South County Area of Benefit, and ordains the following: Traffic Mitigation Fees (Ordinance No. 96 - 27 ) 1 Adopt.traffic mitigation fees, as recommended in the Revised Development Program Report. 2. Adjust the fee schedule every year that the Area of Benefit is in effect, to account for the affects of inflation and that at no time will the fee schedule be increased at a rate of more that 5% per year. II. Financial Impact: The total estimated cost of the road improvement projects identified in the Revised Program Development Report for the South County area, is approximately $6.6 million. The proposed projects however, will only be partially funded by South County Area of Benefit fees. Adoption of the revised Area of Benefit will generate approximately $825,000 for road improvement projects, when all the fees are collected by the year 2010 target date. Other sources will fund the remaining project costs. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: The Countywide Area of Benefit was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 15, 1988 (Resolution 88/122), to improve the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in Contra Costa County through the establishment of a traffic mitigation fee. The traffic mitigation fees apply to the unincorporated areas of the County and are required of all new development. The Countywide Area of Benefit consisted of seven regions, named West County, Central County, Lamorinda, Alamo, South County, East County, and Bethel Island. There was a separate fee schedule established for each region, and a separate trust fund established for fees collected from South County developments. In 1993, the Countywide Area of Benefit was revised by the formation of seven Regional Areas of Benefit corresponding to the D. Hearing on the Revision of the South County Area of Benefit. August 6, 1996 Page 3 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: (Cont.) seven regions of the Countywide Area of Benefit. These seven Regional Areas of Benefit had the same boundaries, development potentials, projects, and fees as the seven regions of the Countywide Area of Benefit formed in 1988. Resolution 93/25 passed by the Board of Supervisor on March 9, 1993 replaced and repealed Resolution 88/122. This revision is necessary in order to coordinate the South County Area of Benefit Fees with the Southern Contra Costa Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between Contra Costa County, the Town of Danville, and the City of San Ramon. One of the projects of the original South County Area of Benefit was to improve Dougherty Road to a two-lane rural highway standard. The proposed Shapell and Windemere Developments within Dougherty Valley will replace the existing Dougherty Road with a new six-lane facility. There are two projects that are needed to accommodate potential development in the South County Area of Benefit. First, there is a section of Crow Canyon Road that lies west of the San Ramon City Limits. This approximately 2,000 foot section leads into Alameda County. The proposed project is for a truck climbing lane. As there is a limited amount of development potential in the area, the percentage share of project funding for the South County Area of Benefit is only 5%. The second Area of Benefit project (a project that was on the original 1988 Countywide Area of Benefit) is the improvement of Camino Tassajara from the eastern boundary of the Blackhawk Development to the Alameda County Line. This proposed project would not be adequate to accommodate the estimated traffic generated by the proposed TVPOA developments. If and when that General Plan Amendment is approved, the South County Area of Benefit will again need to be revised. Government Code Section 66484 and Division 913, Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code provide for assessing and collecting fees for bridge and/or major thoroughfare construction within a designated area of benefit and as a condition of issuing a building permit. The Public Works Director and Director of Community Development have completed a Revised Development Program Report for the South County Area of Benefit, which was filed with the Clerk of the Board. Notice of the hearing was duly given in accordance with Government Code Sections 54986, 65091, 66016, and 66484. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: Failure to revise the South County Area of Benefit may result in the loss of crucial road funds needed to construct necessary road improvements for the area. HJB:ML:ds gAtranseng\606SCAoBA8 Recording Requested By: AUG 15 1996 Contra Costa County 96 152751 Return To: � AT�� O'CLOCK M; CONTRA COSTA COUNT ECORDS STEPHEN L. WEIR Board of St4)ervi.sors COUNT-t RECO-DER 651 Pine St., Room 106 FES: Martinez, CA 94553 FF Document Title(s) ORDINANCE NO. 96-27 SOUTH COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT • • 'fib Ordinance No. 96 :22_ South County Area of Benefit The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows: SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance provides for the revision of the South County Area of Benefit, and the adoption of fees to be collected from developments proposed in the South County Area of Benefit located in unincorporated Contra Costa County to fund road improvements. SECTION II. REPLACEMENT. Within the Fee Area, Ordinances 93-22, 93-23, 93-24 and 93-25 shall be repealed and replaced by this ordinance. SECTION 111. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is enacted, in part, pursuant to Government Code Section 66484 and Division 913, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. SECTION IV. NOTICE AND HEARING. This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in Government Code Sections 54986, 65091, 66016, 66017 and 66484, and Division 913, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and all required notices have been properly given and public hearings held. SECTION V. FEE ADOPTION. The following fees to fund road improvements are adopted for the South County Area of Benefit, as established by Resolution 96/344 dated August 6, 1996 and shall apply to all development within the Fee Area: South County Area of Benefit: Land Use Recommended Fee Single Family Residential $1,612 per Dwelling Unit Other $1,612 per peak hour trip Fees shall be collected when building permits are issued in accordance with Section 913- 4.204 of Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. SECTION VI. FEE AREA. The fee area shall include all of the unincorporated area within the South County Area of Benefit with the following exception: 1. Any development required under conditions of approval to construct certain off-site road improvements in lieu of fee payment. 2. Areas in the Tassajara Area of Benefit 3. Areas in the Dougherty Valley Fee Area The revised boundaries of the South County Area of Benefit as established by Resolution No. 96/344 adopted August 6, 1996 are described in Exhibit A attached to this ordinance. .SECTION VII. SENIOR HOUSING. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to abridge or modify the Board's discretion, upon proper application for senior housing or congregate care facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, to adjust or waive the fees provided for within this ordinance. • -D. tg SECTION VIII. PURPOSE AND USE OF FEES. The purpose of the fees described in this ordinance is to generate funds to finance improvements to certain bridges and major thoroughfares in the South County area. The fees will be used to finance the road improvements listed in the Revised Development Program Report. As discussed in more detail in the Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the fees and the types of development projects that are subject to the fees in that the development projects will generate additional traffic on bridges and major thoroughfares in the South County area, thus creating a need to expand, extend or improve existing bridges and major thoroughfares and a need to construct new bridges and major thoroughfares to mitigate adverse traffic and infrastructure impacts that would otherwise result from such development projects. SECTION IX. SEVERABILITY. If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board declares that it would have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. SECTION X. REVIEW OF FEES. Project cost estimates shall be reviewed every year that the South County Area of Benefit is in effect The fee schedule shall be adjusted annually to account for inflation using the State of California Construction Cost Index as published annually by the California Department of Transportation. At no time will the fee schedule be increased at a rate of more than 5% per year due to inflation. SECTION XI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective 60 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the San Ramon Valley Times, a newspaper of general circulation published in this County. Pursuant to Section 913-6.026 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, the Clerk of the Board shall promptly file a certified copy of this ordinance with the County Recorder. SECTION XII. EXISTING FEE.The replacement of Resolution No. 93/104 shall not affect fees accrued thereunder prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and such fees shall remain subject to payment and collection when building permits are issued in accordance with Section 913-4.204 of Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. PASSED and ADOPTED on August, 6, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: fwa:Muds Deputy B�ardl thair 9ftr*eWSo0o ord.n • Boundary Description South County Area of Benefit . EXHIBIT"A" Real property in south Contra Costa County, California, bounded on the east by"Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area"adopted July 26, 1994 by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors' Resolution 94/386, bounded on the south by Alameda County, and described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of"Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area", also being the intersection of the boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties with the west line of Rancho Canada de los Vaqueros on the west line of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 2 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence from the Point of Beginning along said county boundary in a general westerly direction 126,000 feet, more or less,to rancho comer P.C. No. 31 on the boundary of Rancho Laguna de los Palos Colorados; thence along said rancho boundary, north 19°28'45"east 3,547.16 feet to rancho comer P.C. No. 32 and north 1°13'26"east 929.81 feet, to the boundary of the Record of Survey filed June 20, 1980 in Book 67 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 9; thence along the boundary of said Record of Survey as follows: 1)north 88°5239" east 513.17 feet, 2) north 0°15'06" west 1,303.04 feet, 3) north 88°43'10"east 1,290.34 feet, and 4) north 0°2737"west 1,306.53 feet, to the northwest comer of Section 28(T1 S, R2W); thence along the north lines of Sections 28, 27, and 26 (T1 S, R2W), easterly 15,840 feet, more or less,to the west line of Section 25 (T1 S, R2W); thence along said west line, southerly 2,640 feet, to the west quarter comer of Section 25; thence south 88°43'05" east 1,063.84 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 28-82 filed November 21, 1983 in Book 108 of Parcel Maps at page 11; thence along the north line thereof, south 88047'23"east 1,062.06 feet, to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 53-81 filed March 28, 1985 in Book 115 of Parcel Maps at page 14; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 53-81, south 8804343"east 3,035.66 feet, to the east line of said Section 25; thence along said east line, northerly 2,640 feet, more or less, to the northeast comer of Section 25 on the boundary of Assessor Parcel Number(hereinafter referred to as APN) 199- 010-012 described as PARCEL FIVE in the deed to East Bay Regional Park District (hereinafter referred to as EBRPD) recorded April 4, 1974 in Volume 7189 of Official Records at page 183; thence along said boundary in a general northerly and easterly direction 2,325.7 feet to the east line of that 13.19 acre Parcel APN 199-010-011 excepted from PARCEL FIVE in said deed to EBRPD and described as PARCEL ONE in the deed to the United States of America recorded July 29, 1980 in Volume 9930 of Official Records at page 913; thence along said east line in a general northwesterly direction 192.27 feet to an angle point on the boundary of said PARCEL FIVE (7189 O.R. 183); thence along said boundary in a general northwesterly direction 637.99 feet to the east line of Section 24 (T1 S, R2W); thence along said east line, northerly 205.33 feet, to the southwest comer of Subdivision 5310 filed May 27, 1981 in Book 252 of Maps at page 19; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5310, north 1°11'46" east 209.22 feet and north 76004'30"east 527.74 feet, to the northeast comer thereof on the south line of Subdivision MS 7-76 filed February 25, 1977 in Book 52 of Parcel Maps at page 39; thence along said south line, north 76'03'57" east 543.09 feet, to the most eastern comer thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 3820 recorded May 13, 1969 in Book 126 of Maps at page 25; thence along said boundary, south 32044'22" east 527.82 feet, to the south comer thereof on the boundary of Tract 2575 recorded November 6, 1957 in Book 68 of Maps at page 43; thence along the boundary of Tract 2575 in a general northerly direction 1,472.58 feet to the west corner of Tract 2509 recorded November 8, 1956 in Book 65 of Maps at page 46; thence along the boundary of Tract 2509 in a general northeasterly direction 399.56 feet to the most western corner of Tract 2080 recorded February 2, 1955 in Book 57 of Maps at page 4; thence along the boundary of Tract 2080 in a general northeasterly direction 397.83 feet to the 1 onorth comer thereof: thence Arssing Southern Pacific Railroad right of—way, northeasterly 50 feet, more r less, to the west comer of Subdivision 5750 filed July 11, 1983 in Book 271 of Maps at page 50; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5750 in a general northeasterly direction 582.04 feet to the north comer thereof; thence north 44°34'26" east 30 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Danville Boulevard; thence along said centerline in a general northwesterly direction 950 feet, more or less, to the south corner of Lot 5 of the Hemme Home Tract shown on the map filed October 21, 1938 in Book 5 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 55;thence along the southeast line thereof, northeasterly 718.08 feet, to the boundary of the Record of Survey filed June 1, 1967 in Book 48 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 15; thence along said boundary as follows: 1)westerly 182.82 feet, 2) northwesterly 349.5 feet, 3)northerly 256.77 feet, and 4) northeasterly 504.29 feet, to the north comer thereof on the southwest right of way line of Interstate Freeway 680 shown on the State of California Right of Way Record Map R-86.14; thence crossing said freeway, northeasterly 274.37 feet, to the south comer of Subdivision MS 58-83 filed August 16, 1989 in Book 141 of Parcel Maps at page 42; thence along the boundary thereof as follows: 1)north 48*3654"east 900.66 feet, 2) north 2045'17"east 1,139.04 feet, 3) north 41029115" east 561.74 feet, and 4) north 89°49'15"east 177.69 feet, to the southwest comer of Subdivision 5980 filed June 30, 1981 in Book 254 of Maps at page 10; thence along the south line of Subdivision 5980, north 89°49'15"east 1,073.8 feet, to the southeast comer thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 7142 filed January 29, 1990 in Book 341 of Maps at page 38; thence along said boundary, south,66°05149" east 640.72 feet to the northeast comer thereof, also being the north comer of APN 197-140-026 described in the deed to EBRPD recorded March 8, 1977 in Volume 8231 of Official Records at page 139.and shown on the map of Subdivision MS 14-76 filed March 28, 1977 in Book 53 of Parcel Maps at page 14; thence along the northeast line of Subdivision MS 14-76, south 66°19'52" east 350.61 feet and south 67°58'52"east 453.7 feet, to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 858-88 filed November 3, 1989 in Book 143 of Parcel Maps at page 20; thence along the north line of Subdivision-MS 858-88, north 78°31'33" east 602.95 feet and south 89022'50" east 46.74 feet, to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 238-05 filed January 5, 1966 in Book 39 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 16; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 238-65, easterly 379.52 feet, to the northeast comer thereof; thence south 89°42'33" east 823.03 feet to the northwest comer of PARCEL TWO of Subdivision MS 853-89 filed January 18, 1991 in Book 150 of Parcel Maps at page 42; thence along the boundary thereof, south 89042'33"east 408.15 feet and south 0053'33"west 975.85 feet, to the northeast comer of Subdivision 6065 filed May 22, 1984 in Book 279 of Maps at page 16; thence along the east line of Subdivision 6065, south 0°48'22"west 274.96 feet,to the northeast comer of Subdivision MS 85- 81 filed April 1, 1982 in Book 100 of Parcel Maps at page 7; thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 85-81, south 0048'22" west 275.38 feet and north 89001' west 228 feet, to the boundary of Subdivision MS 104-81 filed February 14, 1982 in Book 104 of Parcel Maps at page 45; thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 104-81 as follows: 1)southerly 93.47 feet, 2) easterly 198.71 feet. 3) southerly 174.06 feet, and 4) southerly 65.45 feet, to the southeast comer thereof; thence southerly 209.55 feet to the northeast comer of Subdivision MS 247-76 recorded August 15, 1977 in Book 57 of Parcel Maps at page 10; thence along the east line thereof, southerly 275 feet, to the northeast comer of Subdivision MS 134-74 filed May 7, 1976 in Book 44 of Parcel Maps at page 38; thence along the east line of Subdivision MS 134-74, southerly 81.96 feet, to the northeast comer of Subdivision 4723 recorded August 13, 1975 in Book 179 of Maps at page 40; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 4723, south 0°04'22"west 517.52 feet and north 88031'26"east 152.56 feet, to the northwest corner of Subdivision 3306 recorded April 7, 1965 in Book 103 of Maps at page 19; thence along the north line of Subdivision 3306, north 88°23'37"east 1,454.41 feet, to the northwest corner of Subdivision 4260 recorded September 13, 1972 in Book 150 of Maps at page 43; thence along the north line of Subdivision 4260, north 88°22'50"east 1,019.55 feet to the southwest corner of Section 16 (T1 S, R1 W) and north 89015'49"east 300.11 feet, to the southwest comer of PARCEL "A" of Subdivision MS 149-70 filed October 28, 1971 in Book 19 of Parcel Maps at page 8; thence along the west line of PARCEL"A" 2 and its prolongation in a general northerly direction 2,630.39 feet,to thtnterline of Stone Valley Road; thence along said centerline in a general easterly direction 2,500 feet, more or less, to the western prolongation of the north line of Subdivision MS 46-72 filed January 24, 1973 in Book 26 of Parcel Maps at page 11; thence along said prolongation and north line, easterly 500 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of Subdivision 7177 filed November 1, 1993 in Book 369 of Maps at page 1; thence along the north line of Subdivision 7177, north 88011'59" east 712.69 feet, to the northeast corner thereof, thence easterly 230 feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision 5285 recorded May 20, 1953 in Book 270 of Maps at page 3; thence along the north line of Subdivision 5285, north 89°11'59"east 520.86 feet, to the northeast comer thereof; thence easterly 187.14 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 78-72 filed January 5, 1973 in Book 25 of Parcel Maps at page 47; thence easterly 167.97 feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision MS 13-74 filed November 15, 1974 in Book 35 of Parcel Maps at page 48; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 13-74, easterly 439 feet, to the northeast comer thereof; thence easterly 729.74 feet to the northeast comer of Cameo Acres Unit No. 3 recorded April 19, 1930 in Book 40 of Maps at page 4; thence easterly 133.59 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision 4894 recorded November 2, 1977 in Book 203 of Maps at page 49; thence along the north line of Subdivision 4894, north 88049'59"east 1,420.93 feet, to the northeast comer thereof, thence easterly 2,020 feet, more or less,to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 154-76 filed August 23, 1977 in Book 57 of Parcel Maps at page 17; thence along the boundary thereof in a.general southeasterly direction 827.11 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 263-78 filed September 19, 1979 in Book 81 of Parcel Maps at page 1;thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 263-78 as follows: 1) in a general southeasterly direction 1,262.95 feet to the southwest comer thereof on the centerline of Alameda Diablo, 2) northeasterly 162.97 feet to the southeast comer thereof on the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (South Gate Road), 3) along said centerline in a general northerly direction 664.7 feet, 4) along said centerline in a general southwesterly direction 223.46 feet, and 5) along said centerline in a general northerly direction 685.64 feet, to the northeast corner of t Subdivision MS 263-78 on the boundary of Subdivision MS 154-76 (57 PM 17); thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 154-76 in a general northeasterly direction 781.94 feet to the northeast comer thereof, also being the southeast comer of Subdivision MS 193-76 filed January 25, 1978 in Book 62 of Parcel Maps at page 40; thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 193-76 in a general northerly direction 2,834.63 feet to the northeast comer of Section 15 (T1 S, R1 W); thence along the north line of Section 15, south 89'2640"west 2,589.83 feet,to the southeast comer of Subdivision 5607 filed February 25, 1982 in Book 262 of Maps at page 34; thence along the boundary thereof, north 0°42'48"east 1,574.44 feet and north 67°5429"west 944.49 feet,to the southeast comer of Subdivision 5536 filed March 17, 1981 in Book 250 of Maps at page 8; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5536, north 669.56 feet,west 428 feet, and north 52012'06"west 1,583.74 feet, to the south line of that 787.58 acre parcel shown on the Record of Survey filed June 22, 1960 in Book 18 of Licensed Surveyors'Maps at page 39; thence along said south line, north 87052'06"east 4,200 feet, more or less, to the southeast comer thereof on the northwest line of Lot D, Rancho San Miguel Robert Allen Tract; thence along said northwest line, northeasterly 3,100 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard(North Gate Road);thence along said centerline in a general easterly direction 12,400 feet, more or less, to the centerline intersection of Summit Road; thence along the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (South Gate Road) in a general southerly direction 6,700 feet, more or less,to the south line of Section 12 (T1 S, RI W);thence along said south line, easterly 4,400 feet, to the boundary of aforementioned"Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area'; thence along said boundary in a general southeasterly direction 80,000 feet, more or less, to the boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, the Point of Beginning. LB:drg:sd &Ieri hexhbftouthcc.aob 6/17196 3 ..« D m ?� Zr mc) r . O -i - 2cn D a wo Om SO Z� _w A�40 O T 5z m U�1 !�'' m-1 •-► -' c M Z n Z F+ fD 7DO �.7 C0OWZW Tri o p :. N m m Q- C N fOD Jv ` J` J` J X CD ` Z � CC) � rt D 000 N Q c m- mm rt O n 9 -nm y � "� 0 �++ QC n � ��pf O MDZW co �G 3 N w �m M ~ mA D m •+ O m ' mM (n Q1 :13O O vM _ (D G3. j D Z N_ D^ r O fD fD �m0 z Xcn = m N � Imo' Z ooK m0{ m �oD � my < rt rt O m Oc .< SL) (D IV v -0 U) m e CO w O M m 0 Cn S G) � O � 1 n� Cl) �oOvzm < wwg v C: V n=i m D - (1) D rr�� O m W G7 0l y• �*�' z c O < z Cs! O ri v m ff) z m n c � �' m z o [� m fD Oo McD O rt D v z LA m CD c Nj o M > H to cG C y� rt CA o K _ o� -� DOS 8(D -1 a1 Z O o� x G)m w m zz jlj� r m � n mmOnm c Ox c O 0:5 03) Z m c n m o O z m n 0 N z O c O M a m z Z O C O [7 v 0 _ <m 00 NJ a fD -j -� M Z cc �► �N+ �, m 7 Om m m T L7 p � a x i Z CO rt 74 rt rt vv W Cl) 0 0 ry A. a W mcn 1 7 a P7 v � Z �C ,!� , D D 1.0�O D cm 1 v N• o m> I~-� :D O m w -� m z Co M 33 \ T K CJ1 \ < CTl C.O 41 { 41 ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON August 6, 1996 REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT PROVIDING FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 913 COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS August 6, 1996 • • tx REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT PURSUANT TO THE BRIDGE CROSSING AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARES FEE AREA POLICY INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The South County Area of Benefit is a development program to improve the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in the unincorporated area of South County through the establishment of a traffic mitigation fee ordinance. This revision to the development program report and the Area of Benefit fees is necessary to reflect an updated project list, project costs, potential land development in the region, and the formation of the Southern Contra Costa Fee Areas. This ordinance applies to the unincorporated areas of South County in Contra Costa County, and is required of all new development. This Revised Development Program Report is required by the Board of Supervisors Policy on Bridge Crossings and Major Thoroughfare Fees (adopted July 17, 1979) which implements Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code and Section 66484 of the State Subdivision Map Act, One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to relate new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that development. In other words, development cannot be allowed to occur unless the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development is assured. The South County Area of Benefit is a means of providing funds to construct road improvements to serve potential new residential, commercial and industrial development. Requiring all new development pay a road improvement fee will ensure that they participate in the cost of improving the road system in the South County Area. Each new development or expansion of an existing development will generate new traffic. Where the existing road system is inadequate to meet future needs based on new development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The purpose of this development program is to determine improvements ultimately required by estimated future development and to require developers to pay a fee to fund these improvements. Because the fee is based on the relative impact on the road system and the costs of the necessary improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount is roughly proportional to the development impact. This report discusses the basis of that fee amount. BACKGROUND The Countywide Area of Benefit was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 15, 1988 (Resolution 88/122), to improve the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in Contra Costa County through the establishment of a traffic mitigation fee. The traffic mitigation fees apply to the unincorporated areas of the County and are required of all new development. The Countywide Area of Benefit consisted of seven regions, named West County, Central County, Lamorinda, Alamo, South County, East County, and Bethel Island. There was a separate fee schedule established for each region, and a separate trust fund established for fees collected from South County developments. 2 In 1993, the Countywide Area of Benefit was revised by the formation of seven Regional Areas of Benefit corresponding to the seven regions of the Countywide Area of Benefit. These seven Regional Areas of Benefit had the same boundaries, development potentials, projects, and fees as the seven regions of the Countywide Area of Benefit formed in 1988. Resolution 93/25 passed by the Board of Supervisor on March 9, 1993 replaced and repealed Resolution 88/122. The Southern Contra Costa JEPA is an agreement by which the Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon, and the County of Contra Costa have entered into to collect and distribute traffic mitigation fees assessed to the developments within Dougherty Valley for the construction of road improvement projects throughout the region. The "South County Traffic Study Year 2010 Traffic Impacts for Additional Land Use Alternatives" was used to determine the share attributable to development within Dougherty Valley. This traffic study also identified the amount attributable to development in the region surrounding Dougherty Valley (a region which includes the South County Area of Benefit). The study served as the basis for the SCC Sub-Regional Fee. Portions of the South County Area of benefit fall within the SCC Sub-Regional Fee area. A development located in both these fee areas would pay both the appropriate South County Area of Benefit fee and the appropriate SCC Sub-Regional fee. In 1988, Measure C was passed by the voters in Contra Costa County. This required Local Agencies to assess a fee on development to fund regional improvements. In the past, the County has entered into the Tassajara JEPA and the Bishop Ranch Development Agreement in order to meet this commitment. The Southern Contra Costa JEPA has identified approximately $11.6 million in funding needs for 1-680 improvements in Contra Costa County. All new development throughout the region will be assessed a fee in order to meet this funding need. This fee is referred to as the Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Regional Fee. The Tri-Valley Transportation Committee (TVTC) is meeting to develop a more comprehensive Regional Fee. The TVTC Regional Fee would include improvements in Alameda County. If and when the MC Regional Fee is adopted, the SCC Regional Fee would be incorporated into or revised to work in conjunction with the MC Regional Fee. Portions of the South County Area of Benefit fall within the SCC Regional Fee area. A development located in both these fee areas would pay both the appropriate South County Area of Benefit fee and the appropriate SCC Regional fee. In addition to the projects funded by the SCC Fees, there are two other projects that are needed to accommodate potential development in the area. These projects will be partially funded by the revised South County Area of Benefit. First, there is a section of Crow Canyon Road that lies west of the San Ramon City Limits. This approximately 2,000 foot section ties into Alameda County. The proposed project is for a truck climbing lane. As there is a limited amount of development potential in the area, the percentage share of the project funding for the South County Area of Benefit is only 5%. The second Area of Benefit project is the improvement of Camino Tassajara from the eastern boundary of the Blackhawk Development to the Alameda County Line. This Area 3 of Benefit project will improve Camino Tassajara to standards for a two-lane rural highway. The improvements proposed in this revision are not adequate to accommodate the estimated traffic generated by the proposed TVPOA developments. If and when that General Plan Amendment is approved, the South County Area of Benefit will again need to be revised. This revision is necessary in order to coordinate the South County Area of Benefit Fees with the fees assessed as part of the Southern Contra Costa JEPA. AREA OF BENEFIT- LOCATION Figure 1 shows the general location of the Area of Benefit within Contra Costa County. AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY The Area of Benefit boundary is shown in Figure 2 and described in Appendix A. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 66001 (a) OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE 1) PURPOSE OF THE FEE The purpose of this Area of Benefit is to generate monies through the adoption of a traffic mitigation fee to ensure a roadway network consistent with current and future transportation needs. By adoption of this fee, the proposed road improvement system will be able to keep pace with new growth. 2) USE OF THE FEES The fees will be used to pay for the road improvements described in Appendix B. This proposed Area of Benefit will only finance the minimum interim roadways needed to meet traffic level of service and safety demands. Amenities which do not have a direct effect on capacity, such as general lighting, landscaping, extensive longitudinal storm drain systems, curbs and sidewalks, are not included. These necessary improvements are considered as frontage improvements by the Board of Supervisors, and as such, are the responsibilities of the owners of the adjacent properties and may be provided through development conditions of approval, or by other future means such as additional fees or assessment districts. 3) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USE OF FEES AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The road improvement projects for which the fees will be used are necessary for the improvement of the safety and capacity of the road network serving the South County area, as determined by future growth allowed for in the General Plan. The road network is outlined in the General Plan under the Circulation Element. 4) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEED FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT A peak trip generation factor has been associated for each type of development outlined in this program report. These factors are industry standards obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th Edition. The proposed fee is based on distributing the cost of the Area of Benefit road 4 improvement program to new development in proportion to the number of peak hour trips generated by the particular type of development. All new development will be required to pay a fee to fund the necessary roadway improvements. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP The basis for the South County Area of Benefit is derived from the.features of the County General Plan and its amendments, and subscribes to the policies of the General Plan elements. The General Plan and its various elements are available for review at the Community Development Department, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during office hours. ROAD NETWORK CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN The road network improvement program was developed using the Circulation Element and the development potential allowed by the County General Plan. The road improvements will be funded and constructed in conjunction with the development of property within the Area of Benefit. The proposed projects however, are only partially funded by South County Area of Benefit fees. The City of San Ramon, Alameda County, and State and Federal Funding Programs are all.possible sources of additional funding for the estimated cost of the road improvement projects in South County. The rate of revenue generated from these other sources is dependent on the rate of new development. This affects the timing of the construction of an Area of Benefit project as it is dependent on the total amount of fees collected less expenditures. If alternate sources of funding are secured, an Area of Benefit project may be constructed sooner.. The proposed projects will provide the capacity needed to serve the estimated potential development and future traffic volumes in the South County area. This Area of Benefit will finance only the minimum interim roadways needed to meet traffic level of service and safety demands. The road capacity improvement proposed by the South County Area of Benefit will be reviewed periodically to assess the impacts of changing travel patterns, the rate of development, and the adequacy of the estimated project costs. The South County Area of Benefit will then be updated as needed. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN THE AREA OF BENEFIT The development potential for .the Area of Benefit was estimated by the Community Development and Public Works Departments using the General Plan and other resources. It is estimated that within the South County Area of Benefit for single family residential there is a potential for 522 new units. ESTIMATED COST OF ROADWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS The estimated roadway improvement costs shown in Appendix B include construction, right of way, engineering, incidentals and contingencies. The cost estimates do not include items which do not have a direct effect on safety or capacity, such as general lighting, landscaping, extensive longitudinal storm drain systems, curbs and sidewalks. These necessary improvements are considered frontage improvements by the Board of Supervisors and as such are the responsibilities of the owners of the adjacent properties 5 • 7D. � and may be provided through development conditions of approval, or by other future means such as additional fees or assessment districts. The estimated costs have been reduced for some road improvement projects to account for other sources of funding. This funding includes an estimate of the frontage improvements by parcels which may develop, and the amount to be contributed from the Tassajara Area of Benefit. The estimated project costs have all been increased by 2% to cover the cost of administration. This includes the estimated staff time for fee collection, accounting, and technical support to the community groups and traffic advisory committees. The total estimated cost of the Area of Benefit projects is approximately$6.6 million. The South County Area of Benefit share is approximately $825,000, while other sources fund the remaining project costs. BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT The concept of an Area of Benefit is the equitable distribution of road improvement costs to new development from which future traffic impacts will arise. As traffic impacts are directly related to the total number of vehicles on the road network, we are able to relate development road fees to the number of vehicle trips associated with a particular category of development. The two categories of land use for which a fee will be assessed in the South County Area of Benefit, are: single family residential and "other." The total estimated project costs are divided by the sum of the peak hour trips generated by each category. In the residential categories, the cost is equally distributed among all dwelling units. In the current General plan, the only development potential identified is single family residential. If, for whatever reason, another type of development is permitted, it would be required to pay for its fair share of the area of benefit improvements. This type of development would fall under the "other" category and the area of benefit fee would be based on the number of peak hour trips generated by that proposed of development. A traffic report prepared by a licensed engineer would be required to analyze the project's impact during the peak traffic hours. The project would then be charged the peak hour trip rate for the Area of Benefit, multiplied by the number of peak hour trips identified in the traffic report. CALCULATION OF FEES The costs of the road improvement program have been distributed to each land use category in proportion to the number of peak hour trips generated by that category. The fee calculation is shown below. Area of Benefit Share: $825,000 2% Administration: $16,500 Total Area of Benefit Revenue: $841,500 Potential Development: 522 single family residencies Fee Per Unit: $1,612 6 • • RECOMMENDED FEES The recommended fees for the South County Area of Benefit, resulting from the above calculations, are shown below. Single Family Residential: $1,612 per dwelling unit Other: $1,612 per peak hour trip REVIEW OF FEES Project cost estimates will be reviewed every year that the South County Area of Benefit is in effect. The fee schedule shall be adjusted annually to account for inflation using the State of California Construction Cost Index as published annually by the California Department of Transportation. At no time will the fee schedule be increased at a rate of more than 5% per year for inflation. COLLECTION OF FEES Fees shall be collected when a building permit is issued in accordance with Section 913- 4.204 of Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Fees collected will be deposited in an interest-bearing account already established by the Board of Supervisors on March 15, 1988. This trust fund account was set up for the South County region of the Countywide Area of Benefit. INTEREST ON FEES The interest accrued on the fees collected in the South County Area of Benefit, shall continue to accumulate in the trust account and shall be .used for the purpose of administration, design and construction of the fee area improvements. IN LIEU DEDICATION A development may be required to construct a portion of the road improvements identified in Appendix B. In such a case the developer may be eligible to receive credit or reimbursement. The developer should contact the Public Works Department prior to the commencement of construction. OTHER APPLICABLE FEES As indicated previously in this report, areas within the South County Area of Benefit would be required to pay other transportation mitigation fees. Below is a summary of the fees that would be assessed to each new single family residential unit constructed within the South County Area of Benefit and within the SCC Regional and SCC Sub-Regional Fee Areas. South County Area of Benefit Fee $1,612 SCC Sub-Regional Fee $2,128 SCC Regional Fee 792 Total $4,532 HB/ML/ds gATrasEng\SoCo Rpt-t7 Attachments 7 A 1 t drt - O ul ""� 'y Q, �a swvl" p g Y y� L► � a d. U r N ..J m P Ir � _ P + c6 yet y9vs, 1 V �� is � Oy�Q J ta U33C U cci o wv �► s w CS r� `4 d w > Lys cc, ry 0 � o �O CA � 0 �^ ;` 1 > co LUC `j cC O nmoo/ Q Boundary Description County Area of Benefit . APPENDIX "A" Real property in south Contra Costa County, California, bounded on the east by."Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area"adopted July 26, 1994 by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors' Resolution 94/386, bounded on the south by Alameda County, and described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of"Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area", also being the intersection of the boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties with the west line of Rancho Canada de los Vaqueros on the west line of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 2 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence from the.Point of Beginning along said county boundary in a general westerly direction 126,000 feet, more or less, to rancho comer P.C. No. 31 on the boundary of Rancho Laguna de los Palos Colorados; thence along said rancho boundary, north 19°28`45"east 3,547.16 feet to rancho comer P.C. No. 32 and north 101 3'26'east 929.81 feet, to the boundary of the i Record of Survey filed June 20, 1980 in Book 67 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 9;thence along the boundary of said Record of Survey as follows: 1)north 88°52'39"east 513.17 feet, 2) north 0015'06" west 1,303.04 feet, 3)north 88°43'10"east 1,290.34 feet, and 4) north 0°27'37"west 1,306.53 feet, to the northwest comer of Section 28(T1 S, R2W); thence along the north lines of Sections 28, 27, and 26 (T1 S, R2W), easterly,15,840 feet, more or less,to the west line of Section 25 (T1 S, R2\A1); thence along said west line, southerly 2,640 feet, to the west quarter corner of Section 25; thence south 88043'05" east 1,063.84 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 28-82 filed November 21, 1983 in Book 108 of Parcel Maps at page 11; thence along the north line thereof, south 8804723" east 1,062.06 feet,to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 53-81 filed March 28, 1985 in Book 115 of Parcel Maps at page 14;thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 53-81, south 8843'43" east 3,035.66 feet, to the east line of said Section 25; thence along said east line, northerly 2,640 feet, more or less, to the northeast comer of Section 25 on the boundary of Assessor Parcel Number(hereinafter referred to as APN) 199- 010-012 described as PARCEL FIVE in the deed to East Bay Regional Park District(hereinafter referred to as EBRPD) recorded April 4, 1974 in Volume 7189 of Official Records at page 183; thence along said boundary in a general northerly and easterly direction 2,325.7 feet to the east line of that 13.19 acre Parcel APN 199-010-011 excepted from PARCEL FIVE in said deed to EBRPD and described as PARCEL ONE in the deed to the United States of America recorded July 29, 1980 in Volume 9930 of Official Records at page 913; thence along said east line in a general northwesterly direction 192.27 feet to an angle point on the boundary of said PARCEL FIVE (7189 O.R. 183); thence along said boundary in a general northwesterly direction 637.99 feet to the east line of Section 24(T1 S, R2"; thence along said east tine, northerly 205.33 feet, to the southwest comer of Subdivision 5310 filed May 27, 1981 in Book 252 of Maps at page 19; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5310, north 1`11'46"east 209.22 feet and north 76°04'30" east 527.74 feet, to the northeast corner thereof on the south line of Subdivision MS 7-76 filed February 25, 1977 in Book 52 of Parcel Maps at page 39; thence along said south line, north 7603'57" east 543.09 feet, to the most eastern corner thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 3820 recorded May 13, 1969 in Book 126 of Maps at page 25; thence along said boundary, south 32°44'22" east 527.82 feet, to the south corner thereof on the boundary of Tract 2575 recorded November 6, 1957 in Book 68 of Maps at page 43; thence along the boundary of Tract 2575 in a general northerly direction 1,472.58 feet to the west corner of Tract 2509 recorded November 8, 1956 in Book 65 of Maps at page 46; thence along the boundary of Tract 2509 in a general northeasterly direction 399.56 feet to the most western corner of Tract 2080 recorded February 2, 1955 in Book 57 of Maps at page 4; thence along the boundary of Tract 2080 in a general northeasterly direction 397.83 feet to the 1 rth comer thereof;thence crossing Southern Pacific Railroad right of way, northeasterly 50 feet, more or less, to the west comer of Subdivision 5750 filed July 11, 1983 in Book 271 of Maps at page 50; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5750 in a general northeasterly direction 582.04 feet to the north corner thereof, thence north 44`34'26" east 30 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Danville Boulevard; thence along said centerline in a general northwesterly direction 950 feet, more or less, to the south corner of Lot 5 of the Hemme Home Tract shown on the map filed October 21, 1938 in Book 5 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 55;thence along the southeast line thereof, northeasterly 718.08 feet, to the boundary of the Record of Survey filed June 1, 1967 in Book 48 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 15; thence along said boundary as follows: 1)westerly 182.82 feet, 2) northwesterly 349.5 feet, 3) northerly 256.77 feet, and 4) northeasterly 504.29 feet, to the north corner thereof on the southwest right of way line of Interstate Freeway 680 shown on the State of California Right of Way Record Map R-86.14; thence crossing said freeway, northeasterly 274.37 feet, to the south corner of Subdivision MS 58-83 filed August 16, 1989 in Book 141 of Parcel Maps at page 42; thence along the boundary thereof as follows: 1)north 48°35'54"east 900.66 feet, 2) north 2°45'17"east 1,139.04 feet, 3) north 41°29'15" east 561.74 feet, and 4) north 8904915"east 177.69 feet, to the southwest comer of Subdivision 5980 filed June 30, 1981 in Book 254 of Maps at page 10;thence along the south line of Subdivision 5980, north 89°49'15"east 1,073.8 feet, to the southeast comer thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 7142 filed January 29, 1990 in Book 341 of Maps at page 38; thence along said boundary, south 66°05'49" east 640.72 feet to the northeast comer thereof, also being the north comer of APN 197-140-026 .described in the deed to EBRPD recorded March 8, 1977 in Volume 8231 of Official Records at page 139.and shown on the map of Subdivision MS 14-76 filed March 28, 1977 in Book 53 of Parcel Maps at page 14;thence along the northeast line of Subdivision MS 14-76, south 66°19'52" east 350.61 feet and south 67°58'52"east 453.7 feet, to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 858-88 filed November 3, 1989 in Book 143 of Parcel Maps at page 20; thence along the north line of Subdivision.MS 858-88, north 78031'33" east 602.95 feet and south 89°22'50" east 46.74 feet, to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 238-65 filed January 5, 1966 in Book 39 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 16; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 238-65, easterly 379.52 feet, to the northeast comer thereof, thence south 89042'33" east 823.03 feet to the northwest comer of PARCEL TWO of Subdivision MS 853-89 filed January 18, 1991 in Book 150 of Parcel Maps at page 42; thence along the boundary thereof, south 89°42'33"east 408.15 feet and south 0°53'33"west 975.85 feet, to the northeast comer of Subdivision 6065 filed May 22, 1984 in Book 279 of Maps at page 16; thence along the east line of Subdivision 6065, south 0°48'22"west 274.96 feet,to the northeast comer of Subdivision MS 85- 81 fled April 1, 1982 in Book 100 of Parcel Maps at page 7; thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 85-81, south 0°48'22" west 275.38 feet and north 89001' west 228 feet, to the boundary of Subdivision MS 104-81 filed February 14, 1982 in Book 104 of Parcel Maps at page 45; thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 104-81 as follows: 1) southerly 93.47 feet,2) easterly 198.71 feet, 3) southerly 174.06 feet, and 4) southerly 65.45 feet, to the southeast comer thereof; thence southerly 209.55 feet to the northeast comer of Subdivision MS 247-76 recorded August 15, 1977 in Book 57 of Parcel Maps at page 10; thence along the east line thereof, southerly 275 feet, to the northeast comer of Subdivision MS 134-74 filed May 7, 1976 in Book 44 of Parcel Maps at page 38; thence along the east line of Subdivision MS 134-74, southerly 81.96 feet, to the northeast corner of Subdivision 4723 recorded August 13, 1975 in Book 179 of Maps at page 40; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 4723, south 0°04'22"west 517.52 feet and north 88031'26" east 152.56 feet, to the northwest corner of Subdivision 3306 recorded April 7, 1965 in Book 103 of Maps at page 19; thence along the north line of Subdivision 3306, north 88°23'37" east 1,454.41 feet, to the northwest corner of Subdivision 4260 recorded September 13, 1972 in Book 150 of Maps at page 43; thence along the north line of Subdivision 4260, north 88022'50"east 1,019.55 feet to the southwest corner of Section 16 (T1 S, R1 W) and north 89°1649" east 300.11 feet, to the southwest comer of PARCEL "A" of Subdivision MS 149-70 filed October 28, 1971 in Book 19 of Parcel Maps at page 8; thence along the west line of PARCEL"N' 2 and its prolongation in a general northerly direction 2,630.39 feet, to the centerline of Stone Valley Road; thence along said centerline in a general easterly direction 2,500 feet, more or less, to the western prolongation of the north line of Subdivision MS 46-72 filed January 24, 1973 in Book 26 of Parcel Maps at page 11; thence along said prolongation and north line, easterly 500 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of Subdivision 7177 filed November 1, 1993 in Book 369 of Maps at page 1; thence along the north line of Subdivision 7177, north 88°11'59" east 712.69 feet, to the northeast corner thereof, thence easterly 230 feet to,the northwest corner of Subdivision 5285 recorded May 20, 1953 in Book 270 of Maps at page 3; thence along the north line of Subdivision 5285, north 8911'59" east 520.86 feet, to the northeast comer thereof; thence easterly 187.14 feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision MS 78-72 filed January 5, 1973 in Book 25 of Parcel Maps at page 47; thence easterly 167.97 feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision MS 13-74 filed November 15, 1974 in Book 35 of Parcel Maps at page 48; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 13-74, easterly 439 feet, to the northeast comer thereof; thence easterly 729.74 feet to the northeast comer of Cameo Acres Unit No. 3 recorded April 19, 1930 in Book 40 of Maps at page 4; thence easterly 133.59 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision 4894 recorded November 2, 1977 in Book 203 of Maps at page 49; thence along the north line of Subdivision 4894, north 88049'59"east 1,420.93 feet, to the northeast comer thereof; thence easterly 2,020 feet, more or less,to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 154-76 filed August 23, 1977 in Book 57 of Parcel Maps at page 17; thence along the boundary thereof in a general southeasterly direction 827.11 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 263-78 filed September 19, 1979 in Book 81 of Parcel Maps at page 1;thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 263-78 as follows: 1) in a general southeasterly direction 1,262.95 feet to the southwest corner thereof on the centerline of Alameda Diablo, 2) northeasterly 162.97 feet to the southeast corner thereof on the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard(South Gate Road), 3) along said centerline in a general northerly direction 664.7 feet, 4) along said centerline in a general southwesterly direction 223.46 feet, and 5) along said centerline in a general northerly direction 685.64 feet, to the northeast corner of Subdivision MS 263-78 on the boundary of Subdivision MS 154-76 (57 PM 17); thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 154-76 in a general northeasterly direction 781.94 feet to the northeast comer thereof, also being the southeast comer of Subdivision MS 193-76 filed January 25, 1978 in Book 62 of Parcel Maps at page 40; thence along the boundary of Subdivision MS 193-76 in a general northerly direction 2,834.63 feet to the northeast comer of Section 15 (T1 S, R1 W); thence along the north line of Section 15, south 89°28'40"west 2,589.83 feet,to the southeast comer of Subdivision 5607 filed February 25, 1982 in Book 262 of Maps at page 34; thence along the boundary thereof, north 0'42'48"east 1,574.44 feet and north 67°54'29"west 944.49 feet,to the southeast corner of Subdivision 5536 filed March 17, 1981 in Book 250 of Maps at page 8; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5536, north 669.56 feet,west 428 feet, and north 52°12'06"west 1,583.74 feet, to the south line of that 787.58 acre parcel shown on the Record of Survey filed June 22, 1960 in Book 18 of Licensed Surveyors'Maps at page 39;thence along said south line, north 87052'06" east 4,200 feet, more or less, to the southeast comer thereof on the northwest line of Lot D, Rancho San Miguel Robert Allen Tract; thence along said northwest line, northeasterly 3,100 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard(North Gate Road);thence along said centerline in a general easterly direction 12,400 feet, more or less, to the centerline intersection of Summit Road; thence along the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (South Gate Road) in a general southerly direction 6,700 feet, more or less,to the south line of Section 12 (T1 S, R1 W); thence along said south line, easterly 4,400 feet, to the boundary of aforementioned"Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area' thence along said boundary in a general southeasterly direction 80,000 feet, more or less, to the boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, the Point of Beginning. LB:drg:sd gNcledcaMxhibR\southcc.aob 6117/96 3 APPENDIX B SOUTH COUNTY AOB PROJECT LIST Estimated South County *No. Name Description AOB "share" 1 Camino Improve County portion to two lane rural $765,000 Tassajara highway standard 2 Crow Canyon Various safety and capacity improvements $60,000 Road *Projects are not listed by priority South County AOB "share" $825,000 11 c i V 7 Y 2 tZ \ 71 Q f { SOCip I � �G�1O/� Contra �U� Public Works Department J MAch&d waw 255 Glacier Drive Pobse Waft DUCCW Costa Martinez, CA 94 Muton F.Kubicek County ge O Deputy-��ng s U4n'd / 6 G� Patrida R McNamee 1)11 L 0 G►Y Deputy-operations ? i July 13, 1`/994 Mati ice M.Swu 0 1 Deputy-Transportation UTTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: Bob Tavenier File: General Administration Areas of Benefit Revision WO# 4070 CP# 94-43 WE ARE SENDING YOU: ✓ Attached, the following items: Copies Description 1 COMPLETE SET OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, WHICH MUST BE ATTACHED TO YOUR BOARD ORDER. *You do not need to include the CEQA letter (the one with the County Seal). In order to expedite this portion of the environmental process, please follow these steps: 1.) Please prepare a DRAFT board order for my review prior to finalizing. 2.) When the FINAL board order has been prepared and is ready to be submitted to the board, please attach a complete set of environmental documents to it. 3.) Please advise me of the scheduled board date and provide me with a copy of the final board order. If you have any questions regarding this process, please call me. Thank you. Signed: Janet Frattini Division: Design Phone: 2293 c:envtrans.mrg CHarvey E. Bragdon Community Contra Development Director of Community pevelopment Department Director County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 =L Phone: 646-4202 July 12, 1994 Sra'cben'� County File #CP 94-43 Attention: Public Works Department Janet Frattini - Design Division Dear Applicant: The Contra Costa County Community Development Department has completed an initial study of the environmental significance of the project represented by your pending application bearing County File Number CP 94-43, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AREAS OF BENEFIT REVISION. In conformance with Contra Costa County Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), it has been determined that your project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Your project falls within the following category: (x) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) IS NOT REQUIRED. ( ) The project is categorically.exempt (Class_J. ( ) The CEQA requirements are accommodated by the EIR previously prepared for { ) A statement that an EIR is not required (Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been filed by the Community Development Department (unless appealed). (v') Other: General Rule of Applicability (Section 15061(b)(3)) { ) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 1S REQUIRED. ( ) The complexity of your project requires your submission of additional special reports or information (as outlined on the attached sheet) (which will be outlined in a forthcoming letter). ( ) A consultant will be hired to prepare the environmental impact report. This.procedure is explained on the attached sheet. Preparation of the EIR cannot be started until the fee and additional information requested is received by the Community Development Department. If you have questions concerning this determination or desire additional information relative to environmental impact report regulations, please call (510) 646-2031 and ask for Debbie Chamberlain. Sincerely yours Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development By: :ams shl\t t • 7 • Form 1024.1B DETERMINATION THAT AN ACTIVITY IS EXEMPT FROM TBE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONUFNTAL QUALrrY ACT (CEQA) FILE NO. 0676-2310-04070 CP NO. q+-0 ACTI'.VITY NAME: General Administration Areas of Benefit Revision DATE: June 29, 1994 PREPARED BY: Janet Frattini This activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to Article S, Section 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY: The activity consists only of revising existing Areas of Benefit(AOB's)boundaries and creating new AOB's. The AOB's are fee collection mechanisms only that are area specific and based on projected infrastructure needs. Due to changes in the development potential,development pattern, and traffic circulation needs in the County, boundary revisions are needed. Individual AOB's will be created that will have their own ordinance and fee schedules based on their own development potential and traffic circulation needs. The Public Works Department and the Community Development Department will review the fee schedules every January 1 that the AOB's are in effect and will adjust for inflation. The adjustment for inflation is not subject to CEQA. Once sufficient funds have been collected to design a given project, the proposed improvements will be covered by an appropriate project specific CEQA document. Following are representative projects that may occur within AOB's: (1) roadway widening, extensions, or realignments, (2)bridge widening or construction of new bridges, (3) signalization of intersections, upgrade of signals, and/or interconnection of signals, (4) alignment studies for roadways. LOCATION: Portions of West, Central, and South County areas are included (see attached figures). REVIEWED BY: / ' DATE: Vickie Germany, Environmental Planner APPROVED BY: DATE: c:aobrev.det mmunity Development Representative (form rcviscd 5/27/93) CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Notice of Exemption Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - North Wing, McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Telephone: (510) 313-2296 Contact Person: Vickie Germany - Public Works Dept. Project Description,Common Name(if any)and Location: GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AREAS OF BENEFIT REVISION, County File #CP 94-43: The activity consists only of revising existing Areas of Benefit(AOB's) boundaries and creating new AOB's. The AOB's are fee collection mechanisms only that are area specific and based on projected infrastructure needs. Due to changes in the development potential, development pattern, and traffic circulation needs in the County, boundary revisions are needed. Individual AOB's will be created that will have their own ordinance and fee schedules based on their own development potential and traffic circulation needs. The Public Works Department and the Community Development Department will review the fee schedules every January 1 that the AOB's are in effect and will adjust for inflation. The adjustment for inflation is not subject to CEQA. Once sufficient funds have been collected to design a given project, the proposed improvements will be covered by an appropriate project specific CEQA document. Following are representative projects that may occur within AOB's: (1) roadway widening, extensions, or realignments, (2) bridge widening or construction of new bridges, (3) signalization of intersections,upgrade of signals, and/or interconnection of signals, (4) alignment studies for roadways. Subject project is located in portions of West, Central, and South County areas. This project is exempt from CEOA as a: Ministerial Project(Sec. 15268) _ Other Statutory Exemption, Section _ Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269(a)) XX General Rule of Applicability(Section 15061(b)(3)) Emergency Project (Sec. 15269(b) or(c)) Categorical Exemption, Class_ Section This activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to Article 5,Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Date: By: Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Applicant: County Public Works Department Department of Fish and Game Fee - Exempt 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 County Clerk Fee $25 Due Receipt # Attn: Janet Frattini j � l ••`T � � � °fie cru 1 i 00 co r. Z Ci cl- 4n IS Vk NEST CkO@NTY AREA OF BENEF 'T" rT y CROCKETT s ' RODEO F� PrnrOLE Q � AR HERCULES BUR Y L� ALHAW6 -( RICHMONDIO 0 580 A. CUTTw P Q- EL CERRITO H4l�, WI E1 �RINDA w PROPOSED BOUNDARY PROPOSED ADDITION EXCLUDING THEREFROM.- 1 ) Incorporated cities 2) Richmond / EI Sobrante Area of Benefit 3) North Richmond Area of Benefit 4) Kensington Road Improvement Assessment District NOT TO SCALE i HERCULES/RODEO/CROCKETT AREA OF BENEFIT CROCKETT 1 N ODEO s� t� ' PINOLE sr yo HERCU.LES MARTINEZ j C.WyON �. PAR4CW! OR -PROPOSED Fr ADDIT,IONS StuO q < n cr i meq,, f A' PROPOSED BOUNDARY EXCLUDING THEREFROM: INCOPORATED CITIES NOT TO SCALE • I-IUU KE CENTRAL COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT CROCKETTx= l ��• a+CA(;o torr PA JOHN w if t SJ ES MARTINEZ o8 --- -- �� PITTSBURG p / PROPOSED ADDITION f CONCORD r PROPOSED ` ADDITIONS A AN LL C .<_ 80ro Ro vim° T f o< f9 ow - \�j r 8 WALNUT�CRE K 21 IAF r L EK aRItV® neco - OS Am( MORAGA . H .H O DA N 1/ 1LLE PROPOSED BOUNDARY Excluding Therefrom: 1 ) Incorporated Cities 2) Pacheco Area of Benefit 3) Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area MARTIMEZ AREA 010 BENEF" IT Proposed Deletion , ... CROCKETTf NJ , CHICA ,r � CLYDE .---� a 4 .� �� CI�CC 80 ak MARTINET' -- r � r - ,RCONCORD a PLEASANT HIL '. Proposed Addition Ora � �= ....... .... ,o �, Rn GEARY RD �-, PROPOSEDGat '�r BOUNDARY v�� lAVE >. WALNUT - CREEK Q 24 LAFA TETTE 11 ., ORINDA ' L.AFAYETTE ` EXCLUDING THEREFROM: INCORPORATED CITIES NOT TO SCALE td- b r NNt SCS 0 ENSti , 'Ejl CO Iq 4� r AVE Cq RD pRopose Boo KU OSS90 Sj �. VALLEY E . q gp . 0 4"q 46 pA Mcovjpo m -V'IG'UVtl- UORAGA Ci n RO ORU) 53 02 woe.., C 4 a ��i/rrr�J tot ..�. a C� VALLEY p )EER r •�� aOr-*�a1 t h© S_- - l At . - 1 • ' • A:> TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 6, 1996 SUBJECT: SOUTHERN CONTRA COSTA JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (SCC JEPA). PROJECT NO.: 0676-6P4070 SPECIFIC REQUESTS) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION i. Recommended Action: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County, the City of San Ramon ("City ), and the Town of Danville ("Town") regarding the funding of regional and subregional road projects in the Southern Contra Costa County Area. II. Financial Impact: There is no financial impact to the County General Fund. The SCC JEPA will provide funding for the proposed projects through the imposition of developer fees. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: Southern Contra Costa County will experience significant growth under the current General Plan, most notably, within the Dougherty Valley area. In order for the transportation infrastructure to keep pace with the growth of population in the area, the City, Town, and County have prepared a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. The Agreement provides for the three jurisdictions to assess developer traffic fees to finance transportation projects made necessary by the area development. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: Failure to execute the SCC JEPA between the City, Town, and County will leave unfunded projects necessary to mitigate proposed development in the S -h County area. Continued on Attachment:_, SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE —OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON AUS U 6 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER, VO OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ML:mI 1 per,Canty that this b a true ane eornxtof g:\transeng\SCC JEPA 62 gn action taken ansd efftrred own the�+minuw°of ft Dowd of Orig.Div: Public Works(TE) cr+E�i)o Ciel rk a ft t10014Contact: Martin Lysons,Tel.313-2295 ds"p°^''e°"an°�0"" " "0f cc: F.Scudero,Accounting oav�9► J. Dillon,City of San Ramon er B.Welch,Town of Danville JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO Southern Contra Costa Fees for Traffic Mitigation BY AND BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CITY OF SAN RAMON TOWN OF DANVILLE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT Southern Contra Costa Fee for Traffic Mitigation This JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of , 1996 (the "Effective Date") between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA (the "County"), a political subdivision of the State of California, the City of San Ramon (the "City"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and the Town of Danville (the "Town"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The City, Town, and County may be referred to collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS This Agreement is based on the following facts and circumstances: A. Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Development Area. There exists in Contra Costa County a geographical area comprising the San Ramon Valley, Tassajara Valley and Dougherty Valley. The San Ramon Valley and Dougherty Valley contain the City, Town, and portions of the County. The approximate boundaries of the SCC Development Area are shown on the map attached as Exhibit"A." B. Dougherty Valley Development. There is an approved development in the County portion of Dougherty Valley that includes the Shapell project and the Windemere project. These two projects combined are approved for 11,000 residential units with the first 8,500 residential units covered by this Agreement. The remaining 2,500 units shall be constructed only after additional traffic studies are completed. The project approvals include between 300,000 and 600,000 square feet of commercial space spread throughout the Dougherty Valley Development. The location of these two projects are shown on the map attached as Exhibit "C." The Shapell and Windemere projects are referred to collectively as the 'Dougherty Valley Developments." C. Other Development. There exist other properties outside of Dougherty Valley and within the City, Town, and County anticipated to be developed during the duration of this Agreement. The exact location and/or extent of these developments is not fully known at this time. These developments combined are estimated to contain 1,500 residential units, 170,000 square feet of commercial space, and 80,000 square feet of office space. This other development shall be referred to in this Agreement as "Other Developments." The area that contains these Other Developments is referred to as the USCC Sub-Regional Fee Area" and is shown on the map attached as Exhibit "D." Page 2 of 17 D. Regional Development. The City, Town, and County have identified regional (1-680 freeway) improvement projects which are listed in Section 7 of this Agreement. The SCC Regional Fee assesses all new development throughout the SCC Development Area a fee to finance a portion of these improvements. The approximate boundaries of the SCC Development Area are shown on the map attached as Exhibit "A." "Regional-only Development" is development in an area within the SCC Development Area and outside both the Dougherty Valley Development area and the SCC Sub-Regional Fee Area. E. Impact of Development. The Dougherty Valley Developments are approved for phased development of 11,000 units to be completed by approximately 2010. The exact timing and location of the Other Developments are not known at this time. The Dougherty Valley Developments are initially expected to create 8,500 new residential units. The traffic impact from the new residential units will adversely impact the quality of life for the existing residents of the surrounding City, Town, and County unless those impacts are mitigated by off-site street improvements. F . Traffic Impact Mitigation and Improvements. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including a traffic study, has been prepared and certified by the County for the Dougherty Valley Developments. A project list of public improvements necessary to mitigate the Dougherty Valley Developments was included in the EIR. Following approval of the Dougherty Valley Developments, a lawsuit was filed by the Town and City against the County regarding the approval of the Dougherty Valley Developments. The Town, City, and County have mutually agreed upon a settlement agreement which is based on a second traffic study and revised project list (South County Traffic Study, 1994). Included ,in the settlement agreement are traffic mitigations based upon the revised project list. A list of the projects and their estimated cost are attached as Exhibit "B" and are collectively referred to in this Agreement as "the Improvements." G. Annexation Proposed. The City proposes to annex portions of the Dougherty Valley Development as phases are completed and an adequate funding mechanism is established. The development applications for the Dougherty Valley Developments have been processed and approved by the County. The County will review the improvement plans for each phase and, as appropriate, issue building permits. H. Collection and Use of Improvement Fees. The Parties intend and agree that the traffic mitigation fees collected from the Dougherty Valley Developments and the Other Developments shall fully fund the Improvements listed in Exhibit "B" as C-1 and C-2 projects, and partially fund the Improvements listed in Exhibit "B" as C-3 projects. The Parties shall collect fees for the Improvements on an equitable basis. The Parties shall use the fees collected in a coordinated manner to finance and construct the Improvements. The purpose of this Agreement is to implement the collection and use of the improvement fees to construct the Improvements. These traffic mitigation improvement fees will be referred to as the "Southern Contra Costa Fees" or the "SCC Fees." Page 3 of 17 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree: 1. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are City, Town, and County. 2. Definitions. a. "Dwelling Unit"means a separate living space for one family. The term does not include a second unit within the meaning of Government Code Section 65852.2 or the alteration or enlargement of an existing dwelling unit. b. "Dougherty Valley Developments" refers collectively to the Shapell and Windemere projects located within the County portion of Dougherty Valley. C. "Other Developments" refers collectively to developments located within the SCC Sub-Regional Fee area as designated in Exhibit A and outside of Dougherty Valley. d. "Regional-only Development" is development in an area within the SCC Development Area and outside both Dougherty Valley and the SCC Sub-Regional Fee Area. e. "Improvements" refers to those public improvements required to mitigate traffic impacts of the Dougherty Valley Developments as identified in the Settlement Agreement and consists of those projects listed in Exhibit "B." "Improvement" refers to one or part of one of the projects listed in Exhibit "B." f. "Land Use Entitlement" means a permit or approval granted for the development of property and includes a subdivision map approval, land use permit, development plan approval, grading permit, building permit, and architectural or design review approval. g. "Settlement Agreement" refers to the"Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report," an agreement executed by the Town, City, and County in May, 1994. A list of traffic mitigation projects is included as part of the Settlement Agreement and attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "B." The traffic mitigation projects are listed as C-1 projects (to be paid for in full by the Dougherty Valley Developments), C-2 projects (to be paid in full by Dougherty Valley Developments and Other Developments), and C-3 projects (the "Danville Mitigation" projects) in the Settlement Agreement and in Exhibit "B." h. "Southern Contra Costa Fees"and"SCC Fees" refer to fees imposed by the City, Town, and County on development within the SCC Development Area. The SCC Fees include the Dougherty Valley Fee, the SCC Sub-Regional Fee, and the SCC Regional Fee. Page 4 of 17 i. "SCC Regional Fee" refers to the category of SCC Fees that is dedicated to area freeway improvement projects, in accordance with Measure C. The project list for the SCC Regional Fee is in Section 7 of this Agreement. j. "SCC Sub-Regional Fee" refers to the category of SCC Fees that is dedicated to local road improvements that mitigate Dougherty Valley developments and Other Developments. The projects to be funded by this fee are listed as "C-2" and "C-3" projects in the Settlement Agreement and in Exhibit "B." k. "S-1 Fee"refers to the category of fee that is dedicated to funding roadway system improvements that mitigate the Shapell development within Dougherty Valley (such improvements shall be referred to as "S-1 projects"). These improvements are to be funded entirely by the Shapell development. The S-1 Fee is a sub-category of the Dougherty Valley Fee. It will be collected as part of the Dougherty Valley Fee, and will be placed in the SCC Sub-Regional Fee trust fund. Funds will be withdrawn from the Sub-Regional Fee trust fund as needed to construct the S-1 projects. I. "W-1 Fee" refers to the category of fee that is dedicated to funding roadway system improvements that mitigate the Windemere project within Dougherty Valley (these improvements shall be referred to as "W-1 projects"). These improvements are to be funded entirely by the Windemere project. The W-1 Fee is a sub-category of the Dougherty Valley Fee. It will be collected as part of the Dougherty Valley Fee, and will be placed in the SCC Sub-Regional Fee trust fund. Funds will be withdrawn from the Sub-Regional Fee trust fund as needed to construct the W-1 project. M. "Danville Mitigation Fee" refers to a portion of the Dougherty Valley Fee ($200 per unit)that will partially fund construction mitigation projects (overlays and soundwalls)within the Town. These projects are listed in the Settlement Agreement and in Exhibit "B" as C-3 projects. n. "Dougherty Valley Fee" refers to the category of fee that will be charged only to developments within the Dougherty Valley. The Dougherty Valley Fee includes the Danville Mitigation Fee, the S-1 Fee (for the Shapell project), the W-1 Fee (for the Windemere project), and the Dougherty Valley developments' fair share (pro rata share determined by the South County Traffic Study) for sub-regional improvements (the C-1 and C-2 subregional projects). o. "Single Family Unit" refers to a detached building designed for occupation as the residence of one family. Page 5 of 17 • • p. "Multi Family Unit" refers to a building or part thereof designed and used exclusively as a dwelling unit among other dwelling units, either on the same parcel (e.g., apartments and mobile home parks) or under separate ownership (e.g., townhomes, duplexes, or duets). q. "Office" refers to developments for the purpose of housing non-commercial, non-manufacturing businesses. r. "Commercial" refers to developments for the purpose of retail and wholesale sales of merchandise and services. S. "Underlying jurisdiction" refers to the party to this Agreement in whose territory a specific project lies. 3. Collection of Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Fees. Each party agrees to collect the appropriate Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Fee a development located within the SCC Development Area which receives a land use entitlement from that party. The amount of that fee is described in Section 11. To accomplish the collection of fees, each party agrees: a. to adopt the necessary ordinance(s) and/or resolution(s)'to authorize the collection of the SCC Fees within its jurisdiction; and b. to impose a condition of approval upon each development which states substantially the following: The project developer shall be required to pay the SCC Fees to the [City, Town, or County] prior to issuance of building permits for the project. 4. Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Fees Trust Fund Accounts. Each party shall place the fees collected under Section 3 in an interest-bearing individual trust fund account to be used specifically for the SCC Fees. The deposits in each account shall be invested in the same manner as other funds of the party. For investment purposes the funds may be pooled with other funds as long as separate accounting is maintained and the SCC Fees trust fund accounts are credited with the investment earnings. 5. Joint Accounting. Semiannually, on April 1 and October 1 of each year, the Parties shall exchange information regarding the fees collected and investment earnings in each party's SCC Fees Trust Fund account. The information shall be shared in a form and manner to be subsequently agreed to by the Parties. Page 6 of 17 i 0 Within 30 days after the information is exchanged, the Parties shall transfer funds among themselves from one party's SCC Fees Trust Fund account to another, as appropriate, based upon the distribution provisions set forth in Section 14. 6. The Southern Contra Costa Fees. The Southern Contra Costa Fees (SCC Fees) consists of three components: the regional fee ("SCC Regional Fee"), the sub-regional fee (SCC Sub-Regional Fee), and the Dougherty Valley Fee, which will be charged only to Dougherty Valley Developments. 7. The SCC Regional Fee. The regional fee shall be used to fund a portion of the costs of three projects: 1. Improvements to the 1-680 ramps at Alcosta Boulevard 2. Auxiliary lane along 1-680 from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road 3. Improvements to the 1-680 ramps at Stone Valley Road If, during the life of this JEPA, another regional fee (e.g., the TVTC fee) is adopted, the SCC Regional Fee will be adjusted to avoid double-charging developments for any projects that are both on the SCC list and on the subsequently adopted regional fee project list. Below is a summary of the SCC Regional Fees. SCC Regional Residential Fee: $792 per single family residential unit SCC Regional Commercial Fee: $0.79 per square foot gross floor area SCC Regional Office Fee: $1.27 per square foot gross floor area 8. SCC Sub-Reaional Fee. The SCC Sub-Regional Fee shall be used to fund projects in the SCC Sub-Regional Fee Area (within the City, Town, and County). These projects are listed in Exhibit "B" of this document and in the Settlement Agreement as "C-2" and "C-3" projects. Below is a summary of the SCC Sub-Regional Fees. SCC Sub-Regional Residential Fee: $2,128 per single family residential unit SCC Sub-Regional Commercial Fee: $2.13 per square foot gross floor area SCC Sub-Regional Office Fee: $3.41 per square foot gross floor area 9. Dougherty Valley Fee. The Dougherty Valley Fee will include the Danville Mitigation Fee, the S-1 Fee (for the Shapell project), the W-1 Fee (for the Windemere project), and the Dougherty Valley Development's fair share (pro rata share determined by the South County Traffic Study) Page 7 of 17 for sub-regional improvements (these projects are C-1 and C-2 projects in the Settlement Agreement and in Exhibit °B"). Danville Mitigation Fee: $200 per Dougherty Valley residential unit S-1 Fee: $937 per Shapell residential unit Fair Share of C-1 & C-2: $2,009 per Dougherty Valley residential unit 10. W-1 Fee. The W-1 Fee shall be collected from the residential portion of the Windemere project in the Dougherty Valley to pay for the construction of Windemere Parkway when needed. Funds collected as W-1 Fees shall be placed in a Construction Project Deposit Trust Fund (Fund No. 8198), to be used by the developer to construct Windemere Parkway when needed. When conditioned to construct Windemere Parkway, the developer shall post a bond for the project. Once the project is bonded, the developer shall be allowed to withdraw the W-1 Fee funds to finance the construction of the Windemere Parkway. The W-1 Fee shall be as follows: Fee Units Total Phase 1, Multi family $750/unit 1285 $ 963,750 Phase 1, Single-family $1,250/unit 1000 $ 1,250,000 Phase 2 $1,800/unit 950 $ 1,710,000 Phase 3 $2,000/unit 1000 $ 2,000,000 Phase 4 $2,000/unit 935 $1,870,000 Total W-1 Fees collected: $ 7,793,750 The W-1 Fee shall be incorporated into the Dougherty Valley Fee for the Windemere project. 11. SCC Fee Amount and Time of Payment. The applicability of the SCC Fees on development within the SCC Development Area will depend upon the location of the development. Dougherty Valley Development will pay the Dougherty Valley Fee and SCC Regional Fee. Other Development will pay the SCC Sub- Regional Fee and SCC Regional Fee. Regional-Only Development will pay only the SCC Regional Fee. Below is a summary of the applicable SCC Residential Fees to each development area as defined by this Agreement. Page 8 of 17 Dougherty Valley Development Other Development Shapell Windemere County City Town SCC Regional $792 $792 $792 $792 $792 Fee - SCC Sub- NIA NIA $2,128 $2,128 $2,128 Regional Fee Dougherty Valley $3,146• $3,717'• N/A N/A N/A Fee TOTALS $ 3,938 $ 4,509 $ 2,920 $ 2,920 $ 2,920 The Dougherty Valley Fee for the Shapell project includes$937 per unit for the S-1 projects. "This is the average SCC Dougherty Valley Fee for the Windemere project including the phased W-1 Fee. The W-1 Fee will increase as noted in the table in Section 10. The SCC Fees shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. SCC Fee Adjustments. The amount of each SCC Fee (Dougherty Valley Fee, SCC Sub-Regional Fee, and the SCC Regional Fee) may be adjusted by a written addendum to this Agreement signed by the Parties, provided that the adjustment is not in conflict with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. On March 1 of each year that this Agreement is in effect, each party shall adjust the fee for each land use set forth above for inflation. The adjusted fees shall be the amounts in effect for the preceding calendar year, increased or decreased by the amount of the change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for the period ending December 31 of the preceding fiscal year. On March 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect, each party shall increase the amount of each of the fees set forth above over the amounts in effect for the preceding calendar year by an amount determined necessary for any significant changes in State or Federal construction requirements. 13. Administrative Costs. The total funds to be collected by the SCC Fees shall include a 1% increase over the total cost of the projects to be constructed under this Agreement to cover the administrative costs of the Agreement. Page 9 of 17 14. Fund Distribution. The parties agree to the following semi-annual distribution of the funds collected by the SCC Fees: a. SCC Regional Fees: after withholding 1% of each fee for administrative costs, SCC Regional Fees will be distributed to the Parties as follows: City shall receive 19.6% Town shall receive 73.5% County shall receive 6.9% b. SCC Sub-Reaional Fees: SCC Sub-Regional Fees will be distributed to the Parties in accordance with the following table: Sub-Regional Residential Fees Collected/Building Permit Issued in: City Town County City $1,359 (63.9%) $404 (19%) $1,338 (62.9%) receives Town $1,596 (75%) receives County $769 (36.1%) $128 (6%) $790 (37.1%) receives Total $2,128 $2,128 $2,128 Sub-Regional Commercial Fee: $2.13 per square foot gross floor area Sub-Regional Office Fee: $3.41 per square foot gross floor area All the identified commercial and office development in the SCC Sub- Regional Fee Area are located in the City. The following fee distributions the SCC Sub-Regional Commercial and Office Fees include the 1% the City is to withhold to cover the costs of fee collection and quarterly disbursement. SCC Sub-Regional Commercial Fee: City receives $1.36 per square foot gross floor area County receives $0.77 per square foot gross floor area TOTAL Fee $2.13 per square foot gross floor area SCC Sub-Regional Office Fee: City receives $2.17 per square foot gross floor area County receives $1.24 per square foot gross floor area TOTAL Fee $3.41 per square foot gross floor area Page 10 of 17 C. Dougherty Valley Fees for the Shapell Development: Dougherty Valley Fees will be distributed to the parties in accordance with the following: For each residential traffic mitigation fee of $3,146 collected from the Shapell development for the Dougherty Valley Fee, City receives $ 2,600 Town receives $ 267 County receives S 279 TOTAL $ 3,146 For each residential traffic mitigation fee collected from Windemere development for the Dougherty Valley Fee, the distribution will be as follows: Phase and TOTAL Town City County Fee Dougherty Land Use Valle Fee receives: receives: receives: Phase 1 ' $ 750 $2,959 $267 $1,670 $1,022 Multi Family Phase 1 $1,250 $3,459 $267 $1,670 $1,522 Single Family Phase 2 $1,800 $4,009 $267 $1,670 $2,072 Residential Phase 3 $2,000 $4,209 $267 $1,670 $2,272 and 4 Residential For traffic mitigation fees collected from Windemere development or Shapell development for commercial development within Dougherty Valley, the fees shall be distributed as follows: City receives $1.57 per square foot gross floor area Town receives $0.28 per square foot gross floor area County receives $0.36 per square foot gross floor area TOTAL Commercial Fee $2.21 per square foot gross floor area d. In the event of an incorporation into the City or Town of a development that encompasses a project listed in the Settlement Agreement, the fund distribution shall be adjusted, and any SCC fees previously collected for that project shall be transferred to the incorporating party. Page 11 of 17 15. Construction of the Improvements. a. City, Town, and County shall use the funds disbursed under Section 14 only for the design, environmental review, construction contract, and related costs of the projects listed in Exhibit "B." It is the intention of the Parties that the projects listed in Exhibit "B" shall be completed as needed to satisfy the Growth Management and Congestion Management Program requirements. If a project crosses jurisdictional boundaries, the Parties shall make every effort to coordinate the projects between jurisdictions. A copy of each party's current project priority list should be transmitted to the other parties with the March 1 disbursement of funds. b. Upon acceptance of an Improvement, the ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the Improvement rest with the party having jurisdiction over the area containing the Improvement. 16. Growth Management and Congestion Management Program Requirements. The Parties agree to meet and develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based upon each party's priority list and the projected fee revenue for the duration of the Agreement. An initial CIP shall be included in this Agreement by amendment within six months of the effective date of this Agreement. The parties shall review said CIP annually and make necessary adjustments by amendment. Updates to the CIP shall be based upon the new priority lists and projected income of each jurisdiction. 17. Reimbursement for Developer-Constructed Proiects. If a developer elects, or is required as a condition of approval for development, to construct one or part of one of the Improvements, the developer shall be eligible to receive reimbursement or credit toward the appropriate SCC Fee. Credit: A credit is considered to be a portion of the SCC Fee that the developer will be relieved of paying in exchange for the construction of one or part of one of the Improvements. The developer shall pay the full Fee amount to the collecting jurisdiction (i.e., the jurisdiction in which the development lies). After the ensuing semi-annual review (see Section 5), the Parties will distribute the fees in accordance with the provisions of Section 14. The underlying jurisdiction (i.e., the jurisdiction in which the subject road improvements are constructed) will issue the credit for the road improvements to the developer once it has received its share of the semi-annual fee distribution. The credit received by the developer shall be limited to the lesser of: 1. the underlying jurisdiction's share of the road fee obligation required by this Agreement or 2. the "eligible cost" for the Improvement as determined by the underlying jurisdiction. Page 12 of 17 For example, if a Dougherty Valley developer elects to construct a C-2 project in the City (the underlying jurisdiction) as a mitigation for its development, the development would pay its full Dougherty Valley Fee to the County(the collecting jurisdiction). After the next semi- annual review, the County would disburse the appropriate share of fees to the City. Credit would then be issued by the City to the developer. Reimbursement: If the eligible cost of an Improvement to be built by the developer is greater than the amount credited, the underlying jurisdiction and the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement prior to the commencement of construction of the Improvement. Reimbursement will begin at the time additional funds become available to the underlying jurisdiction for the Improvement constructed by the developer. Reimbursements will be made at the end of each fiscal quarter, with July 1 being the beginning of the fiscal year. The underlying jurisdiction reserves the right not to make a quarterly payment if the amount of available funds in the appropriate SCC Fee trust fund account is less than the total of all the reimbursements owed. In such cases, the underlying jurisdiction may choose to pay some lesser amount for each agreement than is owed in a quarter based on the ratio of the amounts owed for each agreement for that quarter to the total owed that quarter. A minimum fund balance of$50,000 in each jurisdiction will be maintained each quarter after all reimbursements are made. The amount of each quarterly payment will depend on the fund balance, on the amount of fees collected and available for reimbursement, and on all other terms listed herein. A xdeveloper could therefore be reimbursed in one quarter and not reimbursed in another quarter because of the construction of an Improvement by the County, City, or Town. No interest shall be paid on the outstanding balance due to the developer. Interest shall be used for construction of Improvements or Agreement administration costs. Reimbursement agreements shall remain in effect until paid in full. The first quarter shall be the one following the quarter in which the underlying jurisdiction accepts the constructed road improvements as complete. Costs eligible for credit or reimbursement: Only those road improvements identified in Exhibit°B" are eligible for creditor reimbursement. Some improvements (such as curbs, gutters, paths, sidewalks, drainage facilities, fences, and soundwalls) which are located along the property frontage of the development are not eligible for credit or reimbursement unless explicitly identified as part of an Improvement identified in Exhibit "B." Credit or reimbursement is limited to the amount estimated for the Improvement and used in the calculation of the SCC Fees. The determination of the "eligible costs" for credit or reimbursement will be based on at least three independent bids for the Improvement. The developer shall submit said bids to the public works department of the underlying jurisdiction for review and concurrence. Upon the department's concurrence with the bids, the lowest acceptable, verifiable bid shall be the basis for determination of the credit and/or reimbursement amount. The eligible amount shall not exceed the estimated cost of the Improvement used in the Page 13 of 17 calculation of the SCC Fee and listed in Exhibit "6." The underlying jurisdiction shall reserve the right to reject the developers' bids or any other proposed value for said "eligible costs" and to calculate said costs using the bond estimate prices. Offsite right of way acquisition costs shall be eligible for credit or reimbursement of the SCC Fee, except that the cost of any right of way work performed by the underlying jurisdiction (e.g., negotiation, right of way condemnation, etc.) shall be subtracted from the amount eligible for credit or reimbursement. Right of way for an Improvement that is dedicated by the developer will not be eligible for credit or reimbursement unless the right of way take is greater on the developer's side of the road than on the other side of the road, resulting in an excessive take. In such cases, the amount of reimbursement allowed shall be determined by the underlying jurisdiction. Any extra work or change orders, either required by the Parties or determined necessary by the developer, must be agreed to in writing by the developer and the underlying jurisdiction to be included in the credit or reimbursement amount. Work performed by the developer prior to execution of a written credit and/or reimbursement agreement between the underlying jurisdiction and the developer shall not be eligible for credit or reimbursement. Utility Relocation Costs: The developer shall be responsible for utility relocation costs for projects along the frontage of his development. Any offsite Improvement will be considered a County, City, or Town project and the underlying jurisdiction will require the utility companies to relocate the utilities at their cost. Administrative Costs: The total amount of funds eligible for credit or reimbursement under each agreement shall be reduced by I% to cover the administrative costs of the reimbursement agreement. 18. Independent Planning Action. Nothing in this Agreement shall have any bearing on the determination of which party will process a development application for any of the developments. Further, nothing in this Agreement shall have any bearing on the determination of how many dwelling units or how much non-residential space may be permitted or the nature of the development to be approved by the party having jurisdiction over a particular development. 19. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time by an amendment mutually executed by the City, Town, and County. Such amendments shall be approved by the governing board or council of each party. Page 14 of 17 20. Existing Area of Benefit Programs. The SCC Fee generates revenue to fund improvements mitigating impacts attributable to the Dougherty Valley and Other Developments; it is not intended to replace existing areas of benefit. The parties agree to amend their existing area of benefit programs to eliminate any duplication of projects between their existing areas of benefit and this Agreement. Each party shall be responsible for amendments to their own area of benefit project lists and shall hold the other parties harmless in the event of liability arising from the failure to amend the project list for its own area of benefit. 21. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Each party to this Agreement shall defend, indemnify, including for attorneys' fees and costs, save, and hold harmless the other parties, their boards or councils, officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, demands, suits, costs, expenses, or liability for any damages, injury, sickness, or death, including liability for inverse condemnation, nuisance, or trespass, arising directly or indirectly from, or in any way connected with, the design, construction, installation, inspection, operation, maintenance, or repair of those road improvement projects located within the indemnitor's jurisdiction. Nothing in this section is intended to affect the legal liability of any party to third parties by imposing any standard of care different from the standard of care imposed by law. Nothing in this section is intended to affect the provisions of Government Code Section 57325 as to territory annexed subsequent to the execution of this Agreement. A party is not liable to another party for the inadvertent failure or legal inability to collect a fee. 22. Insurance. For the design and construction of road improvement projects within their respective jurisdictional boundaries, the Parties to this Agreement shall cause all contract documents for such work to include provisions requiring the consultant or contractor: (1) to name all Parties to this Agreement, their boards or councils, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds under any insurance provided by the consultant or contractor; (2) to provide to all Parties to this Agreement a certificate or certificates of insurance evidencing such coverage and to provided at least 30 days' written notice of lapse, cancellation, or other termination of coverage; and (3) to promise to defend, indemnify, including for attorneys' fees and costs, save and hold harmless all Parties to this Agreement, their boards or councils, officers, agents, and employees from any loss, damage, injury, death, claim, or demand connected in any way with the work or services performed by the consultant or contractor, the consultant's or contractor's subcontractors, or anyone under the consultant's or contractor's direction or control. If more than one consultant or Page 15 of 17 contractor is employed, the term "consultant" or"contractor" shall refer to all consultants and contractors employed by the Parties to this Agreement. 23. Term of Agreement. With the exception of Section 21 (Indemnification and Hold Harmless), which shall remain in effect in perpetuity, this Agreement shall remain in effect from the Effective Date in the opening paragraph until: a. the projects listed in Exhibit"B" have been constructed, and b. the last phase of the Dougherty Valley Developments has been built out. 24. Attorneys' Fees. , If legal action is necessary to enforce this agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees. 25. Powers. The powers of this Agreement shall be exercised subject to the restrictions upon the exercising of such powers by the County, as provided in Section 6509 of the Government Code. 26. ,Sole Aareement. This Agreement is the sole agreement on the subject matters of this Agreement between the parties. However, nothing contained herein shall supersede or amend any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Page 16 of 17 27. Signatures. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts with the signature pages attached to form a complete document.' APPROVED BY: COUNTY OF CONT OSTA By: F a oved b un el .tip. Attest: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors CITY OF SAN RAMON By: Form approved by Counsel Attest: City Clerk TOWN OF DANVILLE By: Form approved by Counsel Attest: Town Clerk g:%TransEng\SCC JEPAA8 August 5,1996 Page 17 of 17 • �1 ) TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: July 16, 1996 SUBJECT: Set Date for Public Hearing to Revise the South County Area of Benefit. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: Fix August 6, 1996 at 10:15 AM for a public hearing to revise the South County Area of Benefit and DIRECT the Public Works Director to give notice of the hearing and to file a copy of the Revised Development Program Report for the proposed South County Area of Benefit with the Clerk of the Board in accordance with Government Code Sections 65091 and 66484. III. Financial Impact: The revision of the South County Area of Benefit will have no financial impact on the General Fund. The funds collected will be deposited in a trust fund account specific to the improvements to be funded by the South County Area of Benefit. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: This revision to the South County Area of Benefit is needed to update the project list and project cost estimates, and to coordinate the South County Area of Benefit with the SCC JEPA. Contra Costa County will enter into the SCC JEPA with the cities of San Ramon and Danville to establish a series of traffic mitigation fees for the Dougherty Valley area to construct regional and sub- regional improvements necessary to serve planned development. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: Failure to revise the South County Area of Benefit may result in the loss of crucial road funds needed to construct necessary road improvements for the Continued on Attachment: SIGNATURE: •w _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON /�v/9 k? APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER LT VOT OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby=ft that this is a has aM eawet d HJB:ML:ds:eh an WtIon taken and entasd on so nWp a jM g:11ransenq\ds1B016SoCoS7 Board of Sw°^' on the date a wmL PHIL BATCH CNAc a tM board Originator: Public Works(T/E) afCuPeMeorsaaa Contact Person:Martin Lysons, 393-2295 cc: Auditor/Controller M M. Shiu,Deputy PW Director Community Development-G.Slusher Public Works Accounting