Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07192005 - SD5
C � s_ _L TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �` ��� � ��''° Contra FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Costa ~~� CountyDATE: July 19, 2005 `'��� STCOUNj SUBJECT: Adoption of Urgency and Regular Fee Ordinances to fund the Revised Transportation Improvement Program for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority, East County area. (Districts III and V) CDD-CP#05-28, Project No.: 0676-6P4075 I. Recommended Action: A. It is recommended that the Board take the following actions: I. CONDUCT a public hearing to consider adoption of an urgency ordinance(Ordinance No. 2005-19)and regular ordinance(Ordinance No.2005-18),substantially in the form attached, to adopt Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation(RTDIM)Fees to fund the revised regional transportation improvement program for the East Contra Costa.Regional Fee and Financing Authority(ECCRFFA). 2. ADOPT urgency Ordinance No. 2005-19, accepting and adopting the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update, adopted by ECCRFFA on June 16, 2005, and adopting interim RTDIM Fees to fund the ECCRFFA revised regional transportation improvement program. Continued on Attachment: SIGNATURE: j u.n Xsr� ❑ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE [:] APPROVE ❑ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON / o APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 6TAER M I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. chr' VO OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) ATTESTED: AYES: NOES: JOHN SWEETEN,Clergf the Board of Supervisors and ABSENT: ABSTAIN: County Administrator CL:je G:\GrpData\TransEng\2005\ECCRFFA\BO-ECCRFFA Ordinance.doc Orig.Div:Public Works TE By �"' � ,Deputy g L ) Contact: Chris Lau,313-2293 c: PW Accounting—C.Raynolds PW Eng.Srvs.—T.Torres PW Trans.Eng.—C.Lau County Auditor/Controller County Treasurer/Tax Collector SUBJECT: Adoption of Urgency and Regular Fee Ordinances to fund the Revised Transportation Improvement Program for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority, East County area. (Districts III and V) CDD-CP#OS-28,Project No.: 0676-6P4075 DATE. July 19, 2005 PAGE 2 3. ADOPT Ordinance No.2005-18,accepting and adopting the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update, adopted by ECCRFFA on June 16, 2005, and adopting RTDIM Fees to fund the ECCRFFA revised regional transportation improvement program. 4. DETERMINE that a majority protest does not exist. 5. DIRECT the Director of Public Works and the Auditor/Controller to establish a trust fund for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority and the Treasurer to invest said monies with interest to accrue in the trust fund account. 6. DIRECT the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development to review the fee schedule every January 1 the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority fee is in effect,and to adjust for the effects of inflation or deflation as described in the attached ordinance. The adjustment for inflation or deflation is not subject to CEQA. 7. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority fee area,and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Fee, and to make recommendations to the Board. 8. DECLARE the intention of the Board that the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority aggressively pursue outside funding sources, such as federal and state monies,to finance the roadway improvements to the maximum extent possible. II. FinancialImpact: Adoption of the road fees will result in the collection of potential fees from new developments to fund regional transportation improvements within the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority fee area. There will be no impact to the General Fund. 111. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: On August 9, 1994, the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, together with the County of Contra Costa, entered into an Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et seq., entitled "East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement"(referred to as the "ECCRFFA Agreement"), which provided for the creation of a separate joint powers agency ("ECCRFFA"), to assist in the establishment of a uniform regional development fee program and the funding and implementation of transportation improvement projects in the East County area. With the incorporation of the City of Oakley, effective July 1, 1999, the Parties amended the Agreement to add Oakley as an additional member of the Authority effective October 4, 1999. The four Cities listed above and the County are the"Member Agencies"of ECCRFFA. SUBJECT: Adoption of Urgency and Regular Fee Ordinances to fund the Revised Transportation Improvement Program for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority, East County area. (Districts III and V) CDD-CP#OS-28,Project No.: 0676-6P4075 DATE: July 19, 2005 PAGE 3 On June 28, 2005,the Board adopted a Second Amendment to the existing ECCRFFA Agreement,which provides in part for the revision of the ECCRFFA regional transportation improvement program (fee schedule and project list)consistent with the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update approved by the ECCRFFA board on June 16, 2005. The new fee structure is as follows: Regional Transportation Development impact Mitigation TDI Fees EType of Use Fee Units Fee Amount Single family residential Per dwelling unit $15,000.00 units, duet homes, and residential condominiums Multi ple family residential Per dwelling_unit $9,1207.92 Commercial Per square foot of gross $1.25 floor area Office Per square foot of gross $1.10 floor area Industrial Per square uare foot of gross $1.10 floor area Other Per peak hour trip as $15,000.00/peak hour I determined trip The above RTDIM Fees are subject to annual adjustment as provided in the Second Amendment to the ECCRFFA Agreement and the ordinances implementing the fees. An additional administrative fee equal to 1%of the program revenue will be assessed by the County. In order to implement the new ECCRFFA fee schedule,it is necessary for the County and the other Member Agencies to adopt new ordinances or resolutions. Each of the Member Agencies will complete a similar adoption process. In order to accommodate potential variations in the above-described documents, it is recommended that the Board approve the documents substantially in the form attached. IV's Consequences of NeLative Action: Failure to adopt the recommended road fees will result in the loss of potential revenues and would be inconsistent with the intent of the ECCRFFA Agreement. In addition, the developer contribution for regional or sub-regional improvement projects is necessary to comply with the concepts of the County's Growth Management Program which requires new growth to fund the additional infrastructure capacity required to serve that growth. The Growth Management Program became a requirement with the passage of Measure"C",which was approved by the voters in 1988. Ordinance No. 2005-18 (AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE EAST CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL FEE PROGRAM UPDATE REPORT, INCLUDING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES AND A REVISED PROJECTS LIST OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows: SECTION I SUMMARY This ordinance provides for the adoption of fees to be used for bridge, major thoroughfare, and regional transportation improvements within the East Contra Costa Regional Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit (formerly known as the Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional._ Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit), which improvements are necessary and desirable within the area of benefit. SECTION II 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 I11 PROCEDURE This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in Government Code Sections 66016-66018. SECTION IV FINDINGS The Board makes the following findings: 1. Effective August 9, 1994, the Cities of Antioch,-Brentwood, and Pittsburg, together with the County of Contra Costa, entered into an Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et seq., entitled "East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement" (referred to as the "Agreement"), which provided for the creation of a separate Joint Powers Agency ("ECCRFFA" or "Authority"), to assist in the establishment of a Uniform Regional Development Fee Program and the funding and implementation of transportation improvement projects in the East County area. The ECCRFFA area of jurisdiction is defined as "Region" in the Agreement. With the incorporation of the City of Oakley, effective July 1, 1999, the Parties amended the Agreement to add Oakley as an additional member of the ECCRFFA, pursuant to Sections 3C and 16 of the Agreement, effective October 4, 1999. The four (4) Cities listed above and the County are the "Member Agencies" of ECCRFFA. 2. Pursuant to the Agreement, ECCRFFA has established its purposes-namely, A. To establish a Uniform Regional Development Fee Program ("Fee Program") within the region, and to coordinate planning and implementation of the Fee Program within a single public agency. B. To identify Projects to be funded by the Fee Program solely or in conjunction with other funding sources. - 1 - Ordinance No. 2005-18 C. To establish funding goals for identified projects, and to seek commitments from the Parties to this Agreement regarding funding for the Projects. D. To establish an implementation schedule for Projects. E. To establish fee collection, financing, and management mechanisms, and to formalize institutional arrangements for the implementation of the Fee Program. 3. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., a local agency is authorized to charge a fee to development applicants in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of public facilities related to the development project. 4. In furtherance of the its purposes and goals,- ECCRFFA undertook the conduct of studies and the preparation and approval of reports, commencing with the "Development Program Report for the Eastern Contra Costa Sub Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee", prepared by and for the Contra Costa Public Works Department dated March 8, 1994. 5. In 2001, ECCRFFA initiated a comprehensive update of the Program to help fund additional regional transportation improvements. That update, which was documented in a report entitled "East Contra Costa Fee Program Update", prepared by ECCRFFA's consultants (Fehr and Peers), dated May, 2001, included a list of capital improvement projects and an updated fee structure for new development. The update was not formally approved by ECCRFFA, but a modified report, the "East County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Study", addressing similar transportation needs, facilities, costs, and fees, was approved by each of the four (4) Members (Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and the County) pursuant to a new and separate Joint Powers Authority known as the East County Transportation Improvement Authority ("ECTIA"), in January 2002. 6. From 1994 to date, ECCRFFA and its Member Agencies have used several different, but synonymous names to refer to the ECCRFFA developer fees for mitigation of transportation congestion and related impacts. 7. In recognition of continuing growth and development in the areas of each of the Member Agencies, the ECCRFFA staff and Board of Directors determined that a further updating of all relevant data was appropriate, including the adoption, if necessary, of a revised and increased capital improvement plan and including Regional Transportation-Development Impact Mitigation Fees, hereinafter referred to as "RTDIM Fees", by each of the ECCRFFA Member Agencies. 8. The initiative to update the Fee Program was discussed at public meetings of the ECCRFFA Board in the Fall of 2003, and ECCRFFA contracted with Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants, on November 1, 2003, to prepare a detailed "East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Report" ("Report"). The draft of the Report dated June, 2005, has been completed and was submitted to the ECCRFFA Board of Directors for review and consideration. 9. In the course of the study process and preparing the Report, information and input was obtained from the TRANSPLAN Technical Advisory Committee, the lead engineers from each -2 - Ordinance No. 2005=18 Member City and the County, the Executive Committee comprised of the City Managers of each Member City and the Chief Administrative Office of the County, as well as the County Counsel's office. 10. In the course of the study, in discussions with the Advisory Committee and staff, and in the preparation of the Report, the contract Consultants referred to and utilized numerous professional and industry related publications, including but not limited to: 1. Response to Proposed Route 4 Bypass Authority Development Fee Program, Korve Engineering, April 1993 2. Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation rates, San Diego Association of Governments, July 1998 3. Route 4 East Corridor Major Investment Study, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, May 1999 4. Projections 2000, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2000 5. East County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Study, Final Report Fehr & Peers Associates, January 2002 6. SR 4 East Corridor Transit Study, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, December 2002 7. Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 8. Traffic Service Objectives Monitoring Report, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, December 2004 9. Action Plans for the Routes of Regional Significance, Transportation Planning Committee for East County 10.East County Travel Demand Model, a computer program of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority These documents have been presented to the ECCRFFA Board and to the County and were available to all interested persons as required by law. 11. In the course of the study and as one basis for the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the Report, the contract Consultants reviewed regional land use forecasts provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG"), and the General Plans of each of the ECCRFFA Member Agencies reflecting land use projections, including future population and employment growth. In July 1996, the County adopted an update to its General Plan. 12. The Report establishes that projected new development in the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg and the unincorporated eastern portion of Contra Costa County will Ordinance No. 2005=18 further congest the freeways and arterial roadways -and place additional demand on the regional transportation system. 13. Future development in the service area of ECCRFFA will generate the need for the additional regional traffic improvements specified in the Report, and that these regional traffic improvements are consistent with the General Plans of the Member Agencies, including specifically the County. 14. Travelers on some of the regional transportation facilities described in Table 3 of the Report, currently experience congestion and delays which are expected to increase in severity as the result of projected development. Expansion and construction of related improvements to the identified transportation facilities will increase the flow of traffic, reduce congestion and noise, and improve safety and air quality throughout the Regional Area. Based upon this data, the Board finds that there is a* reasonable relationship between the need for the expansion and other transportation improvements to the identified transportation facilities projects and to the types of development on which the fee is imposed. 15. * The Report finds that a total of twenty-six (26) regional traffic/transportation projects are necessary to accommodate future growth and its associated traffic demand, including projects within the County. The specific transportation improvements to be financed by the fees are described in Table 3 of the Report which is deemed to be the capital improvement plan of ECCRFFA. 16. The estimated costs of the capital improvements, the continued need for those improvements, and the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of the various types of development pending or anticipated and for which the fee is charged, were studied and reviewed as a part of the Report project. 17. The regional traffic/transportation projects are necessary for the safety and capacity of the transportation system as determined by planned growth forecasted by ABAG for the agencies participating in the Agreement relating to the ECCRFFA. 18. The projects will be funded by RTDIM Fees uniformly assessed over the entire East County region on a per dwelling unit or per square foot of gross floor area basis. The fee-funded portion of the, cost of the projects has been distributed between the individual land use categories based on a peak hour trip generation factor, all as specified in the Report. The fees are also calculated in the Report. 19. The purpose of this Fee Program is to generate monies that will fund the projects. The projects will improve safety and provide additional transportation capacity,. In this way, the transportation system can keep pace with the planned growth in the areas of each of the Member Agencies by providing assistance for the transportation needs and improved infrastructure contained in the General Plans of the Member Agencies including the County. 20. The RTDIM Fees will enable the ECCRFFA to construct and to provide regional traffic improvements and to provide road and transportation facilities to meet the needs of new residents and employees in the communities served by the ECCRFFA. Ordinance No. 2005-18 21. Adoption of increased RTDIM Fees, together with other sources of revenue, will provide for the implementation of a transportation system that provides access to the major developed areas of East County and maintains acceptable travel conditions on the regional roadway and freeway system. 22. The RTDIM Fees will be used to pay for administration of the fee area and for the planning, environmental documentation, design, acquisition of right-of-way, and construction of the projects. 23. Revenues received from RTDIM Fees imposed by the Member Agencies and transmitted to ECCRFFA at the current rates are not sufficient to meet the funding needs for the regional traffic/transportation projects identified in the Project List, Table 3 of the Report. 24. That the cost estimates set forth in Table 3 of the Report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the projects, and the fees expected to be generated by future developments will not exceed the total costs of constructing the regional traffic improvements. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the RTDIM Fees set forth in Exhibit "A" and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 25. The Report establishes, by use of a six-step technical analysis, that ECCRFFA-wide uniform RTDIM Fees are justified as being reasonably related to the types of development on which the fees are to be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities described in Table .3 of the Report and the types of development on which the fees are imposed, i.e., single family, multiple family, commercial, office, industrial, and other uses. The method of allocation of the fee schedule in Exhibit "A" to a particular development within a class, bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from the regional transportation improvements to be funded by the fees. 01 26. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed, in that the types of development subject to the fees will generate additional traffic which will place additional demand on the regional transportation system. The additional traffic generated by the development projects will result in a need to expand, extend, or improve existing transportation facilities and a need to construct new facilities to mitigate the adverse traffic effects that would otherwise result from such development. Construction of the improvements specified in the Report will result in improved traffic flow, reduced congestion and noise, and improved safety and air quality in the study area. 27. The. RTDIM fees collected pursuant to this ordinance will be used for transportation improvements that will mitigate impacts and reduce traffic congestion and delays, and improve noise, safety and air quality through the regional area, and the Board finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the RTDIM Fees (transportation improvements) and the type of development projects upon which the fees are imposed. -5- Ordinance No. 2005=18 28. The County by Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code has established authority for imposing and charging a regional transportation development impact mitigation fee applicable to the development within the County, including the RTDIM fee described in this ordinance. 29. These fees implement policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan as amended in July 1996, including the policies that new development shall contribute its fair share of the cost of on and off-site public infrastructure and services. This shall include installation of public facilities, payment of impact fees, and participation in a Capital Improvement Financing Program. 30. The Board determines that the adoption of this RTDIM Fees ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines because the fees collected from this action will be used for regional transportation infrastructure necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service within existing service areas. Once sufficient funds are collected and prior to approval of the final alignment and configuration of the individual transportation improvement projects, ECCRFFA or the County will take all other CEQA required actions. The Board further finds that the adoption of the automatic change in the RTDIM fees annually in accordance with changes in the Engineering News Record.Index is also statutorily exempt under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act because the amount of any increase is precisely determinable based on the published change of the Index and relates solely to the increase of construction costs for the previously identified projects. 31. In accordance with Government Code Sections 66016-66018, at least 14 days prior to the public hearing at which this ordinance was adopted, notice of the time and place of the hearing was mailed to eligible interested parties who filed written request with the County for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges and the Report was available for public review and comment for ten (10) days prior to the public hearing at which this ordinance was adopted and ten (10) days advance notice of the public hearing at which this Ordinance was adopted was given by publication in accordance with Section 6062(a) of the Government Code. SECTION V APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF REPORT After considering the studies and analyses prepared by ECCRFFA I s consultants and staff as reflected in the Final Report adopted by ECCRFFA, together with the testimony received at the public hearing, the Board approves and adopts said Report including the.Technical Appendix, and incorporates the Report by reference and makes it a part of this Ordinance. The final Report is ordered to be kept on file with the Clerk of the Board. SECTION V11 BASIS FOR FINDINGS The Report and the referenced publications contain sufficient information for the Board to make the above findings, and the Board declares that it has relied thereon in reaching its conclusions and recommendations set forth herein SECTION VII ADOPTION OF FINDINGS Based on this review, the Board adopts such findings and conclusions set forth herein as its findings in support of adopting a revised schedule of RTDIM Fees, in accordance with the funding scenario described as Alternative B in Chapter 5 of the Report, and as specifically set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein. -6- Ordinance No. 2005-18 SECTION VIII ADOPTION OF FEES, A. The RTDIM fees set forth in Exhibit A, ECCRFFA Fee Schedule attached hereto, are enacted as the development fees of the County for transportation impacts. B. Those fees established by this ordinance shall on January 1 of each year be automatically increased or decreased from the amount then applicable by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in construction costs between September 1 of the calendar year immediately preceding September 1 of the current calendar year, based on the Engineering News-Record Construction Costs Index — San Francisco Bay area, without further action of the Board. C. The RTDIM Fees collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be used exclusively for the projects listed in Table 3 of the Report. SECTION IX PAYMENT OF FEE A. The applicable RTDIM fee shall be determined on the basis of the fee schedule in effect at the time of the building permit, or other applicable permit is issued. If no permit is required, then the fees are payable in the amounts in effect at the commencement of the project. The Chief Building Official or other official designated by the County Administrator shall determine the amount of the fee in accordance with the standards set forth in this ordinance. B. The property owner shall pay to the County, the Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation Fee (the "RTDIM") imposed under this chapter in the amount established by this ordinance. The fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. C. No building permit shall be issued for property within the County unless the RTDIM fee for that property is paid as required by this ordinance. D. The RTDIM fees shall also be paid as a condition of an extension or renewal of a public permit issued after passage of this ordinance if a fee has not been paid previously. E. Developments that are subject to and pay the RTDIM Fees shall be exempt from payment of the Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 97-30 enacted on July 22, 1997, and shall be exempt from payment of the East County Transportation Impact Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-05 enacted on February 22, 2002. F. Developments that are not subject to payment of the RTDIM Fees shall remain subject to payment of the Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 97-30 enacted on July 22, 1997, and shall remain subject to payment of the East County Transportation Impact Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-05 enacted on February 22, 2002. Ordinance No. 2005.=18 SECTION X EXEMPTIONS FROM FEE The RTDIM fee shall not be imposed in the following instances of a development project: A. To the extent a development demonstrates it has rights vested at an earlier, specified amount of transportation impact fees pursuant to a previously adopted development fee schedule of ECCRFFA or ECTIA, or an agreement by and between the County and the developer, this fee schedule may not apply. B. The fee shall not be required of any project involving replacement of existing structures destroyed by fire or other natural disaster or constructed as part of a redevelopment project, or to rehabilitation of existing structures where the total cost of the work undertaken is less than fifty percent (50%) of the value of the existing structure. C. Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single family residential unit or another unit is added to an existing multi-family residential unit. SECTION XI USE OF FEE REVENUE The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate, interest-bearing account to permit accounting for such revenues and the interest that they generate until such time as the fees are remitted to ECCRFFA. Fees paid pursuant to this ordinance shall be remitted periodically to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority, to be placed in a fund to be used solely for the purposes and projects as described below. Any interest accumulated on such funds shall also be used only for said purposes and projects. A. To pay for acquisition/construction of the Improvements; B. To pay for design, engineering, construction of and property acquisition for, and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related to, the Improvements; C. To reimburse ECCRFFA for the Improvements constructed by ECCRFFA with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless such funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the Improvements; D. To reimburse developers that have designed and constructed a usable portion of any of the Improvements with prior County and/or ECCRFFA approval and have entered into an agreement, as provided in Section 13, below; and E. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the Fee Program, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies, legal costs, and other costs of updating the Fee. -s- Ordinance No. 2005-18 SECTION X11 PERIODIC REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENTS TO FEES A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the close of each fiscal year, the County Administrator or his designee shall prepare a report for the Board, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, identifying the balance of fees in the account at the beginning and end of the fiscal year, the fee, interest, and other income, and the amount of expenditure by public facility, any refunds, and other expenditures. B. The County shall make the periodic report available to the public, and the Board shall review the report at a regularly scheduled meeting in accordance with Section 66006. C. The County shall similarly conduct the periodic review under Government Code Section 66001(d) every five (5) years. D. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the Board shall also annually review, as a part of its Capital Improvement Plan, the ECCRFFA regional traffic improvements to be financed with the RTDIM fees. The Board shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. This annual review may warrant adjustments to the RTDIM fees adopted herein subject to recommendations by the ECCRFFA Board. SECTION X111 FEE AREA The RTDIM Fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all property described in Exhibit A attached to this ordinance. SECTION XIV APPLICABLE LAW The RTDIM Fees are fees imposed upon new development projects, as defined and authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., and accordingly are not governed by the provisions of California Constitution Article XIIID. SECTION XV SEVERABILITY Each component of the Fee and all portions of this ordinance are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or any portion of this ordinance be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining Fee components and/or ordinance portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those Fee components and/or ordinance portions that have been adjudged invalid. The Board hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION XVI STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the fees established by this Ordinance shall be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days of the passage of this Ordinance. Any action to attack an increase adopted pursuant to Sections Vlll or XII shall be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days of the increase. SECTION XVII EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective 60 days after passage, and, within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the -9- Ordinance No. 2005=18 Supervisors voting for and against it, in the Brentwood News, Antioch Ledger, and the Contra Costa Times, newspapers 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. PASSED and ADOPTED on July 19, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Piepho, DeSaulnier and Glover NOES: None ABSENT: Gioia ABSTAIN: None Attest: John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator 4By: ' .100, Deputy Bo*ardair - 10- Ordinance No. 2005-18 EXHIBIT "A" ECCRFFA FEE SCHEDULE Regional Transportation Development impact Mitigation Land Use Category Fee Units Fees Single family residential units, duet homes, and residential condominiums Per dwelling unit $15,000-00 Multiple family residential Per dwelling unit $ 99208-00 Commercial Per square foot of $ 1.25 gross floor area Office Per square foot of 1.10 gross floor area Industrial Per square foot of 1.10 gross floor area Other Per peak hour trip $15,000-00 as determined WS&S-TLW:j.lopi:#203500204158:06/1706/05:v-416-CLE144 Ordinance No. 2005-19 (AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE EAST CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL FEE PROGRAM UPDATE REPORT, INCLUDING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF INTERIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES AND A REVISED PROJECTS LIST OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows: SECTION I SUMMARY This ordinance provides for the adoption of an urgency measure as an interim authorization for fees to be used for bridge, major thoroughfare, and regional transportation improvements within the East Contra Costa Regional Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit (formerly known as the Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit), which improvements are necessary and desirable within the area of benefit. SECTION II 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 III PROCEDURE This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66017(b). SECTION IV FINDINGS The Board makes the following findings: 1. Effective August 9, 1994, the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, together with the County of Contra Costa, entered into an Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et seq., entitled "East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement" (referred to as the "Agreement"), which provided for the creation of a separate Joint Powers Agency ("ECCRFFA" or "Authority"), to assist in the establishment of a Uniform Regional Development Fee Program and the funding and, implementation of transportation improvement projects in the East County area. The ECCRFFA area of jurisdiction is defined as "Region" in the Agreement. With the incorporation of the City of Oakley, effective July 1, 1999, the Parties amended the Agreement to add Oakley as an additional member of the ECCRFFA, pursuant to Sections 3C and 16 of the Agreement, effective October 4, 1999. The four (4) Cities listed above and the County are the "Member Agencies" of ECCRFFA. 2. Pursuant to the Agreement, ECCRFFA has established its purposes-namely, A. To establish a Uniform Regional Development Fee Program ("Fee Program") within the region, and to coordinate planning and implementation of the Fee Program within a single public agency. B. To identify Projects to be funded by the Fee Program solely or in conjunction with other funding sources. - 1 - Ordinance No. 2005-19 C. To establish funding goals for identified projects, and to seek commitments from the Parties to this Agreement regarding funding for the Projects, D. To establish an implementation schedule for Projects. E. To establish fee collection, financing, and management mechanisms, and to formalize institutional arrangements for the implementation of the Fee Program. 3. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., a local agency is authorized to charge a fee to development applicants in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of public facilities related to the development project. 4. In furtherance of the its purposes and goals, ECCRFFA undertook the conduct of studies and the preparation and approval of reports, commencing with the "Development Program Report for the Eastern Contra Costa Sub Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee", prepared by and for the Contra Costa Public Works Department dated March 8, 1994. 5. In 2001, ECCRFFA initiated a comprehensive update of the Program to help fund additional regional transportation improvements. That update, which was documented in a report entitled "East Contra Costa Fee Program Update", prepared by ECCRFFA's consultants (Fehr and Peers), dated May, 2001, included a list of capital improvement projects and an updated fee structure for new development. The update was not formally approved by ECCRFFA, but a modified report, the "East County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Study", addressing similar transportation needs, facilities, costs, and fees, was approved by each of the four (4) Members (Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and the County) pursuant to a new and separate Joint Powers Authority known as the East County Transportation Improvement Authority ("ECTIA"), in January 2002. 6. From 1994 to date, ECCRFFA and its Member Agencies have used several different, but synonymous -names to refer to the ECCRFFA developer fees for mitigation of transportation congestion and related impacts. 7. In recognition of continuing growth and development in the areas of each of the Member Agencies, the ECCRFFA staff and Board of Directors determined that a further updating of all relevant data was appropriate, including the adoption, if necessary, of a revised and increased capital improvement plan and including Regional Transportation-Development Impact Mitigation Fees, hereinafter referred to as "RTDIM Fees", by each of the ECCRFFA Member Agencies. 8. The initiative to update the Fee Program was discussed at public meetings of the ECCRFFA Board in the Fall of 2003, and ECCRFFA contracted with Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants, on November 1, 2003, to prepare a detailed "East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Report" ("Report"). The draft of the Report dated June, 2005, has been completed and was submitted to the ECCRFFA Board of Directors for review and consideration. 9. In the course of the study process and preparing the Report, information and input was obtained from the TRANSPLAN Technical Advisory Committee, the lead engineers from each -2- Ordinance No. 2005m19 Member City and the County, the Executive Committee comprised of the City Managers of each Member City and the Chief Administrative Office of the County, as well as the County Counsel's office. 10. In the course of the study, in discussions with the Advisory Committee and staff, and in the preparation of the Report, the contract Consultants referred to and utilized numerous professional and industry related publications, including but not limited to: 1 Response to Proposed Route 4 Bypass Authority Development Fee Program, Korve Engineering, April 1993 2. Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation rates, San Diego Association of Governments, July 1998 3. Route 4 East Corridor Major Investment Study, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, May 1999 4. Projections 2000, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2000 5. East County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Study, Final Report Fehr & Peers Associates, January 2002 6. SR 4 East Corridor Transit Study, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, December 2002 7. Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 8. Traffic Service Objectives Monitoring Report, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, December 2004 9. Action Plans for the Routes of Regional Significance, Transportation Planning Committee for East County 10.East County Travel Demand Model, a computer program of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority These documents have been presented to the ECCRFFA Board and to the County and were available to all interested persons as required by law. 11. In the course of the study and as one basis for the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the Report, the contract Consultants reviewed regional land use forecasts provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG"), and the General Plans of each of the ECCRFFA Member Agencies reflecting land use projections, including future population and employment growth. In July 1996, the County adopted an update to its General Plan. 12. The Report establishes that projected new development in the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg and the unincorporated eastern portion of,Contra Costa County will -3- Ordinance No. 2005=19 further congest the freeways and arterial roadways and place additional demand on the regional transportation system. 13. Future development in the service area of ECCRFFA will generate the need for the additional regional traffic improvements specified in the Report, and that these regional traffic improvements are consistent with the General Plans of the Member Agencies, including specifically the County. 14. Travelers on some of the regional transportation facilities described in Table 3 of the Report, currently experience congestion and delays which are expected to increase in severity as the result of projected development. Expansion and construction of related improvements to the identified transportation facilities will increase the flow of traffic, reduce congestion and noise, and improve safety and air quality throughout the Regional Area. Based upon this data, the Board finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the expansion and other transportation improvements to the identified transportation facilities projects and to the types of development on which the fee is imposed. 15. The Report finds that a total of twenty-six (26) regional traffic/transportation projects are necessary to accommodate future growth and its associated traffic demand, including projects within the County. The specific transportation improvements to be financed by the fees are described in Table 3 of the Report which is deemed to be the capital improvement plan of ECCRFFA. 16. The estimated costs of the capital improvements, the continued need for those improvements, and the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of the various types of development pending or anticipated and for which the fee is charged, were studied and reviewed as a part of the Report project. 17. The regional traffic/transportation projects are necessary for the safety and capacity of the transportation system as determined by planned growth forecasted by ABAG for the agencies participating in the Agreement relating to the ECCRFFA. 18. The projects will be funded by RTDIM Fees uniformly assessed over the entire East County region on a per dwelling unit or per square foot of gross floor area basis. The fee-funded portion of the cost of the projects has been distributed between the individual land use categories based on a peak hour trip generation factor, all as specified in the Report. The fees are also calculated in the Report. 19. The purpose of this Fee Program is to generate monies that will fund the projects. The projects will improve safety and provide additional transportation capacity. In this way, the transportation system can keep pace with the planned growth in the areas of each of the Member Agencies by providing assistance for the transportation needs and improved infrastructure contained in the General Plans of the Member Agencies including the County. 20. The RTDIM Fees will enable the ECCRFFA to construct and to provide regional traffic improvements and to provide road and transportation facilities to meet the needs of new residents and employees in the communities served by the ECCRFFA, Ordinance No. 2005=19 21. Adoption of increased RTDIM Fees, together with other sources of revenue, will provide for the implementation of a transportation system that provides access to the major developed areas of East County and maintains acceptable travel conditions on the regional roadway. and freeway system. 22. The RTDIM Fees will be used to pay for administration of the fee area and for the planning, environmental documentation, design, acquisition of right-of-way, and construction of the projects. 23. Revenues received from RTDIM Fees imposed by the Member Agencies and transmitted to ECCRFFA at the current rates are not sufficient to meet the funding needs for the regional traffic/transportation projects identified in the Project List, Table 3 of the Report, 24. That the cost estimates set forth in Table 3 of the Report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the projects, and the fees expected to be generated by future developments will not exceed the total costs of constructing the regional traffic improvements. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the RTDIM Fees set forth in Exhibit "A" and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 25. The Report establishes, by use of a six-step technical analysis, that ECCRFFA-wide uniform RTDIM Fees are justified as being reasonably related to the types of development on which the fees are to be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities described in Table 3 of the Report and the types of development on which the fees are imposed, i.e., single family, multiple family, commercial, office, industrial, and other uses. The method of allocation of the fee schedule in Exhibit "A" to a particular development within a class, bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from the regional transportation improvements to be funded by the fees. 26. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed, in that the types of development subject to the fees will generate additional traffic which will place additional demand on the regional transportation system. The additional traffic generated by the development projects will result in a need to expand, extend, or improve existing transportation facilities and a need to construct new facilities to mitigate the adverse traffic effects that would otherwise result from such development. Construction of the improvements specified in the Report will result in improved traffic flow, reduced congestion and noise, and improved safety and air quality in the study area. 27. The RTDIM fees collected pursuant to this ordinance will be used for transportation improvements that will mitigate impacts and reduce traffic congestion and delays, and improve noise, safety and air quality through the regional area, and the Board finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the RTDIM Fees (transportation improvements) and the type of development projects upon which the fees are imposed. Ordinance No. 2005=19 28. The County by Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code has established authority for imposing and charging a regional transportation development impact mitigation fee applicable to the development within the County, including the RTDIM fee described in this ordinance. 29. These fees implement policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan as amended in July 1996, including the policies that new development shall contribute its fair share of the cost of on and off-site public infrastructure and services. This shall include installation of public facilities, payment of impact fees, and participation in a Capital Improvement Financing Program. 30. The Board determines that the adoption of this RTDIM Fees ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines because the fees collected from this action will be used for regional transportation infrastructure necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service within existing service areas-. Once sufficient 41 d a funds are collected and prior to approval of the final alignment and configuration of the individual transportation improvement projects, ECCRFFA or the County will take all other CEQA required actions. The Board further finds that the adoption of the automatic change in the RTDIM fees annually in accordance with changes in the Engineering News Record Index is also statutorily exempt under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act because the amount of any increase is precisely determinable based on the published change of the Index and relates solely to the increase of construction costs for the previously identified projects. 31. There is an urgen need for interim fees as the inadequacy of the transportation infrastructure within the above-named area of benefit has caused significant congestion, delay, and economic loss to the entire East County region. The resulting stressful driving conditions and reduction in air quality are adverse factors affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Residential, commercial, and other construction activity is increasing in the East County area and is expected to remain strong in the near future. The corresponding increase in traffic along Highway 4 and connecting streets will further reduce the quality of travel throughout the entire East County area. Failure to adopt the interim fees at this time will result in loss of potential revenues as residential and commercial projects are built without having to contribute their fair share to the proposed improvements. The ability to finance construction of necessary bridge and major thoroughfare improvements within the East County area is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. SECTION V APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF REPORT After considering the studies and analyses prepared by ECCRFFA's consultants and staff as reflected in the Final Report adopted by ECCRFFA, together with the testimony received at the public hearing, the Board approves and adopts said Report including the Technical Appendix, and incorporates the Report by reference and makes it a part of this Ordinance. The final Report is ordered to be kept on file with the Clerk of the Board. -s- Ordinance No. 2005=19 SECTION V1 BASIS FOR FINDINGS The Report and the referenced publications contain sufficient information for the Board to make the above findings, and the Board declares that it has relied thereon in reaching its conclusions and recommendations set forth herein SECTION V11 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS Based on this review, the Board adopts such findings and conclusions set forth herein as its findings in support of adopting a revised schedule of RTDIM Fees, in accordance with the funding scenario described as Alternative B in Chapter 5 of the Report, and as specifically set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION VIII ADOPTION OF FEES A. The interim RTDIM fees set forth in Exhibit A, ECCRFFA Fee Schedule attached hereto, are enacted as the development fees of the County for transportation impacts. B. Those fees established by this ordinance shall on January 1 of each year be automatically increased or decreased from the amount then applicable by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in construction costs between September 1 of the calendar year immediately preceding September 1 of the current calendar year, based on the Engineering News-Record Construction Costs Index — San Francisco Bay area, without further action of the Board. C. The RTDIM Fees collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be used exclusively for the projects listed in Table 3 of the Report. SECTION IX PAYMENT OF FEE A. The applicable RTDIM fee shall be determined on the basis of the fee schedule in effect at the time of the building permit, or other applicable permit is issued, If no permit is required, then the fees are payable in the amounts in effect at the commencement of the project. The Chief Building Official or other official designated by the County Administrator shall determine the amount of the fee in accordance with the standards set forth in this ordinance. B. The property owner shall pay to the County, the Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation Fee (the "RTDIM") imposed under this chapter in the amount established by this ordinance. The fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. C. No building permit shall be issued for property within the County unless the RTDIM fee for that property is paid as required by this ordinance. D. The RTDIM fees shall also be paid as a condition of an extension or renewal of a public permit issued after passage of this ordinance if a fee has not been paid previously. E. Developments that are subject to and pay the RTDIM Fees shall be exempt from payment of the Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 97-30 enacted on July 22, 1997, and shall be exempt from payment of the East Ordinance No. 2005=19 County Transportation Impact Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-05 enacted on February 22, 2002. F. Developments that are not subject to payment of the RTDIM Fees shall remain subject to payment of the Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 97-30 enacted on July 22, 1997, and shall remain subject to payment of the East County Transportation Impact Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-05 enacted on February 22, 20020 SECTION X EXEMPTIONS FROM FEE The RTDIM fee shall not be imposed in the following instances of a development project: A. To the. extent a development demonstrates it has rights vested at an earlier, specified amount of transportation impact fees pursuant to a .previously adopted development fee schedule of ECCRFFA or ECTIA, or an aqreement by and between the Countv and the developer, this fee %go schedule may not apply. B. The fee shall not be required of any project involving replacement of existing structures destroyed by fire or other natural disaster or constructed as part of a redevelopment project, or to rehabilitation of existing structures where the total cost of the work undertaken is less than fifty percent (50%) of the value of the existing structure. C. Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single family residential unit or another unit is added to an existing multi-family residential unit. SECTION X1 USE OF FEE REVENUE The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate, interest-bearing account to permit accounting for such revenues and the interest that they generate until such time as the fees are remitted to ECCRFFA. Fees paid pursuant to this ordinance shall be remitted periodically to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority, to be placed in a fund to be used solely for the purposes and projects as described below. Any interest accumulated on such funds shall also be used only for said purposes and projects. A. To pay for acquisition/construction of the Improvements; B. To pay for design, engineering, construction of and property acquisition for, and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related to, the Improvements; C. To reimburse ECCRFFA for the Improvements constructed by ECCRFFA with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless such funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the Improvements; -s- Ordinance No. 2005=19 Do To reimburse developers that have designed and constructed a usable portion of any of the Improvements with prior County and/or ECCRFFA approval and have entered into an agreement, as provided in Section 13, below; and E. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration of the Fee Program, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies, legal costs, and other costs of updating the Fee. SECTION X11 PERIODIC REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENTS TO FEES A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the close of each fiscal year, the County Administrator or his designee shall prepare a report for the Board, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, identifying the balance of fees in the account at the beginning and end of the fiscal year, the fee, interest, and other income, and the amount of expenditure by public facility, any refunds, and other expenditures. B. The County shall make the periodic report available to the public, and the Board shall review the report at a regularly scheduled meeting in accordance with Section 66006. C. The County shall similarly conduct the periodic review under Government Code Section 66001(d) every five (5) years. Do Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the Board shall also annually review, as a part of its Capital Improvement Plan, the ECCRFFA regional traffic improvements to be financed with the RTDIM fees. The Board shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. This annual review may warrant adjustments to the RTDIM fees adopted herein subject to recommendations by the ECCRFFA Board. SECTION X111 FEE AREA The RTDIM Fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all property described in Exhibit A attached to this ordinance. SECTION XIV ' APPLICABLE LAW The RTDIM Fees are fees imposed upon new development projects, as defined and authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., and accordingly are not governed by the provisions of California Constitution Article XIIID. SECTION XV SEVERABILITY Each component of the Fee and all portions of this ordinance are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or any portion of this ordinance be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining Fee do components and/or ordinance portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those Fee components and/or ordinance portions that have been adjudged invalid. The Board- hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional. .09 Ordinance No. 2005=19 SECTION XVI STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the fees established by this Ordinance shall be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days of the passage of this Ordinance. Any action to attack an increase adopted pursuant to Sections VIII or XII shall be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days of the increase. SECTION XVII EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective immediately and shall be operative for thirty days, after which time it may be extended. Within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it, in the Brentwood News, Antioch Ledger, and the Contra Costa Times, newspapers 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. PASSED and ADOPTED on July 19, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Piepho, DeSaulnier and Glover NOES: None ABSENT: Gioia ABSTAIN: None Attest: John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy /Board C it - 10- Ordinance No. 2005=19 EXHIBIT "A" ECCRFFA FEE SCHEDULE Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation Land Use Category Fee Units Fees Single family residential units, duet homes, and residential condominiums Per dwelling unit $15,000.00 Multiple family residential Per dwelling unit $ 99208.00 Commercial Per square foot of $ 1.25 ,r gross floor area Office Per square foot of $ 1.10 gross floor firea Industrial Per square foot of $ 1.10 gross floor area Other Per peak hour trip $15,000.00 as determined WS&S-TLW:j.!qpj:#203500204.1...58:06/11-706/05:v-416-CLEIF&1 191 fp FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: June 30,2005 To: Board of the East Contra Costa Regional Fee&Finance Authority CC: Dale Dennis, ECCRFFA Staff Tom Woodruff, ECCRFFA special counsel From: Julie Morgan, Fehr&Peers Subject: Response to Letter from HBA Regarding ECCRFFA Nexus Study 1001-1655 This memo provides a response to the June 16, 2005 letter from the Home Builders Association of Northern California (HBA), which was presented at the June 16 meeting of the ECCRFFA Board. In the preparation of this response I have conferred with special counsel to the Authority, who is submitting a separate response to the legal issues raised by the HBA letter., He has shared his opinion with me and it has been taken into consideration in this memorandum. The primary comments from the HBA letter are presented in italics, and the responses follow. 1. "The fee increases do not properly allocate the burden of funding the transportation improvements.," The Nexus Study"arbitrarily fails to follow the methodology used to establish the regional fee in 1994." The Nexus Study methodology does differ somewhat from that used in the original 1994 program, primarily as it relates to the definition of"existing deficiencies" and the method for accounting for the effect of existing traffic. However, counsel advises there is no legal bar to changing methodology. The methodology employed in the Nexus Study follows a logical and rational series of analytical steps, outlined in detail in the Study and in the accompanying Technical Appendix. These steps account for the different burdens that the three primary sources of vehicle trips (the existing community, new residential development and new non-residential development) place on the regional transportation system. The fourth category of trip generation mentioned in the HBA letter is regional traffic, or trips that pass through the East County area. The analysis conducted for the regional fee update in 2001 and documented in East Contra Costa Fee Program Update,, Draft Report, May 2001, indicated that regional traffic is expected to contribute a very small proportion (about 1%)of the new demand on the major facilities in East County. The Nexus Study refers to the thresholds and objectives defined in the East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance to assess the existing condition of the transportation system and to determine the presence of existing deficiencies (as described in more detail below). It is worth noting that the first regional Action Plans in Contra Costa County were adopted in 1994 and 1995, so this source of data and regional policy was not available at the time of the original fee program. 100 Pringle Avenue,Suite 600 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 (925)930-7100 Fax(925)933-7090 wwwJehrandpeers.ow ECCRFFA Board fp June 30, 2005 Page2of3 FEHR be PEERS TRANSIVORIATION CONSULTANTS ll. "The fee increases unlawfully require new housing to remedy existing transportation deficiencies." The Nexus Study"selectively employs an arbitrary and biased measure to assess [the]transportation network's current performance." This comment relates to the use of the Delay Index as a measure of transportation system performance. The Delay Index Traffic Service Objective (described more fully below) is specified in the East County Acton Plan for Routes of Regional Significance and is routinely addressed in traffic impact studies and Environmental Impact Reports on new development projects in East County. The Nexus Study did not "arbitrarily" select the Delay Index TSO; rather, it is the measure of system performance that is specified by TRANSPLAN in the Action Plan. Setting performance standards for the transportation system is a legitimate policy-making activity for jurisdictions in California. Each jurisdiction can select the performance standard that best suits its situation and that reflects the consideration of its policy-makers. In the case of East County, TRANSPLAN, the regional transportation planning committee made up of representatives from all East County jurisdictions, is the forum through which the agencies can jointly set transportation performance standards for the major routes that affect the region. The result is the set of Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs)documented in the East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. The TSOs are incorporated into the countywide comprehensive transportation plan prepared by Contra Costa Transportation Authority. As described in the Action Plan and in the 2004 TSO Monitoring Report, the Delay Index is a primary TSO used to describe the performance of the freeways and major regional arterials in East County. There are other TSOs that apply to certain of the regional routes in the Action Plan, but only the Delay Index is applied to all of the routes. As described in the letter from TJKM Transportation Consultants that accompanies the HBA letter, it is possible for a freeway to operate at Level of Service(LOS) F as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, and also to comply with the Delay Index standard of 2.5 specified in the Action Plan. Again, the definition of what constitutes"unacceptable"transportation system performance is a policy-level decision for the jurisdictions involved; in the case of East County, TRANSPLAN has chosen not to use conventional segment-based LOS measures for the freeways and major arterials and instead to use the Delay Index. As pointed out in the TJKM letter, the freeway LOS calculation is very sensitive to travel speed, and LOS F is reached when speeds drop below 50 mph. Freeway speeds of less than 50 mph are very common during commute hours in urbanized areas; if only the basic LOS measures were used, almost all Bay Area freeways would be designated as LOS F. In contrast, the Delay Index measures actual travel time along a corridor, and thus provides additional information about transportation system performance beyond a simple LOS grade. Contrary to the assertion in the HBA letter, the Nexus Study does not claim that there is no traffic congestion in East County outside of those facilities that violate the Delay Index TSO. Anyone who travels in East County during commute hours knows that would be inaccurate. After all, a Delay Index of 1.9 means that it takes 90% longer to travel from point A to point B during commute hours than during off-peak hours, which clearly means that there is substantial traffic congestion on that route. However,TRANSPLAN has set Delay Index thresholds(of either 2.0 or 2.5, depending on the facility) to define acceptable transportation conditions in East County, and those thresholds were applied appropriately and consistently in the Nexus Study. It should be noted that the footnote on page 5 of the HBA letter incorrectly characterizes the application of the Delay Index TSO in the Nexus Study. The 2004 TSO Monitoring Report shows ECCRFFA Board fp June 30, 2005 Page3of3 FEHR PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSWAXIS that the SR 4 freeway between Bailey Road and SR 160 exceeds the Delay Index TSO. This finding was applied to the entire route in the Nexus Study(not just to a single segment, as stated in the footnote), and an existing deficiency cost discount was applied to the total cost for the SR 4 widening project. ///. "The Nexus Study is fundamentally inconsistent with the Strategic Plan.," The Nexus Study calls for "fees on new housing to pay for almost the entire amount of an expanded $1.7 billion transportation program." The combined ECCRFFA/ECTIA Strategic Plan was prepared in 2002, after the adoption of the ECTIA nexus study, for the purpose of setting programming priorities for the funds expected from the regional fee programs. The intention was that the Strategic Plan would reflect and be the basis for implementing the Nexus Study. The HBA letter suggests that the relationship should be reversed, with the 2002 Strategic Plan setting policy that should guide the 2005 Nexus Study; however, that is not the method typically used in East County or in other fee programs. It is the intention of the ECCRFFA Board to update the 2002 Strategic Plan as soon as the 2005 Nexus Study and the updated fees are adopted by all member agencies. The updated Strategic Plan will establish priorities and a funding plan for those capital improvement projects that will be supported by the ECCRFFA fees. The HBA letter incorrectly states that the updated ECCRFFA program will rely upon new housing to pay for almost the entire $1.7 billion program. Table 8 in the Nexus Study and the accompanying text provide a detailed description of many additional funding sources that will contribute to the transportation improvement program. At the $15,000 fee level approved by the ECCRFFA Board,that table shows that regional fees(including those already collected as well as those anticipated) are estimated to generate approximately $520 million, or about 30% of the overall program. Numerous other funding sources are also identified, and there remains an estimated deficit of about$390 million. IV. "Projects have been added to the program that should not be funded with the regional fee." The HBA letter expresses the opinion that only the projects included in the original 1994 fee program (the SR 4 freeway widening, the SR 4 Bypass, and Buchanan Road Bypass) should be included in the updated ECCRFFA program. The project list included in the updated ECCRFFA Nexus Study was developed through a lengthy analytical process with the member agencies that focused on identifying improvement needs for a comprehensive regional transportation system to accommodate future demands throughout the region. The project list was approved by the ECCRFFA Board. Thus, the project list was developed in a coordinated and rational way, and reflects the Board's direction. LAW OFFICES OF �Z,���s�8���t WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN& SMART A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 9L SJWPA TREET,SUITE 8000 0 ORANGE,CA 92868-4760■(714)558-7000 ■ FAX(714)835-7787 Received DIRECT DIAL: (714)564-2605 DIRECT FAX: (714)565-2505 EI�l11'�r1fl� �� E-MAIL: TLWi@WSS-LAW.COM loft L Z June 30, 2005 CZL Chair and Members of the Board of Directors East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, Ca. 94553 Re: Homebuiiders Association of Northern California Protest of the Nexus Report During the course of the hearing by your Board, held on June 16, 2005, for the purpose of reviewing and ultimately approving the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update(the "Nexus Report"), the Homebuilders Association ("HBA") presented a letter of protest and objection to the Board approving and recommending member agency approval of the Nexus Report (including the updated schedule of fees to be imposed on new development projects). That letter was received and filed, and made a part of a record, and has been forwarded to each of the member agencies for their consideration at the time of their hearing to approve the report and adopt a fee to be paid by developers within their jurisdiction. The protest letter sets forth a few examples of legal principles and assertions of invalidity to which this letter will respond. The factual technical issues concerning the Nexus Report are being separately addressed to your Board by the authors of the report, Fehr & Peers Consultants. Initially the HBA letter cites three (3) separate Appellate decisions of the California courts, holding to the principle that new development can only be required to pay its proportionate share of new capital facilities, and that the Agency must established a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden proposed by the development. The cases cited, in fact, correctly state the principles of law and we have no disagreement for the principles which they stand. However, it is somewhat academic because the Authority when taking its action, was well aware of this requirement as articulated by the courts, and as specifically set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. The Authority's action adopting its resolution of approval of the Report has made specific findings relating to future new development, the expected demands which that development will place on the transportation system in East County, the type and size of the facilities necessary to satisfy those demands, and finally, establishing a schedule of fees to partially offset the costs of construction of the facilities. Secondly, the HBA letter alleges that the Nexus Study, as approved by your Board, violates the principle that development fees or charges on new development can only fund transportation facilities necessary to serve the demands and impacts generated by that new development. Such assertion is a pure conclusion and is not supported by any facts or law,. The Report has in considerable detail, made the necessary studies and using industry accepted TMY C.ANDRUS 8 STEPHEN J.BEATON 0 M.LA)IS BOBAK n CAROLINE A.BYRNE a JOHN R CAVANAUGH 0 KIM T.DAWLEY PATRICK M.DESMOND 9 JAMES M.DONICH N JAMES H.EGGART N RACHEL L ENOS 0 CRAIG G.FARRMTON JOSEPH W.FORBATH 0 BRADLEY R.HOGIN 0 DOUGLAS C HOLLAND a LOIS F.JEFFREY 8 DAVID K KENDIG ROBERTA A.KRAUS 0 MAGDAUNA LONA-WIANT 8 MARK M.MONAQW40 0 LAURA A.MORGAN 0 IMMAS F.NIXON BARBARA RAILEANU m JASON S.RFI-TERER 0 OMAR SANDOVAL a JOHN R.SHAW N GREGORY E.SIMONIAN KENNARD R.SMART,JR 0 DANIEL K.SPRADIJN N CINDY R.STAFFELBACH E THOMAS L WOODRUFF June 30. 2005 Page 2 standards and methods, calculated the expected demand that is generated by the new development, as well as the 'impacts on the transportation system by existing development and other regional pass-through traffic. The Board has made ample findings of fact that the Regional Transportation — Development Impact Mitigation Fees ("RTDIM") are based upon the need for additional facilities and infrastructure generated by the expected development of new housing commercial and industrial properties. The HBA letter also asserts that the current Nexus Report is flawed, because it uses a different methodology than was used in 1994 when the original program was developed and adopted. HBA cites no legal authority for such a proposition and I submit to you that no such authority exists. It defies common sense to suggest that a public agency cannot, and should not, use the most recent and up-to-date information or methodology in making the factual determinations required of it in finding the Nexus between development and the facilities necessary to serve that development, as well as the rate of charges to be paid by those creating the development. Lastly, the HBA letter asserts that the proposed fee increases unlawfully require new housing to remedy existing transportation deficiencies, citing Shappell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board, and then continues, quoting another principle: "it is not permissible to include in the fee program the costs associated with correcting existing problems." First, that quote is not a statement issued as part of the decision in Shappell and is not otherwise identified. It is also contrary to the actual holding and decision of the Shappeil case. While it is true that development cannot be forced to remedy existing deficiencies totally or exclusively, the court did hold that"the presence of new development may not only necessitate new facilities, but also in some cases refurbishing old ones in order to maintain a level of service." The law is quite clear that the enabling legislature (Mitigation Fee Act) vests local authorities with the discretion to make the decisions as to the types of projects and the scope of projects in the first instance, and they must do so by reference to a standard of reasonableness, which in our opinion, the ECCRFFA resolution adopted by your Board has done,, Very truly yours, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A Prof Tonal Corporatio " � . NOMAS A�l L. WO RUFF TLWJ10 \2050MI HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CAUFORNIA June 16, 2005 Board of Directors East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Regional Transportation Fee Dear Board Members: The Home Builders Association of Northern California(HBA) respectfully submits these comments on the Authority's Draft Report: East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update (June 2005)(the"Nexus Study"). The Nexus Study purports to establish the maximum fee levels that may be imposed on new development to fund specified transportation improvements in East County. The Nexus Study concludes that the"full fee"that may be imposed on new housing is approximately$30,000 for single- family units and$18,000 for multifamily units. The Nexus Study also identifies "alternative"amounts including the proposed$15,000 fee for single-family units and $9,207 for multifamily units. HBA strongly believes that these amounts are inconsistent with both good public policy and governing legal principles and that the Authority should not vote to forward the proposed fees to the East County jurisdictions for adoption. That said, HBA would not object to a fair increase in the residential fees. HBA suggests that a fair alternative would be to increase the fee to$10,295 per single family un*it.and $6,319 per multifamily unit as described in Attachment A. This represents a 24 percent increase above the current levels—a still substantial increase,especially considering the already very significant fee burden being borne by new housing and new homebuyers in East County(over$60,000 per unit in some jurisdictions) and its impact on housing Mailing Address: affordability. P0.Box 5160 At the outset, HBA wishes to emphasize the homebuilding industry's past and San Ramon ongoing strong commitment to transportation in East County. HBA and its members California 94583-5160 have always recognized the importance of a well functioning transportation network to the quality of life of East County residents. Homebuilders supported adoption of the 200 Porter Drive original,regional transportation fee in 1994 and since then,they and new homebuyers #200 have consistently contributed toward funding regional transportation improvements in San Ramon East County. To date,the transportation agencies have collected over$114 million in California 94583 Tel(925)820-7626 Fax(925)820-7296 Websice:hbanc.org Board Members June 16,2005 Page Two regional traffic fees. And recently,HBA and its members have aggressively advocated for passage of Measure J and increased federal transportation funding for East County, and are spearheading the"Finish 4 Now"public outreach campaign. Based on a careful review of the Nexus Study--including a peer review conducted-by a respected transportation engineer who has worked with East County jurisdictions in the past—HBA opposes the proposed fee increases identified in the report and believes they are both unfair and unlawful. As Will be discussed more fully below, the Nexus Study does not legally justify the fee increases for these reasons. • The Nexus Study concludes that new housing can be made to pay $1.4 billion of the $1.7 billion program cost(over 80%). In reaching this conclusion,the Nexus Study arbitrarily departs from the methodology used to establish the regional transportation fee and as a result does not properly allocate program costs between new housing,other types of development,regional through traffic, and the existing community. • The Nexus Study uses an arbitrary and inappropriate measure of current traffic conditions that drastically understates existing deficiencies in the East County transportation network. Incredibly, the Nexus Study determines that only 2 roadway segments in the transportation program experience current traffic problems during peak commute periods. This is flatly inconsistent with both commuters' everyday experiences and the Authority's own February 2003 Strategic Plan which quite unsurprisingly found that"most major routes experience significant congestion during peak commute periods." As a result,the proposed fee increases would unlawfully require new development to pay to correct substantial existing deficiencies. • The Nexus Study is inconsistent with the Strategic Plan on basic funding allocation issues. The purpose of the Strategic Plan"is to establish priorities and a funding plan for capital improvement projects to be financed through a regional transportation impact fee in eastern Contra Costa County." The Strategic Plan properly identifies regional traffic fees as one component of a balanced multi- source funding plan. By contrast,the Nexus Study call for fees on new housing to pay for almost the entire amount of an expanded$1.7 billion transportation program. Board Members June 16,2005 Page Four analysis found that new residential development's proportionate share of the funding burden ranged from 7 to 59 percent and that its average share for all of the planned improvements was under 40 percent. According to the analysis,the majority of the 12 for demana the 'improvements came from the existing community,regional through traffic, and non-residential development. Without justification,the Nexus Study has abandoned the original methodology. HBA believes it is arbitrary and improper to change the basic methodology once the fee program has been established and fees collected for over ten years. This is especially true given that the new methodology makes no attempt to apportion future travel demand among the four categories identified in the 1994 analysis and as a result does not apportion the fee burden as required by law. 11. The Fee Increases Unlawfully Require New Housing to Remedy Existing Transportation Deficiencies. A second bedrock principle of development impact fee law is that new development cannot be forced to remedy existing infrastructure deficiencies. See, e.g., Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board,supra, at 238-239. Again,the Nexus Study acknowledges this important legal principle.* "[I]t is not permissible to include in the fee program the costs associated with correcting existing problems." And again,rather than comply with the principle,the Nexus Study violates it by selectively employing an arbitrary and biased measure to I assess transportation network's current performance. As previously noted,the Nexus Study's assessment of the existing state of the transportation system in East County ends with the conclusion that, with 2limited exceptions, the network is functioning at an acceptable level and there are no existing deficiencies. The Nexus Study arrives at this conclusion by utilizing a statistic called the Delay Index. In a nutshell,the Delay Index simply measures the difference between peak hour travel time and free flow travel time. For example, if it takes 20 minutes to travel a road segment in free flow conditions and 40 minutes in the peak hour,the Delay Index is 2,0. For the key "big ticket"items in the expenditure plan (SR 4 Freeway widening, SR Bypass, Route 84/Vasco Road widening),,the Nexus Study determines whether there is a current performance deficiency during peak flow periods based on a Delay Index of Board Members June 16, 2005 Page Six These conclusions are inconsistent With common sense and sound transportation analysis, as TJKM's letter demonstrates. They are also inconsistent with the Authority's own 2003 Strategic Plan and the assessment of TRANSPLANT Recent growth in East County and the imbalance between housing and jobs has caused increasing demand on the road system,and most major routes experience significant congestion during peak commute periods. (Strategic Plan,p.2) With its population now approaching a third of a million people and still growing, the region's infrastructure is overburdened, particularly the transportation system. In addition to local transportation needs within East County,there is a heavy out-commute every day from East County's residential areas to job centers that are miles away in Concord, Livermore, Pleasanton, Silicon Valley, and elsewhere. This has created a need for major improvements to the transportation system..... jOJur our transportation system hasn't kept up with this surging population.... (TRANSPLAN web site) Use of the Delay Index directly impacts the Nexus Study's fee analysis, By artificially understating existing deficiencies,the Delay Index results purport to justify imposing upward of 80 percent of the$1.7 billion expenditure plan costs on new housing and new homebuyers with a resulting"full fee"of over$30,000 per single-family unit and an"alternative"fee of$15,000 per single-family unit. As a result, if adopted the identified fees would unlawfully require new housing to pay to correct existing infrastructure inadequacies. III. The Nexus Study is Fundamentally Inconsistent With the Strategic Plan, In 2003,the Authority and ECTIA adopted a Strategic Plan. The purpose of the Strategic Plan"is to establish priorities and a funding plan for capital improvement projects to be financed through a regional transportation impact fee in eastern Contra Costa County." The Authority's Strategic Plan therefore serves a role similar to that of a Board Members June 1 6,2005 Page Seven local Fovernmenf s general plan. And just as a local government's land use decisions %of should be consistent with its general plan,so too the Authority's Nexus Study should be consistent with its Strategic Plan. But in fundamental aspects,the Nexus Study is inconsistent with the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan properly identifies regional traffic fees as one component of a balanced multi-source funding plan: "The regional fee programs identify a list of improvement projects to be partially funded by regional fees." By contrast, the Nexus Study call for fees on new housing to pay for almost the entire amount of an expanded $1.7 billion transportation program. For example,with respect to SR 4 widening from Railroad to Loveridge,the Strategic Plan calls for regional fees to pay $2 million of a total project cost of$98.2 million, with the remainder coming from state, federal, and local sales tax funds. In contrast,the Nexus Study calls for fees on new homes to fund $91.1 million of the total project cost. Similarly,with respect to SR4 widening from Loveridge to the Bypass,the Strategic Plan calls for regional fees to pay$65 million of a total project cost of$200 million; in contrast,the Nexus Study calls for fees on new homes to fund $223 million of the total project cost(now estimated to be$240 million), With respect to SR4 widening from Loveridge to the Interchange,the Strategic Plan calls for the entire project cost(then estimated at$71.6 million)to be paid from state,, federal,and local sales tax funds; in contrast, the Nexus Study calls for fees on new homes to fund$ 69.8 million of the total project cost(now estimated at $ 75 million). And with respect to eBart,the Strategic Plan calls for regional fees to pay $6 million of the total project cost(then estimated at$200million); in contrast,the Nexus I Study calls for fees on new homes to fund$124 million of the total project cost(now estimated at$377 million). IV. Projects Have Been Added to the Program that Should not be Funded With the Regional Fee. It is important to recall that the regional transportation fee was established for the limited purpose of having new residential development pay for its fair share of certain -key regional transportation improvements: SR4 widening,the SR4 Bypass,and the Buchanan Bypass. It is also important to recall that these were to be priority projects. Now,with the priority projects not having been completed and in some cases not even Board Members June 16,2005 Page Eight begun,the Nexus Study proposes to have new housing pay the lion's share of an ever expanding list of improvements-26 at last count. Included in the project list are southern and northern parallels,new regional parallels, East County Express Bus, and eBART. HBA believes that none of these projects should be funded with the regional transportation fee. The Strategic Plan properly recognized that the arterials should be funded with other sources and that at most new housing should contribute $6 million to eBART- HBA believes that even that figure is arbitrary as there has been no study or analysis of projected ridership*rates from occupants of new housing and in light of Metropolitan Transportation Commission estimates that only 5.6 percent of daily trips in the Bay Area are made on public transit, there is an insufficient legal nexus between new housing construction in East County and the need for eBART. Clearly, eBART is a public facility that should be paid for by federal, state,and local tax revenues—not fees paid by new homebuyers. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons,HBA believes that the Nexus Study would not justify adoption of the suggested fee levels by the East County jurisdictions and HBA respectfully requests that the Board not adopt the proposed fee increases. In addition, rather than incur the cost and delay associated with undertaking a new nexus analysis, HBA recommends that the Board adopt HBA's suggested alternative fee increase as described in Attachment A. Yours very truly, Guy Bjerke Paul Campos Chief Operating Officer Vice President&General Counsel Attachment & Encls. ATTACHMENT A ALTERNATIVE FEE PROPSOSAL • Remove eBART, east County Express Bus, parallel arterials (except Buchanan Bypass), and the new regional arterials, i.e., projects 12 through 25, from the list of projects to be funded with fees. cw-- • 4P This brings the total project cost down from $1.69 billion to $1.16 billion. • Apply the same fee- j to-,vroect cost ratio that the Nexus Studyuses to J& generate the proposed $15,000 and $9,207 fees: Single Family: $1.69 billion 112666 = $152000 Multifamily: $1.69 billion/ 183555 = $9,207 • Applying that ratio yields a fee for single family homes of$10,295 per unit and $6319 for multifamily homes $1.16 billion / 112666 = $105295 (24% increase over existing fee) $1.16 billion/ 183555 = $6319 (24% increase over existing fee) • Transportation Consultants May 17,2005 Mr.Paul Campos,General Counsel Home Builders Association of Northern California P.O.Box 5160 San Ramon,CA 94583-5160 Subject: Brief Review of Traffic Delay Index,East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Dear Mr.Campos, You have asked for my opinion regarding the definition of existing traffic problems in Eastem Contra Costa County. Traffic impact fees may not be used to correct existing traffic deficiencies and problems. Only those traffic deficiencies caused by traffic growth from development are eligible for traffic impact fee .financing:-- The-criterion of*interest is the Delay Index as defined in the 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Traffic Service Objective Monitoring Report,December 12,2004 as published by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The Delay Index is calculated by dividing the peak hour travel time by the free flow travel time. For example,if it takes 20 minutes to travel one of the monitored routes in free flow conditions,and it takes 40 minutes for the same trip in the peak hour,the Delay Index would be 2.0. On page 14.of the Draft Report:East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program-Update,prepared for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee&Financing Authority in December 2004 by Fehr&Peers Transportation Consultants,the authors state:"In the East County area,the Delay Index is the primary TSO used to assess the performance of major road segments along regional freeways and arterials." The term TSO refers to Traffic Service Objective,one of several criteria for defining the performance and deficiencies of the county transportation system. These criteria have been adopted as the Level of Service standards in the Congestion Management Program for Contra Costa County. As you have noted,the result of applying the Delay Index to the performance of major routes is that few are defined as currently deficient. This conclusion is,of course,inconsistent with the common sense observation that there is significant existing traffic congestion in East County. The Delay Index analysis also facilitates justifying many traffic improvements in the Counrywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan on the basis of growth and development rather than corrections of existing deficiencies. That justification allows shifting a greater proportion of the improvement financing to traffic impact fees. The more common traffic system performance criterion is Level of Service(LOS),and the original legislation that established congestion management agencies and congestion management programs required the use of the 'Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service methodology,with LOS E being the lowest allowable standard. Exceptions were made that grandfathered already existing poor levels of service(i.e.,LOS F at the time of the enactment of a congestion management program). The Highway Capacity Manual bases freeway LOS upon density(cars per lane per mile). Density is closely related to speed and volume. Generally,free flow speeds on freeways in urban areas are 70 mph, and in rural areas,75 mph. LOS F occurs on freeways when the density reaches 45 vehicles per mile per lane. Speeds at this density are approximately 50 to 53 mph,and volumes per lane range from 1800 to 2200 vehicles per hour.Speeds below 50 mph will result in densities greater than 45 vehicles per mile-per 5960 Inglewood Drive,Suite 100 Pleasanton,CA-.94588-8535 PLEASANTON 925-463-0611 phone 925-463-36W fax SANTA ROSH Paul Campos Page 2 May 20,2005, lane,thus LOS F. Using the Delay Index,with an acceptable value of 2.5(i.e.,peak hour travel times of 2.5 times free flow travel times),acceptable speeds would be 28 mph with free flow speeds of 70 mph. This is LOS F. In other words,use of the Delay Index for defining current deficiencies virtually assures that few existing deficiencies will be found. Curiously,when demand volume exceeds capacity on a freeway,delay increases faster per additional vehicle than when demand is below capacity.Consider that freeway speeds from the 70 mph free flow speed to the LOS F 50 mph speed represents only a 29 percent reduction in speed(Delay Index of 1.4) when volumes increase from I vehicle per hour per lane to 2200 vehicles per hour per lane(typically,the • capacity of a freeway lane under ideal conditions). When demand increases above capacity,speeds drop dramatically because of two things.- 1)flow rates decrease below 2200 vehicles per lane per hour,and 2) the queued traffic stretches farther and farther from the point where demand first exceeded capacity—the longer the queue,the slower the average speed and the longer the travel time. Using generalized freeway LOS calculations,the maximum acceptable Delay Index of 2.5 occurs at a demand to capacity ratio of about 1.18. An 18 percent increase in traffic over capacity has resulted in an increase of travel time by 2.5 over free flow speeds. With an additional 10 percent increase in demand (demand to capacity= 1.3),the Delay Index jumps to 4.5,virtually a doubling of the Delay Index with only a 10 percent increase in traffic over the allowed Delay Index of 2.5. This is just one example of how this analysis is skewed to identifying growth as almost the sole source of transportation deficiencies in East County. The same type of analysis holds for signalized arterial routes,even though density is not the criterion for LOS. We have completed original research on rural highways,freeways and signalized arterials with respect to how average speeds(and thus travel times)are affected by demand approaching, and then exceeding capacity. T'he generalized comments here reflect that research. In s mmary,the Delay Index analysis tends to overlook existing traffic problems and deficiencies,and also leads more quickly to the identification of numerous future problems,even if traffic growth is low to moderate. Thus,correction of traffic problems is more easily justified through traffic impact fees than if the use of the Highway Capacity Manual standard methods were used,especially if LOS F were the criterion for existing deficiencies on the freeway system. If LOS were the criterion for freeway operations deficiencies,then many more freeway segments would be identified as currently deficient. Very truly yours, Gary E.Kruger,P.E. Principal Associate 01 Sam 01 Final Report East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Prepared for: ' East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Financing Authority Adopted: June 16, 2005 1001-1 655 E H R St DEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS r- om- TABLE OF CONTENTS r A INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................4 Background..........................................................................................................................................................4 ., Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................4 StudyArea................................................................................................................................................... 4 . . Study Process......................................................................................................................................................4 Organizationof the Report..................................................................................................................................6 2, FEE PROGRAM BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................7 p - The Original ECCRFFA Program.......................... 7 .............................................................................................. TheECTIA Program............................................................................................................................................9 `Y The Proposed Fee Program..............................................................................................................................10 obw 1 3. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY.....wassuenno massages ammouggam monsoons nownessessamosess ammenesom onsommus summonses @amasses wassesems wassoneen wassang @monsoon 12 `_ 4. ANALYSIS RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................15 ow 5. ECCRFFA PROGRAM FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS....someone sesseenessessame masseuse gownsman somenson assesses 23 FullFee Calculations.........................................................................................................................................23 OtherFunding Sources.....................................................................................................................................23 Effects of Different Funding Scenarios..............................................................................................................24 r A TECHNICAL APPENDIX Available under separate cover. OW r w 01 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Study Area............................................................................................................................................5 Figure2 Current Fee Projects............................................................................................................................8 Figure 3 Proposed East County Regional Fee Projects................................................................................... Figure 4 Future Scree aline Volumes and Potential Number of Lanes..........................................................one 16 p r. . LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Current ECCRFFA Impact Fees based on the Original Program....................................................9 Table2 Current ECTIA Fees.......................................................................................................................10 Table 3 2005 ECCRFFA Update—Project List...........................................................................................17 Table 4 Land Use in East County Jurisdictions..........................................................................................20 Table 5 Forecasted Growth in East County................................................................................................21 Table6 DUE Conversion Factors...............................................................................................................21 r Table 7 2005 ECCRFFA Update—Preliminary Fee Calculations..............................................................22 Table 8 2005 ECCRFFA Update—Financing Considerations....................................................................25 r •- r� e t r f w . r 1. INTRODUCTION r . . BACKGROUND The East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority(ECCRFFA or the Authority) is a regional planning . _ agency charged with obtaining the funding for regional transportation improvement projects in eastern Contra Costa County. The Authority's jurisdiction encompasses the eastern portion of the County, including unincorporated areas as well as the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg. The Authority first implemented a transportation impact fee in 1994. The fee was designed to provide a contribution from new development toward a series of regional transportation improvements, such as the State Route (SR) 4 Bypass and the widening of SR 4 through Pittsburg and Antioch. Working with the member agencies and Caltrans, the Authority has successfully utilized fee revenue to initiate the design and construction —' of the SR 4 Bypass. " The Authority conducted an update of the fee program in 2001 to help fund an expanded list of regional transportation improvements. As the program update process was proceeding, a second joint powers authority was established (the East County Transportation Improvement Authority, or ECTIA). The fee structures for both Authorities were finalized in January 2002, and fees were levied by both Authorities to support different lists of improvement projects. A combined Strategic Plan was published in February 2003 outlining the cash flow E - projections and project prioritization for the regional improvements supported by the fee programs. . More recently, there has been interest in combining the two fee Authorities into a single entity by dissolving ECTIA and updating ECCRFFA to cover a comprehensive set of needed improvements to the regional - - transportation system. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to provide the technical basis for updating the ECCRFFA fee program. The focus of . . the updated program is to support an overall regional transportation system in East County that serves the expected future demand. This report documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between the fees and the regional impact created by anticipated development in East County. STUDY AREA As shown on Figure 1, the study area includes the unincorporated portions of eastern Contra Costa County, as r — well as the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg. STUDY PROCESS This study was developed under the direction of the ECCRFFA staff. The initiative to update the fee program was 4 - discussed at public meetings before the Authority Board in the fall of 2003. Input was obtained at key points in the study process from the Technical Advisory Committee,the lead engineers from each City and the County, and the Executive Committee (i.e., the City Managers from the affected jurisdictions and the County Chief Administrative Officer). Review was also provided by the County Counsel's office. ` Frtitt & ['ruFis Iq AtlSaOR1Al IOM[OMSUt till lS W W Iowa 4-4 (AD 0 0 _ z LL YAW- county.., �Illlllllillffll//y////,,'I A ���►�`�� yluulu11tu �N,„�Nllt$`�lg1►Qtir��'HNNs11N111 rN11111uju�111IS � ° aC�ntY ```W 00 F Contm C $ a �Iy11ufN���,` IIIIIIIIIIIIN1t11``�I` Z S Z 3 I i zv Byron Hwy. 'M Puelsl lay198 Os v Immune,��. Of ` co x Sellers Ave.ra '� 1 111100111'BIT,r rentwood r G V �� cr- l`�1��lrtut BfY r l •C.w I Fairvie Ave. ,• (p\aoned E m ire c I �ypas _...0 �. Cn SR Q1. /I � r man t M"T t.rl1�r est P•v r Valle �Illlllllllllllllltllllllltllfllllllllllltllillllllllllllflllllll : Y = s - In al r _ S s f. r Pnl Q 8 2tuo1000 LM 100 1103 N� U — O = r r � _ O c E m r = �(� ► y111111111111fNllllltlji '� �” �� � � � 1 �InnnuwnennunuamunuunnnnumnuaemmnnuunnuulF CL r ylllll 11C O '�r �'```d1i1111H� �CL Jfll-(if1� AN a cu C U U 0 Ii= m CO) yl to ,+-0 o '- Z _ < -� W�- iilliHllll 111111i111111i1llfill'F Q —� J w I 11 II Z + ., •. o0-4 to W _ CieLa W _ N`- 4c � After the results of the fee study are approved by the Authority Board, the updated fee program will be presented to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg. Each jurisdiction will be asked to adopt an ordinance in order to implement the updated fee program. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT w This report contains a total of five chapters including this introductory chapter. • Chapter 11 — Fee Program Background summarizes the status of the current East County regional fee programs and provides a brief overview of the projects proposed to be included in the updated ECCRFFA program. • Chapter 111 — Analysis Methodology describes the methods used in conducting the technical analysis necessary to establish the nexus. ..A Chapter IV—Analysis Results describes the results of the nexus analysis. Chapter V— Financing Considerations discusses the effect of the impact fees on the financing of the overall p, regional transportation improvement program. r.. r a � FEfilt be ('I I R5 1MAFSOIIfi ION fONSUlIMIS r y 2. FEE PROGRAM BACKGROUND Eastern Contra Costa County is an area that has experienced considerable population and employment growth, and it continues to be one of the primary growth centers in the region. This growth in population and employment ' translates into increased demand for travel, and congestion on East County's freeways and arterial roads has resulted. The Route 4 East Corridor Major Investment Study, May 1999, provides extensive information on travel trends and expected growth in East County, and forecasts increasing congestion on the major facilities in the area without substantial improvements to the transportation system. This chapter describes the current status of the regional fees in East County. The original fee program is documented in Response to Proposed Route 4 Bypass Authority Development Fee Program, Korve Engineering, April 1993. The fee program has undergone some modifications in the intervening years, with the fee levels for each community being changed periodically to reflect increasing construction costs. In 2001, the Authority initiated a comprehensive update of the fee program to help fund additional regional r , transportation improvements. During the process of updating the program, a second joint powers authority, the East County Transportation Improvement Authority (ECTIA), was established. ECTIA encompasses the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, and the unincorporated areas of eastern Contra Costa County. The list of improvement projects and the fee structure for both ECCRFFA and ECTIA programs were finalized in January 2002. THE ORIGINAL ECCRFFA PROGRAM Figure 2 displays the location of the regional improvements encompassed by the original fee program first adopted in 1994 (as well as the projects included in ECTIA, discussed later in this chapter). The original ECCRFFA fee provided contributions toward several improvements, including: 4 • Widening of SR 4 to three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)lane in each direction from Railroad Avenue to SR 160. • Interchange improvements on SR 4 at Railroad Avenue, Loveridge Road, Hillcrest Avenue, and SR 160. M- • Construction of the SR 4 Bypass,with four lanes to Balfour Road and two lanes to Vasco Road. • New interchanges on the SR 4 Bypass at Lone Tree Way and Laurel Road, and subsequent widenings and interchanges. f.. • A contribution toward the Buchanan Road Bypass. ~ Table 1 displays the current schedule of impact fees for each land use category based on the original ECCRFFA program. r r IRMSIb1i lOy(ONSUt111M 15 P. - U) C4 z LU < 0 W Uj Q t� county OF I LL U. 0 N 100 Sol, County '00, COMM Costs U Offiffl, Ui Uri INNIM Z Um! Byron Hwy. 'P�i Peels!Pqlag < .6 sum a 1 000110 It 0 10► elf C) Sellers Ave. • Q- grantwo IN �Alalnud P31V C�- PAP Fairvie,v Ave. C -j Em ire -Oj a) o Ow Alm 2 VISION 9 6 Valley est NV Ne 1 041 W A19 UO3 I.L. LL W Co :3 4-0 0 so WON C) 4.0 W 2 a. 4%ft% co elf LU � � i �Iliiliillitii11i11itiI1t111it1tiliilit11111111iiUltiiilliitlliiliilliittilitllltll� J Lessor mom low man JOIN b NNIII 0 C) 0 .AS OKI- � 3 > in 0 CL C� ;Cir Cq M 0 C .6-a 4A C Un 0 0 .4c V c 0 E E E W -j T) Cco 0 UL 0 co Cl) 0 0 65 0 W N> F- -a m a FL 0 m m Cf) N .0" 1: 1- qq tr cm V 0 E 1-- 0) oG CC OC tY z 0 W W ix 0 > 0 (j) CO 0 W 0. z W U 4A C-4 C44 "7##F"WNVF"WNW pr* Pik 7 TABLE I CURRENT ECCRFFA IMPACT FEES BASED ON THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM ON Land Use Unit Pittsburg Antioch Oakley Brentwood Bay Point Other I County Single-Family DU $1,511 $59986 $59986 $5,986 $1,511 $59986 Multi-Family DU $19973 $42789 $4,789 $4,789 $19209 $49789 Commercial Sq. Ft. $0.08 $0.69 $0.69 $0.69 $0.69 $0.69 Office Sq. Ft. $0.12 $0.71 $0.71 $0.71 $0.71 $0.71 Industrial Sq. Ft. $0.37 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Other Unit $19511 $52986 $59986 $59986 $19511 $5,986 0o, . - 1. Unincorporated county areas other than Bay Point. Source: East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority;fees effective January 1,2005. THE ECTIA PROGRAM The ECTIA program operates concurrently with the ECCRFFA program to support an expanded list of regional improvement projects that are also shown on Figure 2. The ECTIA program includes several additional Ot- improvement projects that were not part of the original ECCRFFA program, such as: • Construction of the Laurel Road connector between the Laurel Road interchange on the SR 4 Bypass and Laurel Road in Oakley. • Construction of a connector between Vasco Road and Byron Highway north of the Byron Airport (called the SR 239/84 Connector). • Project development and right-of-way protection for the SR 239 Corridor. • Construction of operational and safety improvements on Vasco Road south of the SR 4 Bypass. • Construction of improvements to routes parallel to SR 4 in the City of Antioch and the unincorporated areas. These include the Northern Parallel Arterials (Pittsburg-Antioch Highway and 10th Street in Antioch, Willow Pass Road and the extension of Evora Road in the unincorporated areas) and the Southern Parallel Arterials (West Tregallas Road, Fitzuren Road, Delta Fair Boulevard, and Buchanan Road in Antioch). f F r vi it & I"i'.'il its 9 ti AWISSIORIAT 104 1001sut TIASIS r ` ' • Widening of Main Street/Brentwood Boulevard (SR 4) between Vintage Parkway and Lone Tree Way in r the Cities of Oakley and Brentwood Table 2 displays the current schedule of impact fees for each land use category based on the ECTIA program. TABLE 2 CURRENT ECTIA FEES , . Land Use Category Unit City Fees� Bay Point Fees� Single-Family Residential DU $2,319 $ Multi-Family Residential DU $306 $39886 Commercial Sq.Ft. $0.41 $ Office Sq.Ft. $0.39 $ Industrial Sq. Ft. $0.72 $ Other Unit $2,319 $ 1. ECTIA program fees for the Cities of Antioch,Oakley,and Brentwood. 2. ECTIA program fees for the Bay Point Area of Benefit. Source: East County Transportation Improvement Authority;fees effective January 1,2005. THE PROPOSED FEE PROGRAM The nexus analysis presented in the subsequent chapters is based on recent interest in combining the two fee Authorities into a single entity(ECCRFFA)and expanding the list of regional improvement projects included in the fee program. Figure 3 shows the regional improvement projects to be included in the proposed fee program. Projects in this updated fee program that were not included in the previous ECCRFFA or ECTIA project lists ` include: r • Construction of regional arterial projects including: widening of Balfour Road between Deer Valley Road and Brentwood City limit, widening of Walnut Boulevard between SR 4 Bypass and Brentwood City limit, widening of Wilbur Avenue in Antioch,widening of Neroly Road in Oakley, and construction of a portion of John Muir Parkway in Brentwood. • Construction of safety enhancements on Marsh Creek Road, Deer Valley Road and Byron Highway in unincorporated Contra Costa County. - - • Construction of further improvements to routes parallel to SR 4 within the City of Pittsburg. The Northern Parallel Arterials would expand to include widening of portions of Pittsburg-Antioch Highway, Willow Pass Road, and California Avenue in Pittsburg. The Southern Parallel Arterials would expand to include the construction of West Leland Road between its current terminus in Pittsburg to Willow Pass Road in Concord. The Southern Parallel Arterials would be modified to remove the widening of Delta Fair Road and include either the construction of Buchanan Road Bypass in Pittsburg or the widening of existing Buchanan Road in Antioch and Pittsburg. 4 - The nexus analysis presented in the following chapters describes how this package of regional transportation improvements was identified and calculates the regional fees that could be collected to support these projects. ~ ' F[f-IR bt 11EfRti 14 AFSOIt1t pM IUNSUi/ N15 I O 1 � M ~ W V � .' ��gltnnuruuttptt��� W uin County �� �{{t{{{ttl rlHuirllqulf111�j - _ �/ ```���� �� ►N �ur�tY ltpt„fltq, LL ``���� �nntuttlutmturnplmulullal��� Conte Costs tit aiy c an tttttttttltlir{h��� r W W LL _ J Q c y 0 Byron V LU_ Phi Puelsl laU�aB a a Sellers Ave. r ■ entwood I y ar r1j i�� ms BI;. av m $ G� NOAO �LJ ` _ ■�, U) Fairvie v "CY W ' � _`�E m i r y Q 6`1�as re s� 44-o W _ .�.. tom.. � ■ _ • r y{t{{{ntn{{nt{{{{{{n{ut{t{r{{t{t{t{{{{{truutt{{{tttnn{{ 0 �clest PIN m 0` Valley a i r 0 _ CL _ _ . a _ + V r _ O +I ewo CL NAM CL 03 • _ L 0 so MEN m M c = L L U v� IMW a Dr = OO O V) L m Of V a a,o ..� ''a40 C a0 = w= D C cc = O i C c t0 . cc0 .� L C r..r if o > > r o o 0 0 c oi�`”�``•ur{{{t111C ti v a. a�� a mum ,� .� Z _ LU ■ W ib U tL = 1111T � - C C '- •C t{uttent tt{tut{n{utonnutrF v� O c O E O ' — .- 0 3 3 CM 3 N 'D 'c a O O > C .0 cv O L O L 00 0 3 a c 0 >>0 c � � � cv o � c.�W � W s r- N M O O 3 0 •� •c C :3 3 tm O` •C� c w C C C C 40 m ( C m O C CD '0 .� L pC ca. O _ z m .3 ac'i N C o :� o _ civ m '3 -o co t° co CL W v� v� v� 0 0 3 °� - }. c o x > x _ w m v3 0 � v) c c a� >>% M a� a� .3 O > m W '� Z M Le >, a O>%x c� OoC � ��. cj) ca c �' cv > O a� o L v> > (D Z ° LL m m m cn j 0 G1 00 :3 'L a C J Q > m = O � r o a Z d' �f et 4) N N �t O ' .. .. t� /� .O Or t� .... ♦.. >' r C (,� E "v tm 4.0 cncnCO) (J) nv� tnm � v� ocazt� � m � � � zo � � aow �o �'oc O U C o H 04 0 U) 4c C Lc) DC r r. i 3. Boo- ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the methodology used to determine the nexus between the impact from new development in East County and the needed improvements. The focus of the fee program is on developing an overall regional transportation system that will accommodate the expected future traffic demand. The technical analysis for this study was completed through a series of six steps. Each is listed below, along with a brief description. The next chapter describes how these steps were applied to the East County region and the results of the fee calculations. Further detail on modeling procedures and technical calculations is provided in the Technical Appendix(available under separate cover). Step 1—Determine Capacity Needs to Accommodate Future Growth At the time this study was conducted, the East County travel demand model was the primary transportation analysis tool available for regional planning studies in East County. The East County model, developed and . maintained by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), uses land use and transportation network inputs to produce estimates of future travel demand and usage of roadway facilities. In this study, model runs were conducted to estimate future (2025) traffic demand in East County based on official regional land use forecasts provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). This procedure is consistent with that " used in the 2001 fee program update. Based on the results of these model runs, a screenline analysis was prepared to summarize expected future traffic demand in the major corridors that serve regional travel in East County, namely the east-west corridor along existing SR 4 and the north-south corridor along the future SR 4 Bypass. This screenline analysis was used to determine how many lanes of additional roadway capacity would be needed to accommodate the expected future demand. r Step 2—Identify Needed Improvement Projects and Costs In order to achieve the future transportation capacity identified in Step 1 above, a series of improvements will be needed to regional facilities. The participating jurisdictions worked together in extensive coordination meetings to define a set of transportation projects that would provide the capacity estimated to be needed through the analysis described above. Estimated costs for each of the improvements were provided by the sponsoring r , agency. Step 3—Identify Existing Deficiencies on Regional Network By definition, a fee program charges fees to new development in order to fund transportation improvements necessary to serve the demand and impacts generated by that new development. The following procedure was used to determine if any of the transportation projects identified in Step 2 were on facilities that experience current traffic problems,as defined by the region. R As required by Contra Costa County's Measure C, the transportation planning committee for East County (TRANSPLAN) regularly prepares an Action Plan for the Routes of Regional Significance in the subregion. The Action Plan defines quantifiable Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) for each major regional facility and actions necessary to achieve those objectives. CCTA periodically prepares a TSO Monitoring Report to document the current status of the TSOs and progress made toward achieving them. The most recent TSO Monitoring Report was prepared in draft form in April 2004, and finalized in December 2004. r The 2004 TSO Monitoring Report was reviewed to determine the status of the facilities identified in Step 2 as needing improvement. If the report indicated that a facility identified in Step 2 was not currently meeting its applicable TSO,then that facility was flagged as an existing deficiency. Frriri & f'r.eFis I4 t15I0111t 10M[ONSUIM iS 12 s. Step 4—Calculate Project Costs Attributable to New Development 1 For improvement projects on facilities that are not subject to an existing deficiency (defined in Step 3), the need for the improved facility is being generated by new development rather than by existing transportation problems. Therefore, all of the estimated project costs were included in the fee program. For projects on facilities that have been identified as experiencing existing deficiencies, the cost of the .. - improvement was divided between existing development and new development. The cost share attributable to new development, and therefore included in the fee program,was calculated as follows: 1. Quantify the existing deficiency by determining the current traffic volumes that exceed the available capacity. For example, if a facility with a theoretical capacity of 2,000 vehicles is currently carrying 2,200 vehicles,the existing deficiency would be calculated as 2,200—2,000=200. low 4 2. Determine the future traffic growth by subtracting the current traffic volumes from the forecasted future traffic volumes. For example, if the future demand on that facility is projected to be 2,500 vehicles, the future traffic growth would be calculated as 2,500—29200=300. 3. Define the overall benefit of the project as the correction of the existing deficiency(from number 1 above) plus the accommodation of future growth (from number 2). In our example, the overall benefit of ,. improving the road would be to correct the existing deficiency of 200 vehicles and to accommodate the future growth of 300 vehicles,for a total benefit of 500. 4. Calculate new developments share of the benefit as the result of number 2 divided by number 3. In this case,the share of the benefit to new development would be 60%, or 300 divided by 500. Therefore, 60% of the project cost would be included in the fee program. The remaining 40% of the project cost would need to be funded through other sources. Step 5—Summarize the Amount of New Development Expected in East County The ABAG-based land use forecasts for East County include both residential and non-residential uses. Non- residential uses are represented in terms of numbers of employees. Because the fees are assessed on the basis of building area,the forecasts of total employees were converted to square feet of non-residential development by applying the following factors: . • Office:275 square feet/employee • Retail: 500 square feet/employee r w • Other:400 square feet/employee These factors reflect relationships between employment and building area that can be derived from the Trip Generation publication of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and are consistent with factors used in recent General Plan analyses and other traffic studies in East County. . . All uses were then converted to dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs), to account for the fact that different development types generate traffic with different characteristics. This conversion was accomplished by applying use-specific trip rates from ITE Trip Generation, 7hEdition, estimates of pass-by trips from SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Trac Generation Rates, July 1998, and average trip lengths for each trip purpose as calculated from the East County travel demand model. For example, commercial uses tend to generate more trips per square foot than office uses, but those commercial trips tend to be shorter in length (because people tend to drive ` farther to work in an office than they do to buy groceries or rent videos);the DUE conversion process accounts for r_ " . FrfiK & I'reRs IYMSPO1f tA1IOb(ONSUtIM1S 13 1 • these differences in impact on the transportation system. All DUEs were then normalized to the single-family residential rate. Step 6—Determine Fee Amounts . The total cost to be contributed by new development(Step 4)was then divided by the total number of new DUEs (Step 5)to determine the appropriate fee amount for each land use category. IW4 OW - r- 4. ANALYSIS RESULTS , This chapter summarizes the results of the nexus analysis steps outlined in Chapter 3. Further detail on modeling procedures and technical calculations is provided in the Technical Appendix(available under separate cover). Step 1—Determine Capacity Needs to Accommodate Future Growth The results of the model screenline analysis described in Chapter 3 are shown in Figure 4. As displayed in that figure, the projected future demand in these major regional corridors is such that the freeway facilities alone will not provide sufficient capacity, even after the planned improvement projects are implemented. A combination of improved freeways and major arterials will be needed to accommodate the future traffic demand. Through a series of coordination meetings between the participating jurisdictions, these results were reviewed and the P + appropriate number of highway and arterial lanes needed to accommodate the projected demand was 4 _ determined. Step 2—Identify Needed Improvement Projects and Costs 4 • Again, the participating jurisdictions worked extensively together to define a comprehensive set of transportation projects that would provide the capacity estimated to be needed through the analysis described above. Considerations included the feasibility of improvements, the ability to accommodate expected traffic patterns, and the appropriate locations to provide improved connections between jurisdictions. The resulting projects were presented in summary form in Figure 3. Table 3 provides a more detailed list of the improvements, along with estimated costs provided by the sponsoring agencies. .. . The proposed project list includes improvements to the mainline highway system (widening of SR 4 and construction of the SR 4 Bypass), to important regional arterials (such as Pittsburg-Antioch Highway, Main Street in Oakley, and Vasco Road), and to the regional transit system. Many of these projects are already included in either the existing ECCRFFA or ECTIA fee programs, as shown by an asterisk next to the project number in Table - 3. The new projects were included in this list as a result of the needs identified in Step 1. The regional benefit of the roadway improvement projects is linked to the capacity needs identified through the screenline analysis described in Step 1. For transit projects, benefits derive from improved connectivity to regional destinations and additional transportation choices for East County travelers. For example, the eBART PW project provides rail stations in each of the cities in East County and connects to the Bay Area's primary commuter rail system at the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station. For further information on the eBART commuter rail project, including potential station locations and ridership estimates, please see the SR 4 East Corridor Transit Study, December 2002. Step 3—Identify Existing Deficiencies on Regional Network As described in Chapter 3, the 2004 TSO Monitoring Report was reviewed to determine the status of the facilities ` identified in Step 2 as needing improvement. In the East County area, the Delay Index is the primary TSO used to assess the performance of major road segments along regional freeways and arterials. The Delay Index is a measure of traffic congestion, and is r defined as the ratio of the time required to travel between two points during the peak hour when roads are most congested, to the time required during uncongested off-peak times. On rural routes, a measure of peak hour Level of Service (LOS) for rural highways is used in addition to the Delay Index TSO. In conjunction with the • • participating jurisdictions, it was determined that the Delay Index and Rural Highway LOS TSOs were the appropriate measures of current transportation system performance to use in evaluating the presence of existing �- - deficiencies in East County. IgAM50041 I SOF(ONSU(I15 15 1w qq W W W Z z m ° J 0 0LL - > 0 U. * W W ` Z W 6 � U1nn1Y .1 „ . ��`���t • �N{u11u{iullYliU/�j�t � N N100110 cost's county �t ut t nt tttt�t� t ♦ tnr�iumffuf�tN�� con" ttit� CO) s� i W i z • i« I W i * i i C 0 iLL tai o P?3 Pue1sl laulaByron Hwy. 8 - i caI Sellers Ave. :. i 'Pc U orad Aft ze s O A Z3 03 •i 'isms s a) Fai ie Av #s Aa r Rl o .. .y � En ire ._j er sv�, SR ,ti i _i J • eS t Pv ,• if r lIIIIINIIIIlIIIIIIIIiI R MplIIIIIINIl1111i1 co w i qj +� W r V w a. +r r w AA18 f a ♦ � 1 0 : w t N'000%,, r 1 Arlt "t ii awe � f w .fes emir 4 w C �s ... w +► 10w 1 4 �►� © IIIIIIIIiIiI{Ilfl�� � • � �. �'"` � to ��* (�. ,� 7 � 111ii1 iliiilillllllNlllillllllllll 11111E � C f 4W ♦�♦♦ w O * v * U W Pik- + ly e # M 0 tr eF n ;♦ # c c s 0 Fm 0 z i ea - w E _ J win W R V C � s U. i Z m _ ~ co N WCLpr~ o �n W w - � cv cg QD J z _4 .+ -- 004&-- TABLE 3 2005 ECCRFFA FEE UPDATE- PROJECT LIST Total Cost Potential Fee Number Project Description Jurisdiction (million) Contribution (million) 1* SR 4 Freeway widening Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road, CCTA $ 98.0 $ 91.1 widen to 8 lanes Loveridge Road Interchange CCTA $ 75.0 $ 69.8 Loveridge Road to Bypass(8 lanes to CCTA $ 240.0 $ 223.2 Hillcrest,6 lanes to Bypass) Hillcrest Avenue Interchange expansion Antioch, $ 10.0 $ 9.3 CCTA 2* SR 4 Bypass Phase 1:6 lanes to Laurel Road, Bypass Authority $ 103.6 $ 103.6 Segment 1 interchanges at Laurel Road and Lone g Tree Way � s Phase 2:SR 160 Interchange Bypass Authority $ 25.0 $ 25.0 ,�__,. Laurel interchange,phase 2 Bypass Authority $ 1.0 $ 1.0 3* SR 4 Bypass Phase 1:2 lanes Bypass Authority $ 20.0 $ 20.0 Segment 2 Phase 2:4 lanes,Sand Creek Road to Bypass Authority $ 16.0 $ 16.0 Balfour Road �. Widen to 6 lanes,Laurel Road to Sand Bypass Authority $ 38.0 $ 38.0 Creek Road a Sand Creek Road Interchange Bypass Authority $ 30.0 $ 30.0 4* SR 4 Bypass Balfour to Marsh Creek Road(2 lanes) Bypass Authority $ 44.0 $ 44.0 Segment 3 plus Marsh Creek east-west connector Vasco Road Extension,Marsh Creek Bypass Authority $ 10.0 $ 10.0 Road to Vasco Road,2 lanes Segment 3,widen to 4 lanes Bypass Authority $ 38.0 $ 38.0 Balfour Road Interchange Bypass Authority $ 36.0 $ 36.0 Marsh Creek Road interchange Bypass Authority $ 24.0 $ 24.0 Vasco Road Interchange Bypass Authority $ 20.0 $ 20.0 5* Laurel Road Extension SR4 Bypass to Empire Avenue,6 lanes Antioch, $ 24.2 $ 24.2 Oakley 6* SR 239/84 Connector Armstrong Road extension,2 lanes County $ 6.1 $ 6.1 (formerly Byron Airport Road) 7* SR 239 Corridor study and preliminary design(no County $ 10.0 $ 10.0 construction costs) 8* SR 4(Main Street or Vintage Parkway in Oakley to Marsh Oakley, $ 31.0 $ 31.0 Brentwood Boulevard) Creek bridge in Brentwood and Chestnut Brentwood widening Street to Balfour Road in south Brentwood,4 lanes 9 Balfour Road widening Deer Valley Road to Brentwood city County $ 6.8 $ 6.8 limits,widen to 4 lanes 10 Marsh Creek Road and Marsh Creek:Walnut Blvd to Clayton County $ 14.2 $ 4.73 Deer Valley Road safety Deer Valley:Balfour to Marsh Creek Rd enhancements y 11* Route 84/Vasco Road Widen to 4 lanes to County line County $ 209.0 $ 209.0 • Fit-iii & Prcrits 1RAMS1rOR1At1U11 tONSUtTAN1S 17 o lip- TABLE 3 2005 ECCRFFA FEE UPDATE- PROJECT LIST Total Cost Potential Fee Number Project Description Jurisdiction (million) Contribution (million) Northern Parallel Arterials 12* Pittsburg-Antioch Highway Somersville Road to Loveridge Road, Antioch,Pittsburg $ 11.0 $ 11.0 widen to 4 lanes -- 13* Ninth and Tenth Streets A Street to L Street,couplet Antioch $ 4.5 $ 4.5 improvements 14 California Avenue Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road, Pittsburg $ 16.7 $ 16.7 widen to 4 lanes 15 Willow Pass Road Range Road to Loftus Road and Bailey Pittsburg,County $ 6.9 $ 6.9 Road to city limits,widen to 4 lanes Southern Parallel Arterials 16* Buchanan Bypass New 4-lane arterial(perhaps 2 lanes, Pittsburg $ 40.0 $ 27.2' depending on studies) or Buchanan Road Railroad Avenue to Somersville Road, Pittsburg,Antioch widen to 4 lanes 17* West Tregallas Road/ Lone Tree Way to Buchanan Road, Antioch $ 25.0 $ 25.0 Fitzuren Road widen to 4 lanes 18 West Leland Road Extend from San Marco to Avila Road Pittsburg $ 11.6 $ 11.6 (Concord) or Evora Road Willow Pass Road(BP)to Willow Pass County Road(Concord),widen to 4 lanes New Regional Arterial Projects 19 Wilbur Avenue Minaker Dr.to SR 160,widen to 4 lanes Antioch,County $ 20.0 $ 20.0 20 Neroly Road Oakley Rd to Laurel Rd,widen to 4 lanes Oakley $ 5.0 $ 5.0 21 Deer Valley Road Antioch city limits to Balfour Road,widen County $ 9.0 $ 9.0 to 4 lanes 22 Walnut Boulevard Brentwood city limits to SR 4 Bypass, County $ 12.0 $ 12.0 widen to 4 lanes 23 John Muir Parkway New roadway between Balfour Road and Brentwood $ 11.4 $ 2.6 2 Fairview Avenue 24 Byron Highway Delta Road to SR 4,safety County $ 3.6 $ 1.23 enhancements Regional Transit Projects 25 East County Express Bus Tri-Delta Transit $ 8.3 $ 2.7 3 26* Commuter Rail(eBART) CCTA $ 377.0 $ 124.4 3 Total Cost $1,691.9 $1,1370.7 Collected Fees ($114.1) . Total Fee Contribution $1.9256.6 Projects currently in either ECCRFFA or ECTIA program. 1. For projects addressing existing deficiencies,only the cost share attributed to traffic generated by future developments is included in the fee program. 2. The remainder of the cost is provided by developers fronting John Muir Parkway. . 3. For transit projects and safety enhancement projects, only the cost share proportional to new development's share of total future population (33%)is included in the fee program. 4. ECCRFFA and ECTIA fees collected to date. ,. F r,t..l R & I'f I_R S 1RAt1StOR1AttQN[4NSULTANTS 18 The 2004 TSO Monitoring Report indicates that two of the facilities identified for improvement in the updated fee ` program are currently not meeting the relevant TSO. These facilities are: State Route 4 between Loveridge Road and Hillcrest Avenue, which exceeds the Delay Index TSO during the AM peak hour; and Buchanan Road between Railroad Avenue and Somersville Road, which exceeds the Delay Index TSO during both the AM and .. PM peak hours. These two facilities are therefore considered to have existing deficiencies, and the costs for improving them are treated differently in the proposed fee program, as described in more detail below. The _ remainder of the regional facilities highlighted for improvement in this program are not subject to exceedances of the established TSOs. Step 4—Calculate Project Costs Attributable to New Development pill, As described in Chapter 3, if a facility is not subject to an existing deficiency, then the need for improvement is Y being generated by new development rather than by existing transportation problems and so all of the estimated improvement costs are included in the fee program. For those projects that improve currently deficient facilities (State Route 4 and Buchanan Road, as described in Step 3 above), the proportion of the cost attributable to new . . development was calculated as detailed in Chapter 3. Table 3 shows the resulting amounts that would be included in the fee program in the column titled Potential Fee Contribution. For SR 4(project#1),the fee program contains about 93% of the total cost. For Buchanan Road (project #16), the fee program contains 68% of the project cost. i The cost shares for a few other unique projects were addressed differently. r • For the construction of John Muir Parkway (project #23), the developments fronting that road are conditioned to provide a portion of the improvement, so only the remaining cost is included in the fee program. • The projects to construct safety enhancements along Marsh Creek and Deer Valley Roads (project#10) .- and along Byron Highway (project#24) do not add lanes of capacity to the subject roads, but do correct roadway safety issues that will be exacerbated by the growth in traffic due to new development. Both existing and new traffic will benefit from improvements that address safety issues. Therefore, the fee program covers a percentage of the cost equal to the expected growth in overall development. In this case, new growth is expected to constitute 33%of the total future development in East County, so 33%of the cost of this project is included in the fee program. w • Regional transit projects (Express Bus in project#24 and eBART in project#25) are addressed similarly to the Marsh Creek/Deer Valley Roads safety enhancement project described above. Again, because new growth is expected to constitute 33% of the total future development in East County, 33%of the cost . . of these projects is included in the fee program. As described in Step 2, many East County residents will benefit in some way from these regional transit improvements, no matter where they live and whether ► - they are a new resident or an existing one. Step 5—Summarize the Amount of New Development Expected in East County The future land use assumptions used in these model runs were taken from the latest available zonal land use data for East County, based on ABAG Projections 2000. The ABAG forecasts are the official regional land use projections developed for use in regional planning applications. Table 4 shows the land use totals (households and employment)for the jurisdictions in East County for both current year and 2025. In order to develop a fee, it is important to calculate the amount of growth expected in each land use category to determine the numbers of new development units that will be contributing to the fee program. Table 5 shows the F; forecasted growth by jurisdiction between the current year and 2025, as calculated from Table 4. In addition, all uses must be converted to dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs), to account for the fact that different development types generate traffic with different characteristics. Table 6 contains the conversion factors used to calculate DUEs in this study. The results of the DUE conversion are presented in the right-hand columns of Table 5. ii Fufirt & t'ErRs TRANSPORTATION 1004SUl1A1115 19 0 A I low TABLE 4 b. LAND USE IN EAST COUNTY JURISDICTIONS #W. 4 Year 2005 Year 2025 Jurisdiction House- House-Employment Employment holds holds Service Retail Other Service Retail Other Antioch 33,193 79638 59803 89693 429127 99928 8,940 169278 Brentwood 129443 39426 29487 39342 209487 69986 6,218 60476 Oakley 89753 19550 892 31167 129597 59083 29263 99735 Pittsburg 179488 59170 39875 69492 21,834 99148 67961 12,219 Unincorporated East County 159137 19599 1047 41030 199262 29221 19894 59832 Total East County 87,014 19,383 149104 25,724 1169307 339366 26,276 509540 Sources:Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG),Fehr&Peers. F r t-i K & E.is its 1hsrnRtrtoK rnucrtxts 20 s p1w,<L TABLE 5 FORECASTED GROWTH IN EAST COUNTY ' Estimated Growth(2005-2025) Estimated Growth in DUES(2005-2025) Jurisdiction House- Employment , Non-Residential Residential Sum holds Service Retail Other Service' Retail3 Other4 Antioch 89934 2,290 39137 79585 7Y796 673 19517 29036 129021 Brentwood 89044 31560 39731 39134 72019 19046 19804 841 10,710 Oakley 39844 3,1533 1371 69568 39354 11038 663 19763 61818 Pittsburg 42346 39978 39086 59727 39792 19169 19492 12537 79990 Unincorporated East County 49125 622 847 19802 39599 183 409 484 49675 Total East County 299293 139983 129172 249816 25,560 49110 50885 6,660 429215 Notes: 01- Relationship between land use categories in the model and the fee program were assumed to be: Retail=Commercial; Service=Office; and Other=Industrial. 1. Household DUE conversion based on 67%single family and 33%multi family. The multi family units were multiplied by a DUE of 0.61. 2. Service DUE conversion based on 275 square feet per employee and a DUE per thousand square feet of 1.07. DUE=EMP*0.275*1.07 3. Retail DUE conversion based on 500 square feet per employee and a DUE per thousand square feet of 0.97. DUE=EMP*0.500*0.97 • 4. Other DUE conversion based on 400 square feet per employee and a DUE per thousand square feet of 0.67. DUE=EMP*0.400*0.67 Source:Fehr&Peers,2005. TABLE 6 DUE CONVERSION FACTORS } Land Use Unit Peak Hour %New Average VMT DUE Category Trip Rate' Tripsz 3 Trip Length per Unit per Unit Single Family DU 1.01 100 9.6 9.7 1.00 Multi Family DU 0.62 100 9.6 6.0 0.61 . Commercial 1,000 SF 3.75 50 5.0 9.4 0.97 Office 1,000 SF 1.49 65 10.7 10.4 1.07 Industrial 1,000 SF 0.76 80 10.7 6.5 0.67 1. PM peak hour rates from ITE Trip Generation,7th Edition. 2. SAN DAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Trac Generation Rates,July 1998. . 3. Average trip lengths for the East County area from the model,in miles. Source:Fehr&Peers,2005. owl A F & f' E R S TRANS1'R1At 1p11[4MSueTAMiS 21 Step 6—Determine Fee Amounts Table 7 displays the calculated impact fees. The fees have been calculated on a uniform basis for all the ECCRFFA member agencies. These fees have been calculated based on the complete list of projects included in the proposed ECCRFFA program as shown in Table 3. The total fee contribution toward all the projects shown in Table 3 ($1,256.6 million)was divided by the total number of Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUES) expected in East County as shown in Table 5 (42,215 DUEs), to calculate the resulting fee per DUE (approximately $29,765). These figures do not reflect any reductions that the agency may choose to implement (for example, the fee authorities have historically reduced the fees for non-residential uses in order to promote economic development and job creation in East County). This calculation also does not consider the effects of other funding sources that may be available to some of the projects. Existing development in East County has been contributing to transportation improvements for many years, through payment of earlier regional fees, transportation-related sales taxes, gasoline taxes and other programs, and consideration of those other sources of transportation funds is addressed in the next chapter. TABLE 7 2005 ECCRFFA UPDATE—PRELIMINARY FEE CALCULATIONS Land Use Category Current Regional Fees' Updated Regional Fees Single-Family Residential(dwelling unit) $89306.00 $299765.23 Multi-Family Residential(dwelling unit) $5,095.00 $182156.79 Commercial(square foot) $ 1.10 $ 28.87 Office(square foot) $ 1.10 $ 31.85 Industrial(square foot) $ 1.10 $ 19.94 ONO_3 Other $8,306.00 $290765.23 1. Combined fees for ECCRFFA and ECTIA,as of January 1,2005. Source: Fehr&Peers,2005. low Fri-i it & P F 1:R S 22 5. ECCRFFA PROGRAM FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS This chapter describes the impact of various financing considerations on the proposed ECCRFFA program. Table 8 presents a summary of the funding scenarios discussed in this chapter. FULL FEE CALCULATIONS As described in Chapter 4, the basic nexus calculations of the total fees that could be charged to new development result in a potentially substantial fee increase as compared to the current program. As shown in the Full Fee column in Table 8, an updated program that charged fees equivalent to those presented in Table 7 would generate an estimated $1,256.6 million. In addition, Authority staff report that approximately $114.1 million has been collected to date through both the ECCRFFA and ECTIA programs to support the listed improvement projects. Thus,the Full Fee scenario shows$1,370.7 million generated by regional fees, as compared to the total project cost of$1,691.9 million. This scenario is provided for informational purposes, to illustrate the situation if regional fees were the only sources of funding for the transportation projects listed. However, other sources of funding outside of the regional fee program are available to support some of the improvements on the project list, and these funds are described in detail in the following section. OTHER FUNDING SOURCES As with the original fee program, the fee revenue from the updated program will not pay the total cost of all regional improvements. Other funding will be generated, some of which has already been identified. The JW A following describes the estimated revenue from known sources that could be applied to improvements in the program. The funding information presented here has been provided primarily by CCTA. Measure C—Approved by Contra Costa County voters in 1988, it imposed a one-half percent sales tax to help pay for transportation improvements over a 20-year period. According to CCTA staff, a total of$82.1 million of Measure C funds is currently programmed for the widening of SR 4 (from Railroad Avenue east). Therefore, this $82.1 million was assumed to be allocated to the widening project included in the fee program. With the recent reauthorization of the sales tax (passed as Measure J in November 2004), additional funds estimated at $393.5 million will be available for East County regional improvement projects such as eBART, SR 4 widening between Somersville Road and the SR 4 Bypass, and other improvements. These funds were assumed to be available to the program for purposes of this study. Regional Measure 2 — Approved by Bay Area voters in March 2004, it imposes a $1 surcharge on seven Bay Area toll bridges to help pay for transportation improvement projects in major travel corridors throughout the Bay Area. Currently, about $96 million of Regional Measure 2 funds have been allocated to eBART. These funds P, 'A were assumed to be available to the program for purposes of this study. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds — Generated by gas tax revenues, these funds are allocated by the State of California to Contra Costa County every two years for programming transportation improvement projects. According to CCTA staff, about $169.8 million in STIP funds are currently allocated to ECCRFFA improvement projects, including $165.8 million for various improvements on SR 4, and $4 million for Vasco Road improvements. These funds were assumed to be available to the program for purposes of this study. Other Funds—This category consists of various funding for specific improvement projects. According to CCTA staff, this category includes $25 million in state Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds and $8 million in federal funds for SR 4 widening between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road, as well as $7.2 million in state Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) funds for Wilbur Avenue widening. These funds were assumed to be available to the program for purposes of this study. f F r ii it & I"U F RS IANSSIORIAIMS tONSULTU AS 2 FI3 oil k- Uncertain Funds—This category consists of various uncertain funding for specific improvement projects. These funds have not been allocated and may not be approved. According to CCTA staff, this category includes: $32 million BART reimbursement, $52 million Regional Measure 1, and$5 million TCRP for eBART; $14 million TCRP for SR 4 widening between Somersville Road and SR 4 Bypass; and $11 million TCRP for Vasco Road improvements. Because of the uncertainty associated with these funds, they were not included in the revenue PW "k projections for this study; should any of these funds become available, they could be used to help offset any program deficits. EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT FUNDING SCENARIOS The availability of funds from other federal, state and local sources would allow for reductions in the fees charged through the updated ECCRFFA program. In addition, the ECCRFFA Board may elect to reduce the fee levels as a policy decision. Several alternatives for reducing the fee a'mounts have been examined, with Table 8 comparing fees and revenues generated under the following funding alternatives: • Alternative A: Residential fees would remain at the levels presented in the Full Fee scenario, while fees for non-residential development would be reduced to $1.72 per square foot for office and industrial uses, and to$2.00 per square foot for commercial uses. Accounting for other funding sources, the fee program would break even in this scenario. • Alternative B: Fees for non-residential development would be reduced to the current level of$1.10 per square foot for office and industrial uses, and to $1.25 per square foot for commercial uses. Residential fees would be reduced to$15,000 for single-family and $9,208 for multi-family developments. Accounting for other funding sources, the fee program under this alternative would experience an estimated deficit of $389.7 million. • Alternative C: Fees would be maintained at their current (January 2005) levels. Accounting for other funding sources, the fee program under this alternative would experience an estimated deficit of$561.9 million. At its June 16, 2005 meeting, the ECCRFFA Board considered the funding scenarios presented here and approved the fees described in Alternative B. F 11-1 R & P u I:its 24 i ; x pro",_4 f� TABLE 8 2005 ECCRFFA UPDATE-FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS .. . Full Fee* Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Proposed Fee P_31 n Single-Family Residential(Per DU) $ 29,765.23 $ 299765.23 $ 159000.00 $ 89306.00 Multi-Family Residential(per DU) $ 189156.79 $ 189156.79 $ 97207.92 $ 59095.00 Commercial(per SF) $ 28.87 $ 2.00 $ 1.25 $ 1.10 Office per SF $ 31.85 $ 1.72 $ 1.10 $ 1.10 Industrial per SF $ 19.94 $ 1.72 $ 1.10 $ 1.10 Program Funding Summary Funding Sources ($million) ($million) ($million) ($million) Fee Revenue Generated from Updated ECCRFFA Program 1 $ 17256.6 $ 796.2 $ 406.5 $ 234.3 ECCRFFA&ECTIA Funds Collected To Date $ 114.1 $ 114.1 $ 114.1 $ 114.1 Current Measure C Funds 2 $ 82.1 $ 82.1 $ 82.1 Measure J Funds 3 $ 393.5 $ 393.5 $ 393.5 Estimated RM 2 Funds a $ 96.0 $ 96.0 $ 96.0 STIP Funds 5 $ 169.8 $ 169.8 $ 169.8 Other Funds 6 $ 40.2 $ 40.2 $ 40.2 Uncertain Funds' $ - $ - $ - Total Program Funding $ 1,370.7 $ 11691.9 $ 11302.2 $ 1y130.0 Total Program Cost $ 11691.9 $ 1,691.9 $ 1,691.9 $ 1691.9 Total Surplus/Deficit $ 320.2 $ 0.0 $ 389.7) $ (561.9 1. Weighted average of the updated fees based on the amount of new development projected in each jurisdiction,and applied to the full list of projects. 2. Current Measure C Funds include$33.1 M for SR 4 widening between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road,$42M for SR 4 widening between Loveridge Road and Somersville Road,and$7M for SR 4 widening between Somersville Road and SR 4 Bypass. 3. Measure J funds include$150M for eBART,$125M for SR 4 improvements between Somersville Road and SR 4 Bypass,$94.5M for various East County corridor improvements(including SR 4 Bypass,Vasco Road,Byron Highway,and the non-freeway SR 4),$6M for Express Bus Service,and$18M for other major street traffic flow,safety,and capacity projects. 4. RM 2 funds include$96M for eBART. 5. STIP funds include$30.9M for SR 4 widening between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road,$30M for SR 4 widening between Loveridge Road and Somersville Road,$102.6M for SR 4 widening between Somersville Road and SR 4 Bypass,$2.3M for Hillcrest Avenue Interchange improvements,and$4M for Vasco Road improvements. 6. Other Funds include$25M TCRP and$8M in federal funds for SR 4 widening between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road,and $7.2M HBRRP funds for Wilbur Avenue widening. 7. Uncertain Funds total$114 million,and include:$32M BART payback,$52M RM 1,and$5M TCRP for eBART;$14M TCRP for SR 4 widening between Somersville Road and SR 4 Bypass,and$11 M TCRP for Vasco Road improvements. Because of the uncertainty a associated with these funding sources,these amounts were not included in the calculation of program revenues. As described in the text,the Full Fee scenario illustrates the situation where regional fees are the only sources of funding for the listed projects. Sources: CCTA,SR 4 Bypass Authority,Fehr&Peers,2005. F r.i-i it be I'r.r it s Tf1AMSOR1A110N t01YSUi1AM1S 25 Ow.06 _. Technical Appendix to the . . Final Report East Contra Costa -- Regional Fee Program Update . . Prepared for: East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Financing Authority Adopted: June 16, 2005 1001-1655 ' E H R Sc DEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS r TECHNICAL APPENDIX to the FINAL REPORT EAST CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL FEE PROGRAM UPDATE This Technical Appendix contains background information and detailed calculations that were used to complete the nexus determination documented in the report. The following describes the Y information presented in this Appendix. COMPARISON OF LAND USE PROJECTIONS The Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG) is the regional agency that produces land use forecasts for planning purposes. Because the ABAG forecasts are the official projections used throughout the region, those are the forecasts used in this analysis. However, through the study review process, some questions were raised about the differences between the ABAG forecasts ` and the projections completed by each of the East County cities as part of their General Plans. Table A presents a comparison of the ABAG 2025 forecasts with the buildout projections from the General Plans. As shown, the two sets of forecasts are almost identical for the City of Pittsburg (including the neighboring unincorporated area of Bay Point). For the three other cities, their .-- General Plans envision additional development beyond what is contained in the ABAG forecasts. This data is presented for informational purposes only;the ABAG forecasts continue to be used in r V this nexus study. TRIP GENERATION EFFECTS OF NEW GROWTH The East County is projected to continue experiencing considerable population and employment growth into the future. This new development will generate substantial amounts of traffic, thus ` requiring improvements to the regional transportation system. Table B presents an estimate of the trip generation effects of the projected growth. As shown, the amount of travel generated in y the East County area is expected to grow by about 50%over the next twenty years. JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC FEE CALCULATIONS r This portion of the Appendix presents background information on the fee calculations for each ` jurisdiction in the ECCRFFA area. While the nexus study presents a uniform fee calculated across the East County region, more detailed analysis was conducted to assess the contribution of each jurisdiction to the transportation improvement projects listed in the program. The East County model was applied to determine, for each of the roadway facilities to be r - improved in this program, how much of the traffic on the roadway would come from new development in each of the member jurisdictions. A full-scale model plot is available in Authority offices that highlights the model network links used to represent each project, and each link is posted with the appropriate project number (as referenced in Table 3 of the draft report). For w. interchange projects, the links that represent each ramp were combined to reflect the overall usage of the interchange. For each link, the AM peak hour traffic volumes in both directions that come from new development were reported. In addition, a special model technique called multi- '`-' class assignment was used to separately track the traffic contributions from new development in r+ each city on each roadway. Table C presents the results of this modeling analysis. These data were then used to calculate the percentage of traffic on each improvement that was attributable to new development in each jurisdiction. Table D presents the results of these poll_, calculations. ._ The percentages from Table D were then multiplied by the cost of each project to be included in the fee program. The result of this calculation is the amount of money that each jurisdiction would contribute in order to support the transportation improvements, in proportion to the amount of traffic generated on those facilities by new development in the jurisdiction. Table E presents --- these results. - Finally, Table F presents the results of the above calculations in terms of fees. The total cost for each jurisdiction from Table E is divided by the expected number of new DUEs in that jurisdiction to calculate the fee per new DUE. The overall average fee of approximately$29,800 per DUE is the same as that presented in Table 7 of the report. r- r•A s-+ P-6 %b. o �w r TABLE A COMPARISON OF LAND USE PROJECTIONS ABAG 2025 General Plan Buildout Difference(GP-ABAG) Jurisdiction Households Jobs Households Jobs Households Jobs ,.. Pittsburg* 26,000 339000 26,000 34,000 0 11000 Brentwood 20,000 20,000 25,000 29,000 51000 91000 Antioch 42,000 35,000 45,000 70,000 31000 35,000 I I Oakley 13,000 17,000 21,000 34,000 81000 17,000 Total 1019000 105,000 1179000 1679000 169000 629000 *Includes unincorporated Bay Point,for comparability with the Pittsburg General Plan planning area. Source: ABAG,City General Plans. e� TABLE B TRIP GENERATION EFFECTS OF EAST COUNTY GROWTH 2005 2025 Growth Category Amount Peak Hour Amount Peak Hour Amount Peak Hour Trips Trips Trips Single-Family Units 58,300 58,900 77,900 78,700 191600 19,800 Multi-Family Units 28,700 17,800 38,400 23,800 91700 61000 Commercial 51300 20,000 91200 341400 31900 141400 (000 square feet) Office 71000 109500 13,100 19,600 61100 91100 (000 square feet) Industrial 10,300 71800 20,200 151400 91900 71500 (000 square feet) Total 1159000 1719900 56,800 Source: Fehr&Peers,2005. O 0 .. O 0 NONE ti0~0 WL00 0 gv--,qs" �nO 0tn 0M O0N 00 OD co 00 N c0 0 0�D 0 r-r- O O 1� 1�pppp IV IN 0 M"0� �0 I��t j �� ��fi���V�tj�,0v�t- .0��1� LO IN 0 1` �- NN MN SMT- IN V-- NV-N�NV- C C O IqOOM �0'� �'� w MO OI�N "It C)qq CD W M w W M 0 0 NCO CV NN�O��eTP.- v IN ���I�81W�jCOMCD�jOpe-O�N�N NI�N�NI�N��r-O NO � ISA W O 18ow OOM O O M O M gvN00 1�0000M00 Iry T-N�N�N�N MNO)0t0 L�MLOLO MLO I` N C ONS- `�N0M Ir.O 0r 0�...0 M M �f di L m � 0MT-LOM -- OOM �0 �00 �0M0000O�NO-VN OcoNOI�OI0r--0 N N� 'V'V N to N N M N N O ILO t 0C I`e LO ��`4 LO 0)V� trn � 92N N�f12N 82N OOe-00MO �M00�M00- MOn 0 0 N � OO Co � O M.- �000M C Q 0 L 00o11*- ISMO�p an 0 O N N�N M M SO tDN��O� M0)M000 W '� � W 000M� �O`�Tr-stn V'�NOOO�ti N D N qT N N N CL W C C p°' mmmmm L ZcmnZcnZcn mm mm O - Z(n Zcn a CL Y Y Y,C as a CL m mmmmmm cEo c0mmmmmmmm 3 E m 2 �w Zm m m m m aL aaa ZcnUUZcnUU a a OL w aaa aaa ` co F-F.,F-�F-F- c E E E L o -6-d a °-c �� E m m m m m m m ° m m m° o o o o vim, cv cv Z CO -- E E E E E p L. p, �«- 0 L L a a a L m m L. L LM t0 C C C C C C ._� > > I �- a L m m p ` p tq O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 c C O t0 DO c0 O p W 0 C C Q A QQ C� 0 C=_ I ' C ' i'p'cnco (a 0 JJJJJJ O 8 O O O�mm22mm22 p p (� L• 3-p'p O 0 O 0 >•> p C 8 �«-y.- tI) O�' O v-.��--�.-r--w-m m m m m m�•-�«.-,•-�«-4- -y-�-• IT T O.12 a T. m m m L � O- O O � ���0p 0 0 0 0 0 0 co-co co Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 6 p�' p C' .0 a 9O OL O www m mW m ♦=••t.. CLm�cn0 r- r- «� - - -t.. "# ��.•�� O O O O w r __ _ _ E E w > > m m > > > > >U U U U UU > > > > > > >m m m m m Co �� � t° mUUUUUoo oom m000 00------ b� 000000ommmZ �n �n !n Z 0 U) 0 0 w m m , ��-----V1cn000UUU m cn �'v'v�'v'v v, w v, v, w rn rn ooSommmmmm N�v)o00 N�N� yNCcWwwww a a a a a aNUUUUUU Q }, tY tY tY+,«, > > > > >> N 0 0 N U v) v� v� rn w w Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 to m to w w w w------ c0 c0�, c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 m m m m m m c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0'p•p ma� v�QQQQQQ a cDN N-v a a a mmmmmm 0- a a a a m m m m N N V7 N a m m m m m m m m w •c•c•c•c•c m m m m mm mmm >+ mmmmmmUUUUUU > > > > > CL v � L-� vVcncnmm m VV q.V V V va� D� �•vv�v�v�140- 0 0 0 40- > _—_--_— : cccccc •� 40-�-.� 0 O O O 0��=— XwMMMm co c0 c0 co c0 c0 c0 mwcrwWfrEr� c0 co c0 c0 M c0 �-• Q (n(nJJJJJ(ncnI2IIZI cntnwcnZZJ tncncncncncncncncncncncn(l�cncncncncn(/�tnmmmmmm � C O O 4)0)M NOtn�-r-OI��O�00� ��OOMNtn N0N0N000tivomw MONOMON00000OW C'��M M000�`�tNO��--W0N 0MMM0 to r��r-�� O�f`�O 0r4%_W n0r._.W0NNVNQI� S O r��V-��e-NNM�O�-NM 000000 0Lo0000Mv-tC)tQ0 tQ000000000T--Lo L0 MZ MMc")MMMMMMMO�'OMM OOOtn�t�ftn OtntntntntnMtn00tntn 00000000Mtn0tn00 CL > 8 low C d OtnOI� 1�0 pNO �-�-N 0 0 0p�ON�cpptn00p QMr-pp MOtn N�OMNN M00 MMtn ����j�-O�MODI�I�r-O�v�OD0000�00001�N�000N o r. O NNMONNMM tntn0)00Lov- 0U')0000U')0M000 0000tQ00000 0T-ln o MCMMc'MMMMMMMvMMCMM InLOVv0LOtn 00O0LOto00M000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 m C N - 0 Dm m O ca c E O t0 m C C N qT L 3 C > m N N v7 a N x m c cm C � x L rn t L — c � cv �. W w H c NC 13-0- C*4 -C*4t1-C*40 c0 Y cn oo •C•- �0 C C O C ` m C C C C m C C C m m t m J m m m L m L m L m+-� m V m O C� m Df x 'Do-0L EoEc cE � E � EOE� EtE> m0 Em J m � L O cm- O� p�� 0).0- MID O ch m 0 E u 0 L +- m m0 m0 m m— m m m v, 0 Cl) cn 0 cn m Cl)m Cl)m cA o m m cr cn> m m m m m m CID p vs p vi Cl) p v�3:x Qmm m Q c.� c. am am am � c% .� c.10- &a M U" p Ii C c m m m m m m F-m H-m!-m U m m t m m 3 L O > L a �' C C C C `F- '00 m O - c0 O W_ O O w a0 � 0 M X c0 IY c0 co m cn J J i cn a cn a. J cn J cn J co J cn cn co m co 2 co m cn m c0 c0 O a O O D U•0"0 V'D'O'O w c0 1.0.0..0.0'a c0 w O O 0 0'0'0 V-0-0'p c0 c0.0.0 0 0 0 U 10 10 10 v 10 10 r• �- �- �- N N N N N N N M cM M M 0)M c'M M c'M M M M IV qq qT V V of qt'q qq qT qT 11 qq st N L IZ ca L t m LL -.. ... ........ .. ..........,..._.. 4;:win{.iuo=.r.. 0._a .. (O ,. MM N N Nti00 M 0 O NO M Np C �V-ON(O(O�r- ON v-�P(ONOV-V-V-�tMM00 00 MOS � �� N Cf) �� �� r* �M °o 00 e-r(y r Co tQ r �- O N O N � O (O N . c V � _ C(� �O O N O 0��Co q 0ti N V--tv)V-N t�0 tO�Co t� v-NM (�NM TO v O� �� (O MN OM � e�-d' O8 O0 r N e- V- W O Ne-OMM(DMO v-�MtA (CD 00t`NOM 00V_(0v-� n'O�OM� �7O ON O MO NM DO 0Co e- OD M� L")CO ti c N N � M M N M O N N (D ti M Co e-V- V- m O O 00 Mt MO 0(O r OM t� O�T V-V-O Op to M�j V- NO �T It �� O�j NN NC°NV 00 O O 's' Z O MOOOM000 V- NM OO�r-MN Mv-0 000 OM 000f` OO Ce)OD NM 0) (OT- 0)V �� 000 Or 004 ti0 O N CO N r r N 00�, Mr r r ON (V� 0 1`e- Nr �� r rr �-- Nv- c Q O low- OC_ v 7 00 0000 OOqT 00000 �Ocoo cj�OO OOOO Ov- tO M (OD CO N ON ON O pmCC)coc�h N V- r- (V V- V CL W bw _c �• c Z Z m m�-d- m - W w mm O m m m m �m cnZ •� CD Z CO >.>,N N m m W co W W 'p C W m m UU cnZ m 'ate O O m _ mm ��U M O O (II (v LL w wcr -0- _= W "a'a m Gi Zcn s L . , d D.d -0 m 'm'(0 w� >> 3 EEE w�� co O w m >> `L -vim 0)cm m m ���� >,>.. ��°,_° (v E E E o m (v(v 0)m M w Z m T L T L O V V Z o m m O �D C7� �.- //� C)Q) (0(� N N 1 1 1 1 o m Xm C C m O •C•C C C O O(�V mm CO) C C � yN C 0 Ny Zcnmm 00,�,� pp __ mm (0N +-�+► mm 0m Nm O O O O a a a C C_ 'O p p ��, >> N w p m 0 t0(0 O t0 'O Z cn .�.� v�to >'> .. O O O O O 0 >> O O �t m m m m E E E E rn m>> E•E >> X M..:.: O 0 LL �'i JJ m m �'S >> m(v L L V w 3 V)cn Z Z e 2 2� C C�.� m (II r-y-- v7 N ` ` +-' �� �� m m � .�-r.- �O N N �� J J '° c ccncn UU mmo ��, mmQ EEQ nn mm }'+' OO O O O O O �n 0 0 N N N CL m U U U U O O O O .-6�- m m...�... t_ L. O O C C C COC �,..�.- O O m m _ O O O O .� v, p'g m cn naE E 3 3 0-� n n m m m m c c �n z ° O00 o CoCoz cn CoM >,>,o w -o"0 o o cn Cl) �,w- o(0 3 3 �. 3 3 -o -0 m m m m o >,>,�w 3 3 cnCOzz v� �trt' >,>; UUmmC�C� T- (1)m 'O O O O (0'C� >> 4.... y m N N m Z Z O O > O Y,C Y Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Y Y Ix� O O N U) 3(O >> 'C'O U U UU 3 3�� Z z 3 3 Ix Ix v, m m �� -- �� c c -0�X m ——-- .c L CD E �t mit -� � � m� m m �.:QQ v)v, o o C r- 10 m m c+ cv m m o' _ ,� 'a-v•a V-v ,0 rn rn —— (o(o c c rn rn �c UUUU������ Cc��•-•— cc o 0 00 00�� m .�.� (o(o mm °`° >> °° -- m oo Tm 00 C c C c cC LLUU cv�o �� >;>; � as cc a)aiQQ �� -M-a ♦, m L L L t Q O Q Q m N N Q Q C C N D O L L O 8 m 0 0 3 (0 t0 .... ...... >> >,>,>> > a i i i V U V v `L. V V p p �f�t `�f O O v� N� L-> (� V) - O L L ~�- J J `L L` C (0 (fl N m N N N N > 7 w N ` ` •r-'� �- � m m tIfme m v� __ (�C� Co N1 W W L,p 0 m >>> <Q »mm<<cocococococomm2200 » aa � UU in mm mm —= mm hum ° a � �� �� �� ZZ 00 c o 0 m 0 r-O O w O V-m O M O M_O V-0 M M O V-M 0 O M N� N w M 0 M t--ti CO CO CDv-- O 0 OD �-t` 0 r-O N O v-t� t� C C S W�M 3 M N. 8 2��O N T-N O O'r..T-O0 O O 03 ON OM O� NO 001 OO ti(D NN 00 V-O OT- N •- W LO 00 V-I-N N N V-3 M M A M O V- N V- O V- T-0 0 O M M N N M M N N M.- M O O la N Z 0 00 00 0 00 O t 0 O M 1111 'q IT M('M IVIT 0M cM M M(") O� MM qqTM M0 Mqt OO mm to W) MM OqT MM M C E c m 00N0000�p - O OM 0M0T-MM 0000MO �-N wN CO M I**-1'*- NO V-CO �p p� ti� e-Q e- 8N Iv- N �'D t� 00 t` �N r-t` N Nr- O r-�0O LO N� MO Ot` ON O OO (Oti NN �0 V� v-LO v- 'C? 0(O�V-N N N M MOM (O� v-N CNS O� too MM NN MM NN �-M O('M O O �� M M� t M0 M M MM VO MM MO 0M IV 00 MM 00 MM v0 MM M N E 8 c t c 8 8 W c E c c `tv m cm >, m m co >o c m m m 2 . CL m .� .� o E O cm — a. m c 'c 'c a c a c 'c > c c c 0) a m L N m V m 13 0) C 0 �_ . m e E M o c `r m m c ° � >>% 'c m m L 'v) O N 'O C m cn m "0 m w m .0 W co `U- N U O m ° ° m C 0 '0 v1�[ Co� O O Y � .r m > O m p m t/) C W criC m W Q Q co � C c U CL "0 C (� 't0 m m m O m m 9O > 0 N 0 '�t' N (J O M m m 3 t j m •E 4. C H J Q m ... N y N �T � ` CJo- _O � j ) m LL' w � m tD p � m p m m - m m cn cn> -i Q cn cn CO Cl) m w a 'z U 9 m it 9 z o 3: m m m m:•:4••-•�O O W cD ti ti t`t`ti t*- OD W 0o 0o 00 O 0 0) O �������� O O O O �•- N N M M moi'�7 O O (O CO t-l� 00 00 0 0 O O r-� CN V-T-e-e- V-e- V-e- r e- V--e- I- e- e-r- e-- N N N N N L L m ,. V- pk co a5 to OD m to C,4 co Pit-4 c C 0 t%. 0 V-- N V) r-Ct) C W Ce) OD cr 0 c AC 0 Cllr'fe 0 .0 0 0 W OD 0 1w, c o 0 MO LU C 03 U) 46 -6co co E z cn im Z CO co pow--.4 CL 'aa '40*o -a-a m m (a 1*- C 0*6 C: E %6 cn cn 0 0:3,05, *60 0 ch w = .0 CL 0 00 ca m z 4) to(o 0 75 Q.CL 0 L-L- im .5.— CY)cm 49 :1 f CL a == oo 00 >I 31--j M cn c 0 0 vN- N 0)r*_N m 8 0 % OW. E c v o a o u-)to so= J;z 0 > 41 ti 0Lo NN m 0 to 0 0 LO to o Z M CO M MV) 0 IL > 2 m E cr) 0 N*4 co m IV'IT N"44 CN Clq CNN 04 CNI 06 OIW- U- LA 8 N 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aO�aaa a a aaaa araraa�aear ar ar ar a a aaaaaaas a ZyO S N pSS SSSSOOSSSSS OO OO OO O O O 0000 O 00 008088 0a0 Oae-0 O Sa�0 pH OO O OOOO O O Ir" T— e- T—e-V— T— r r OO a�0 s s pa� oo C oa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. �a� aa� aaaa aaa�aa a a a a s a a 00 00 0)OD_.. v V N00 O 00 Mr Mr Mr N o 00 OD car0 Mar m�00 Ia-�OA M oLA N N N r r 0 c0 r r r C C 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o a o a s o a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 o a 0 a a s o\ \\ o \ p co�r-� �0� O 00� V00�00�� a LA r �p �p M LA °�°��Oa 00 0O 00 cocnN Got�a N N M ' C r- N LA LA LA m N N LA i-� N M M �t L4 M m M e- e- e- 00 M m .i F- d► o 0 0 0 0 0 *0-0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aaa aa� �aaa o 0 a a a -00, a as o 0 0 \\ o 0 0 \ 3 NLo-vI- �IVm 000 coNOO�0 O M M Ln CON 00LLO m c0 /- Z O r r r r r r N r r�- r rN IV M r r r t IS a o 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o �aa -OR-0-0, aaaa aaaaa a a a a s a aa a s aaaaaa a a a f� V V e- M M M M M LA N 0 ti 00 00 �O O� M V- M N N LO O O LA 0 r- LA�O O O O 00 00 �t aC MN cM LA N N M �-r �-N N�- ch r- e- M e- N M N N�-- LA M e- M N N N N N N cm 1-- L L C 7 0 0 0 o o ao o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o a \ \\ \ o 0 0 0 a a a a a a o o a a \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ o a a a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fq In NNM 0 M� O �� 0aaaao M M IV Yr N LA N r r r r M M M 00 00 t7 t0 I�M O h O N O O r co M M r N LA r �M O�N � a m a a cv 3 � m z p ` G c N G m C o m c � J y m � ca Q c o L Cco `+ o C 0 c m dO N N N m O • 3 O 0 j SJ m 3 N 0 m m _ O O o mm fOca C m� > oY o3 V � c 8.9.r�o O c O O •° _ z c� o U civ c C o 8-0 c c•� 0 CoL m 0 0 U - .o ma ° coo LOc�° ��� = o o� m c c m V ° ��a -m0 3�V y c� c c o o•�, m 0 r c c or � m 3 0 �•3� �, o' o0C C — w co oma— ao ocv ,. o c (0 c m �,� poop C0� 0a CL o �° 0 oo Y10 cm m o w -5 CL c m �a� Nma•�o m•3oin 00 p N O C N .0 _ m c _ ._ 0 > I 7 0: cm C4 •� - 'D+•+ 10 O ccm c � c o �w � CN 0 > c m o � � •cg»� � Lco •3o ?m0 >tLp Lp O 7 V O Y N l0 cm c N Q •� m 0 O G O > '� t�' O .-°'(n m m O t� o 0 -j L L m 0 V .. C N C y O O a c0 cp o c �. L L C O N �Q L - N 2 J O O V m O m O C y' cA J C CL M p LCL L in V C m p O..:o - m O m X 3 0 o C C N O c N N vs t> 4: o m W O C V N N - N 'C ''J •C O w N E m �- cv oC m oo m 0 c0 0 =-� cooc coo cccm �..•• —ac 0 0 -' co a0 m o oo m ° m0 •r0 m m m cv m cy co co cv�c 3-v — ° •v 2 ° cCv C - J 0-p m tQ N > -•C3 O O Q mCY)m > 0 ch m N qT OD m M O cQ H Y O +r N O L,.,, 0 c to a m m m - Q o C Q N O O ° CL M'C'C CM H e-N•C e=C4 V `V 0 `V p C m m (� cc O •> c0 N`'� L V p•c•+c m m o m m m C O t O r 0 m E > t> C o c0 y 4 O F- m v °2 O._ m m N y L N H 0 O E Nf V H O= L y Q1 L O O Co- m C m 0 0— rt o r t co �o o o o a L o c o o �i o ni-M cv m r o � moam CO) -1-Jill a.a-1 a a co) m2v)m2> v� Q V •>t) a ma cnQwm zm� c c •� m o c t O N M0 ca °' cv •c a` c c L` w incm cm co cm Im 0 0~C • m m m m C L o p m j H o Q W m o N Uf 0 0 •3 y L c O� L C m w co A 0 ° >'� Oca (a W cv cc cv m C o m dQHQ U)i dm cv cv C� O c0 Dat cx CL Cl. 0 'cp L= 0 0 C C O cLo •- > p_N 0 �_ C m li m m m cr- S M t O L C a m C 0 ° m Q m•O m O m ' O 0 ` C V N N y L-. n vlw �� O>-� p E CO) !n CO (� J V? (n m o m O O C = O j m m m C m= m m 0 ` N O p �o wo zazV� cnm o�� 0 z�zo�-,m w V F- N m m L LL A to O ems.-.• N OD OD N0 (0 00 0000 OO OO N �- O O BOO I� O fl- N Oto (P C14 N0M0 e'Mtoe- Ot0000 0ODW V 0 O 0 ��tOt� I� tAe- OtAONN� N m 0) N to O N 6H N V-M M r-M N N N r' M O N N V- N d)69�6A to to N 6R N r tf� !� d)to to to N40 to to 61)6A N to to 6H NN N 6R to 40 N V- r N N N 0 cp M M V to t0 O N 0 7 CO W�IV N f` .- M eO of N M O O N M �- O 0 eD M eq O N If*- LO 0 a0 �`00N0 CNC NN � NMtoNtMN � M m M � � 00 6vi0i VII N� cVO�N00 O N a0 c V-N NN dl V to to to to 41 69 NN 69 V-69 T to to d) to to to 6& � 6H to to to to N 69 69 69.69 to 6%to 6R N � N N N N M 93 %fto V •CW IVm00 IV:Oe- 009 Ntb0moN O 0 r N � LO N I*-NI�M 0 ON t��M0000 co 1 O N � O tD0 SOC Oad0co C4 06 m .•= th N M OON ITVZN0V-:0 O to 0 V- NNN 6R 40 N 40 d� tf) to tH elk to d�6%40 6% to tto tl 69 40.1# MM NV- V � v Nn a �rr�`�w„��"te`�'.°.`_.-._�_.,+, m•t.AaaooO+ fv•- �Q vO•=�d=0mEc•. '�OCc�oCAm0N;.dCMO-f'•OCW16r�A•�•'mNNONND�>CoMf laNamJHamN7amCslcsa A0.0 ma0� U0A 00 am_0Ah`� UC0C00U0Q0 .mAC uO� v0) t•'omcm;Cm C •V camNO m .'.. •n _3yOtG LmsN. mm.0t3CM. r�'�3•pmAjA'O7 mctvDOo Qm=Et0INO'N�� _NrN�N ,�0OrNtIO�N�er40 c c toNco toov: C4w0r,0 0 to O O N M V700 V 0 M0 NOO -"It M co �OM�� N r-MN M�MM�O C O •-OV- Oi MO toN0000 O to s�tAD DoV-N M 6) V.-N to 63,to to to to to to 69 tto V- 4& N 61? N69 61 69 to to to N 6H V-YN to to 40 N w0 0 tM 00 O N I%- R 0 v to r CO O coO NcsC0o a0 vir.-* o 0NOO M 0 N O o ON P. 000 O� N to t 63 o to to 6H to to to to to N t6R to to to N N to to N MNN N c ►. 0 M 0 M O 00 V N O o to r I� M 0 C NhO � -:MN mo*C4 O O C N MIr.:cON N wwi 00000 O 0NT-to to to 6H 6)to to to to to to to to to to to to to 6% N N 6% ttt Lm N zt 403k M N M 000 0 O O 0 0 ch 0 ch o 11-Z O 0 00 0 f 0 00 0 . C o O N N� N 4 c0M N N N M CN 60 N tM M � dN to to to to to N N to N to 69 to to to N N N to N t) d) to to V- NLL Q N ui c N 00 N O OO Oo 0 00Ittp M 000 o06, 00O C'ViOt000O O00 V- t0 om ociNV-M 0D I*O N to N V'CV)M V-M N N N M r O � o N N to 69 V-e-to to oCA % to 60) 69 N to 69NN 69 to coC N T: O N V o ` O J m c oa c m 0 0 c p A 8 NO p O O p � C 0 E O ` m C 0 O C N Q C OOD Y v coU O 3-19 p 72y0 d � o CL cc LL caCO 'ON Cm U O V O'0 C O"a 3.0 C c 0 O•U) ' C C � A co y ` cav �> c0.0 yco 0 co ) f p 0 pa o c Op 0 mp06 oom- aoc pocr ca W IX _ O mN N Oje'D C 0C �O O m N N pIX cm C4 � �mO Q • a'c 0 V f2C O N O m co 3 £ E _L C0 C Op p > > i8p O 0 InL -1 04 m C A No O 0 O .a J N c U U m> E exU.0.0 OO2 00 0 J .0m E m0C CW O A d A m 0 OC m EA co C r' A C O O / C e N OO cr0 cw w Ew Wm > >0: J 4)"a > •3 3CL t0 N 0 N > A Ec - OQ O A y 0 Le.Mp CQm (M CM rO m LC !0 Q co QO Ec U -a mea tX cm E m 0 C 8M m > c p E O O O C Y OJ02N Emc� e _co°JutU - _ ` m3,t0 CO n a9 � mX *Ccam c U > COD IC Zw1_ r Qmz t� C CE O m ca C a ° V- N co c a cm Qc oynn ` m m Cy c a t _ 0 cao v m aE E E N o ocm cmadC "D cc Cc 0: 'v� CL L aCO3 CO3 CO) m � aac a 0 3 � ° ° IXyy co cc � cm /l C > A WO C too H C_ to A N C Q y mNit C 5 a CIL CL CIL 018 AW co E ?` mm A L v U- co Im M a. > m = OW W W 7> + JO- M ' m ca N m O O O 7 ` O m mWzaZomlO zi m w !. , a0r�6a)L' U) C) C) C%4 \. co co co LO to C6 40 0 Lo W. C*4 CN M 2 .qT CM > bow- co LO 0 4) o6 04 pok-* a CN qld � �;, 0 c� � ,� Cc W C) co 0 M 0 ce) C) cl r*-. CO N c6 mr- qv 000 r%ft CD 60 N U. V S� cc 4) U) sm S� 0 LE Ul 04 CIP) C) I*m CN oft LL, CV) CN to o C4 0 C) to a 0) 9) m C:)I 60 N C 0 W E 0 (D Uj Z =) Co CD E L. m UL 1W I U. CL U. HM SHEFPARD I'11JLL I PA 1� 4 1 c4=��`��+4�� ��n,��it_� F' CONSIDER WITH jD 1 7#h Floor Four Embarcadero Center 58n Francisco,CA 94111-4106 415-434-9100 office f 413-434-3 947 fox www.sheppardmulNn.cam roRr: EYs a. I& yaw Writer's Direct Line:415-774-2996, dlanftnnan(asheppardmullin.com July 18, 2005 Our File Number: 0100,-092189 f 11A FA CSIMIL E A ND Us-S* MA IL Ami Sharpe, Clerk CONTRA COSTA COLNiTY BOARD OF SU?ERVISORS 65I Pine Street, Room 106 Maxtinez, CA 94513 Facsimile, (925) 335--1913 Re; hoard Agenda Item No. SD,,S— East Contra Costa Regional flee and Financing Autbority and proposed East contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Report resolutions Comments and Objections to Proposed "Urgenen.l Ordinancel' De�w Boarci of Supervisors: We are informed that the Board maybe asked to consider not only the approval of the new "East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Report, including a Revised Schedule of Regional Transportation Fees,"but that the Board may also be asked to consider the adoption ai a purported "interim ordinance" on an "urgency"basis in order to be able to impose the new increased fees take effect immediately.,rather than at the time normally pTovided by California law.. an behalf of the Home Builders Association of Nortbern California ("HBANC"') and its hundreds of members involved in the business of attempting to provicte affordable housing to the residents of Northern California,we respectfully request that the. Board of Supen,isors not adopt any such "urgency" measure in connection with the new regional fees. The-proposed new regional fees already threaten to add dramatically increased costs to housing development in the bounty. To attempt to make such new fees effective immediately would not only exacerbate the financial impact on home builders with projects under construction and permit applications "in the P1"Pe1ine !1 but would also detract from the credibility of, and supoort for,the regional fee grogram which the County has sought to develop over the past months. We respectfully request that the County not allow itself to be rushed into such legally-questionable action while critical issues relating to the establishment ot'the new reEional fee remain to be resolved. 94 ZI '4`D r--F '--HFPPARD MULLIrI1`- -4 1`4 .1_IUL 19 SHEPPARD AILIUN MCHT M1 EIALLUTON LLP Board of Supervisors hily 18,2005 Page 2 No published California court decision has approved the adoption of an urgency ordinance for the collection of development impact fees, such as may be proposed here. The record simply does not provide evidence of such extreme and tlu eatening nature to support the County's consideration or enactment of an interim ordinance making the new fees effective on an immediate basis. Under controlling State law, any local gover�rlrrient action adopting or increasing development fees no ARY is to take effect "no sooner than 60 days following the final action on the adoption of the fee or charge or increase in the fee or charge," (Ca]ifomia Government Code Section 66017(a).) This is consistent with the provisions of"Section XI" of the proposed Resolution attached to the public Staff Report for this 'item. Yn extraordinary situations, however, where the County Board can make findings supported by evidence that there is "an immediateethreat to the public health, safiety and welfare," anare,"the law provides exception whichw,mayallo a now or increased development fee to take immediate effect'. That exception does not apply to theselZong-studied new fees, There are no extraoTdinarv, facts which would warrant or iustify the Count�;✓ adopting the proposed new regional transportation fees on a purported "emergency" or `urgency'` basis by means of a highly-questionable "interim ordinance." Even if the County is otherwise inclined to act on the proposed new regional transportation fees at this time, the County and the affected parties have put too much time and effort into the new regional fee process over the past year and a half t6allow that process to now be tainted, and opened to question,by adopting an inappropriate— and unnecessary— "interim fee ordinance" as a supposed emergency measure, The text of the statute clearly indicates the exception is-limited to ext:raordinary circumstances, and why it would not tie appropriate for adoption by the County in this case-, Government Code Section 66017, (a) Arty unction adopting a fee or charge, or increasing a fee or charge adopted., upon a development project...shall be effective no sooner than 60 days,following the final acrion on the adoption of the fee or charge or increa�e in the fee or charge. (b) Without following the procedure othemise required for the ad'uption, of a fee...the legislative badopt an urgency measure as w-i interini autlioiizatiorL..to protect the public health, welfare and safeV, TIieinterimauthorization shall require a four-fifths vote of the Jegislatl�ve body. The interim a authoTity shall conrainfindings describing the cutorent and irnmecfiate threat to the public health, welfare and safety." I IkJ `:�F `�Ht.l--'F-'HKL► MULL I['*11 .1.'_. D r-I ?H11 JUL SM"ARD If MLIN BICHT M, &ROPTON LLP Board of Supervisors July 1%81 2005 Pale 3 The Staff Report contains no evidence to support a possible "urgency ordinancel. "�P There is no doubt about the need for improved transportation East'Cc�ntra Costain County. HBANC and its many members have supported and continue to support the eff-orts of local government i11 East Contra Costa County to finance regional transportation improvem�nts, including the 'imposition of development fees based at appropriate levels, However,there is no evidence or other reason to believe that simply making the paytxx of new fees effective impxavements immediately In the County will result in any immediate conStrUCtion or on the list of regional projects,much less in the affected areas of the County specifically. Based on the facts relating to the long-term studies and plarining required for the consideration of the regional facilities and the proposed new fees, there is noway the County(or any other member agency) could credibly make the specific findings required by State law io justify an immediately-effective interim fee ordinance. As the County and members of this Board are well aware, it has taken a lengthy process just to get to this point in consideration of the new fees, Burin;which time no agency has deemed it appropriate to declare an emergency based on an "immediate threat to public health or safety." The mere fact that there may now lie a specific fee proposal for consideration does not howeVer create an extraordinary circumstance involving "the current and immediate threat to the public health, welfare and safety" required for a legally-valid urgency ordinance., The County is considering a regional transportation fee program that is projected to operate OVeT a period of 20 years or more. It is anticipated that the new fee program would be applicable to more than 42,000 DLJE's in the regional fee program area, To the extent that following the normal provisions of State law may allow a few dozen building permits to be issued before the-new fees take effect in 60 days,such a circumstance,is the norm whenever development fees are enacted or increased— such incidental loss of tet revenue has never been V recognized as constitutincy the type of"emergency" or "Immediate threat to public safety"that I-M� might justify adopting an urgency ordinance. CP The language of Section 66017(b) which creates a limited exception for urgency and immediate effectiveness of neNNr fee enactments requires specific findings similar to the language of Gov't Code Section 36937 which provides that a loci.] ordinance genera]ly takes effect 30 days after final passage, but creates an exception in limited situations where (i)) "For tli� immediate preseivation ofthe public peace,health or safety, containing a declaration ofthe facts constituting the urgency, and is passed by a four-,fifths vote of the Council." The California courts have given some deference ta the legislative body's findings of fact supposedly justifying the urgency, but have expressly stated that the legislative The StaffRepoi-t available to the public on the County website included only two (2�, proposed forms of Resolutions,neither of which involved "interim fee ordinances." J- P 14"947 HEPPARD MULLIN15 41a�41=1 �Am SHEIIPARD MUL M, MCHTER&HAWTON LLP $acrd of Supervisors July 18,2005 Ntge 4 body's action will be reviewed de novo using the court's independent judgment as to the justification or necessity for the supposed "emergency" action. "The trial court must determine for itself-,based upon the evidence presented, whether an actual emergency existed at the time of declaration," Yerreos v, County& County of San Francisco (1976) 63 Ca.LApp.3d 860 1 04. lu every instance where the California courts have upheld an "urgency measure" the evidence has shown that the County was acting to preserve the status quo pending the ,completion of a planning study or election. That is not the case here. No California court has affied that mere"financial need" or"economic advantage" to the County may constitute the type of extraordinary threat to public health, safety and welfare that is required in order to dispense with the stwidard procedural protections required by State law. To the contrary, several courts have expressly Telo'ected the notion that the ambition to maximize local agency revenues may constitute such an "emergency." See,,-e,&,Marshall v, Pasadena Unifed School Di.-arict (2004) 119 Ca1,App.4`h 1241 (the court did not accept the school district's findings of NEWWwWWWWO "emergency" which supposedly justified not following normal statutory bidding procedures). As part of the s=e legislation regulating the imposition of development fees by 11caI governrneni:in California(the Mitigation Fee Act), the Legislature has made clear its, intent to exercise State oversight and control over the time and allocation of fee impositions by cities: Government Code § 66023(e): "The Legislature finds and declares that oversight of local agency fees is a matter of statewide interest and concern." Government Code § 66006(e): "The Legislature finds and declares that untimely or improper allocation of development fees hinders economic growth and is., therefore, a matter of statewide interest or concern." in this context therefore it is especially important that the County�ilot be vie7wed. as attempting to aver-reach or to exaggerate the urgency of the need for the anticipated new fee revenues. Such inappropriate declaration. of anon-existent "public safety emergency" by the County of County would be counter-productive, would 'invite skepticism if not legal challenges, and would damage the credibility of the analysis and evidence that has gone into the recommendation of the new regional fee program. We therefore respectfully urge the County to reject any proposed "urgency" ordinanee for these proposed new fees, and that the County continue to thoughtfully consider h et e proposed increases ire the regional transportation fees and work with the affected stakeholders, includinM HBANC and its members, to assure that any County act3on on the proposed fees Will be widely recognized as economically and environmentally appropriate and legally-valid. We appreciate your consideration of ow concerns and objections to the proposed action on tbo.,se new fees, and look fonvard to continuing to work constructively with the Count), �., r�;��; ;�;:r t����� E SHEPPARD M1 ILLI[*-I 1 c 4154-4"940', 1JL.. 1_ .�._J..: _ M * � Y STE?P,AJW�MIJN RIGHTER :HAMPTON LLP Board of Supervisors Jaly 1$r 2005 Page of County to address public policy issvies associated with residential development of the cOIJEUM Ity. Ve truyours, avid P. L an for SHEPPARD MULLINTRICHTER & HA.M. PTON LLQ W02-SF:FP,D161461?63,2 D.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: July 19, 2005 Public Comment On this date, the Board called for Public Comment. The following persons presented testimony: Mike Lengyel,Pittsburg resident, inviting the Board to a Fit-Fest 2005 at the Pittsburg Health Center; Douglas Parker, Walnut Creek resident, spoke of the Old Park School site being vacated and making a request to the Board not to let this site go to the developers; Shelley Geesey,A.1 Adjustment Service, 4579 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez,requesting the Board to reconsider their appeal for a change to a land use permit, by placing this on the Board agenda. The following person did not speak but provided written comments for the Board's consideration: Charles G. Boyd, Sr. Napa resident,proposing to the Board a Power Generating Plant that would increase recycling to 95% at no cost to the Contra Costa County, and create 350 new jobs in the County. The following individuals spoke urging the Board to restore the position of the Executive Director for Contra Costa Developmental Disabilities Council to a full-time position: Bonnie Baldwin, Summit Center; Joe Velez, Chris Adams and Summit Centers; Jorge Barbaste, Summit Center; Lynor Jackson, Summit and Chris Adams Centers; Stephanie Meakin,Martinez resident; Katherine Silveira,, Lafayette resident Joanne Deluchey,Richmond resident; Page—2- July 19, 2005 D.1 Barbara Maizie,,Martinez resident; Dr. Edward Donnelly, (no other details); Lauri Parks, Concord resident; Gina Jennings, Contra costs Developmental Disabilities Council; Rollie Katz, PEU Local One; Debra Wilhelm, Martinez resident; THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO ACTION WAS TAKEN 20 / <cc0*contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: ' Subject: Data posted to form 1 of 07/18/2005 07:05 AM htt ://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/de art/cao/a endacomments_form.ht P P 9 M Username: Charles G Boyd Sr UserAddress: 15805 North Culver Road UserTel: 760-962-8528 UserEmail: cgbnrr2000@hotmail-com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; i ebar; VZ_I E 6) Date: 18 Jul 2005 Time: 07:05:34 Comments: Board of Supervisors, what would you think, of decreasing you landfill disposal of non-hazardous waste byt 92%, HAVING DEVELOP ON A LANDFILL LIKE DIABLO CANYON A POWER GENERATING PLANT, THAT DOES NOT USE OIL, NATURAL GAS OR COAL TO GENERATE ENERGY, AND CAN INCREASE YOU RECYCLING FROM ITS PRESENT LEVEL TO 95%, AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AND STILL CREATE 350 NEW JOBS IN THE AREA. INTERESTED, PLEASE FELL FREE TO CONTACT ME FOR MORE INFORMATION AND A PROPOSAL. THANK YOU, C G BOYD .,,Uttir.4"Yj JtW.,2-31 r/ At MOMftbur Heald�nter9 231ALow gA � And aIang Delta De.AAza Trail + r r 1 i � 1.. Bthngug 20j 1 _. tom. _ •�.;-; - • Booth • `{✓ A : 3. Food . � 4 eta a.m.) A05, - 5'. Clea -(noon). PI a,* se call* u�eTe' 'rranova at'l'-92-5�522�7�W.Of an -report- or du at thefesrC ate. cru.1 Be .r �� IL- -Re Iftt y For Lffe _ .:,,� rte', -. - •.1;�. __ '_-' .._ _ WW_t.1mchd.Qr ►tis Mealfteare District Highway 'ttsburg Hea ale y `� •, � _ - .; burse .� ` Center Ln CD Leland cu IF11r, 05 RS V_ _Ov L.-U- .:--N�- - -.Ir E E NEEDED Delta DeAn�_a Trail - elta D eAnza Trail • . _ .. d ` . . 1%400P Festival de Salud Sabado 23 de Julio, 2005 9 am — 12 pm La Clinics de Pittsburg, 2311 Loveridge Rd., Pittsburg Atra cc lones: - Laminar, monta r bicicleta, patina r, correr por el Camino De Anza - Ac tivida des fa mil'�ar y ideas para aumentarsu actividad y para comer mss saludable - Educacion dental y examenes gratis por la clinics movi1 de Ronald McDonald Care Mobile - Enfe eras de Salud Publicas para informacion, presion arterial, chequearsu peso - Vacunas, pagos minimus variables - Recu rs os Comu n ita nos - Claws de autoexamines de los sends - East Bay Bicycle Coalition segunda d de bicicletas - Baffles por Dancers Elite - Demons cion Tai Chi por Coast Karate Studio A Gracias A Los Siouentes ParticiRantes. 1\ EI Concilio de Prevencion del Abuso del Nino - La Clinics De La Raza Bocadillos, Rifa, _ EI Plan de Salud de Contra Costa Juegos,, Pre I*os, - s res Fmiliar camisetas gratis, Y _ programa Para Promocion de Amamantar mucho mucho as!! - Ronald McDonald Care Mobile - Bay Point First 5 - Programa De Los Ninos - Servicios del Alcohol y Otras Drogas - Districto de Recreacion y Parques de Ambrose - Soluciones la Communidad Highway 4 bu � Health W Ambrose v �, M Center ?' 'PSfli'---• c � � els � m dc 81 � v Delta DeAnz= X Patrocio ado por Los Medan s Community-Health Care District _ DeJta para informacion hamarMarilyn Condit PHN"b§I`S'9S2Z:74-:-84-- ---- - - -- - ------- � �`� www.lmchd.org DeAnza Trail S�PEav�soa/00 s SHE`S BARD OF 1��� CO GGA �HEMP� �O SNE B pF Evss NG -SNE NEPA\ES�O SEN�pOF�� CZAoF 4 \- HOv`� gE A S�P R•{pPYA 1 PNS M NESP F\1ELY SN S � ESE E � �NTO �O B �EF�N S\X�EPREp MPg. o0s CHs� AA� , �� BpAR� folt NP� 3013 NE kjv� T\ME F � NI PS�� MUGH Kp,TN KN�� � fix, anon-profit organization .......... providing services to men and women with developmental disabilities : . ..... _ at home, on the job, and I N C O R P O R A T E D in the community July 2005 The Contra Costa.Board of Supervisors: The Board of Directors of Las Trampaac, and the President of our Families and Friends association request that the County Board of Supervisors restore the position of the Executive Director for the Contra Costa.Developmental Disabilities Council to a full- time position. Las Trampas,has been serving people with developmental disabilities and their families for almost 50 years and we know how vital the DD Council is for families and why the position should be full-time. For new parents who are seeking information and resources, they soon learn that they are not alone. Feelings of isolation are replaced with support from professionals and other families through the DD Council's executive. Having a child with developmental disabilities impacts the whole family and it is a complex world of terminology and multiple systems. It is a full time job to represent Contra Costa's best efforts to clarify situations, avoid duplication of services, and help families,, legislators, and professionals to navigate the system. There are health and medical issues,educational,transitional,vocational,respite and after school systems to name a few. There are also issues of an aging population which the county has focused on in the Every Generation Study. The DD Council's executive director is also the face for the county in preparing for the future. How may we stimulate new services to fill in the gaps of the underserved without expending valuable human resources,"reinventing the wheel"or overlooking the inter- relationships and potential of current resources? The executive director position has a proven track record in these areas and has validated the need for full time leadership. Please reinstate the position to full-time. The benefits outweigh the cost and Contra Costa.County will be planning for the future for is residents and demonstrating its humanity. Sincer. ly, -- Sandra Jackso ecutive ' ector P.O. Box 515 3460 Lana Lane •Lafayette,California 94549 Phone 925/284-1462 *Fax 925/283-1372 WILLIAM B. WA..........LKER, M. D. � CONTRA COSTA HEALTH.SERVICES DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEALTH .............. ...........• W E N D E L BRUNNER, M.D. DEVELOPMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR CONTRA COSTA DISABILITIES COUNCIL July 15, Zoos HEALTH SERVICES . 2801 Robert Miller Drive Richmond, California 94806 Supervisor Gayle Uilkema Ph (510)374-3665 Chairwoman Fax(510) 374-3893 651 Pine Street, Room 108A Martinez, CA 94533 Dear Madame Chair: I am faxing you this letter today, on the behalf of the Contra Costa Developmental Disabilities Council. On June 8th, there was strong testimony given to the Board of Supervisors about the Council and it's importance to the community and I am very disappointed that the position of Staff to the Council was one of the few items that was not restored. Again, I ask that the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors reconsider this reduction and restore the position to full time, in order for the Contra Costa Developmental Disabilities Council can continue it's essential work of supporting individuals with disabilities and there families. The Contra.Costa Developmental Disabilities Council has assisted our communities in bringing new services and supports to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, like The Respite Inn, the Community College Transition Program* and a new initiative project to provide screening for autism (East Bay Autism Champaign). Currently, the Council has been instrumental is helping to facilitate a smooth transition of the George Miller Centers from County operations to Contra Costa ARC. The staff position is critical in supporting these and other efforts that impact the lives of individuals who need these services. It is essential that as we face the autism epidemic, the increasing'needs of the aging and the continued need for the community to be informed of legislative issues that will affect individuals with disabilities and their families, that there be a full- time position in place to meet these current and future needs. Thank you for your time and reconsideration. Sincerely, Gia Jen LYS Coht��tosta Developmental Disabilities Chairperson cc: Supervisor Gioia Supervisor Piepho Supervisor DeSaulnier Supervisor Glover Dr..Walker Dr. Brunner r f"J • Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health Contra Costa Health Plan • 9 Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs •Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers • 20 / <=00contmnapanet, To: <comments@ cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: .:; 07/18/2005 07:05 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca-us/depart/cao/agendacomments-forrn.ht M Username. Charles G Boyd Sr UserAddress: 15805 North Culver Road UserTel Y 760-962-8528 UserEmail: cgbnrr2000@hotmail.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name. Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; iebar; VZ IE6) Date: 18 Jul 2005 Time: 07:05:34 Comments: Board of Supervisors, what would you think, of decreasing you landfill disposal of non-hazardous waste byt 92%, HAVING DEVELOP ON A LANDFILL LIKE DIABLO CANYON A POWER GENERATING PLANT, THAT DOES NOT USE OIL, NATURAL GAS OR COAL TO GENERATE ENERGY, AND CAN INCREASE YOU RECYCLING FROM ITS PRESENT LEVEL TO 95%, AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AND STILL CREATE 350 NEW JOBS IN THE AREA. INTERESTED, PLEASE FELL FREE TO CONTACT ME FOR MORE INFORMATION AND A PROPOSAL. THANK YOU, C G BOYD