HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08162005 - SD5 Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
o.
_ : = Costa
FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORCountyDATE: August 16, 2005
SrA-C UK
SUBJECT: Urgency Ordinance Extending the Interim Authorization to Collect 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,East County
Area. (Districts III and V) CDD-CP#05-28,Project No.: 0676-6P4075
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
A. It is recommended that the Board take the following actions:
1. CONDUCT a public hearing to consider adoption of an urgency ordinance(Ordinance No.
2005-26) extending for an additional 30 days the interim authorization to collect 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).
Continued on Attachment: ® SIGNATURE:
[RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ RECOMMEN ATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
D--XPPROVE ❑ OTHER
r
SIGNATURE(S).
ACTION OF BO DON
APPROVED AS COM kNWtDy OTHER ❑
VO OF SUPERVISORS I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
AYES: NOES: Supervisors on the date shown.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
CL:je
G:1GrpData\TransEng120051ECCRFFAI ATTESTED: �!
BO-ECCRFFA Urgency Ordinance Extension.doc JOHN SWEETEN, Wrk of the Board of Supervisors and
Orig.Div:Public Works(TE) County Administrator
Contact: Chris Lau,313-2293
c: PW Accounting—C.Raynolds
PW Eng.Srvs.—T.Torres
PW Trans.Eng.—C.Lau By ,Deputy
County Auditor/Controller
County Treasurer/Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Urgency Ordinance Extending the Interim Authorization to Collect 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,East County
Area. (Districts III and V) CDD-CP#05-28, Project No.: 0676-6P4075
DATE: August 16, 2005
PAGE 2
2. ADOPT urgency Ordinance No. 2005-26 extending the interim authorization to collect
Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation (RTDIM) Fees for the revised
transportation improvement program for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Authority
(ECRFFA).
3. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of this Board Order
and Ordinance No. 2005-26 with the County Recorder.
II. Financial Impact:
The extension of the interim Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation(RTDIM)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.
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
On July 19, 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted 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). Ordinance No. 2005-18 adopted
permanent fees for the Fee Program,with an effective date 60 days after enactment. Ordinance No. 2005-
19,which was an urgency ordinance effective for 30 days,adopted interim fees for the Fee Program pending
the 60-day effective date of Ordinance No. 2005-18.
Government Code Section 66017(b) authorizes up to two 30-day extensions of an urgency measure. To
ensure that the interim fees remain in effect for the Fee Program, Public Works staff recommends that the
Board adopt the attached urgency ordinance(Ordinance No.2005-26)extending the interim authorization for
an additional 30 days.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
Failure to extend the interim Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation(RTDIM)Fees will
result in the loss of potential revenues during the time remaining before the permanent fees go into effect.
T
Ordinance No. 2005-26
(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 11 AUTHORITY This ordinance is enacted, in part, pursuant to Government Code Section
66484 and Division 918, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance code.
SECTION III PROCEDURE This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in f
Government Code Section 66017(b).
SECTION IV FINDINGS The Board makes the following findings:
1. Effective Au(/\�/���ust 9, 1004, the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, together with the
�I✓ r
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 8C and 15 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 saurus.
Ordinance No. 2005-26
a
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. 2005-26
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. 2005-28
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. 2005-26
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.
- 5-
Ordinance No. 2005-26
construction of critical roadway, safety, and accessibility improvements will be delayed unless and
until a substantial supplemental funding source is made available to the County.
The State Route 4 Bypass (Segments 1, 2, and 3) and the Route 84Nasco Road corridor
widening are four of the 26 improvements identified by the'Report as key to East Contra Costa
9
County's regional infrastructure. The County has a current and immediate need to construct those
projects in order to handle or divert traffic from existing congested roads, enhance road safety,
p 1
reduce idling time and delay, and reduce emissions generated by vehicles.
The congested condition of some of the County's existing roads will be significantly
exacerbated by new development, creating a condition dangerous to public health and safety,
creating a condition dangerous to public health and safety through increased vehicle emissions,
unless increased funding for regional transportation improvements is promptly made available.
Maximizing emission reductions is necessary to *help protect the health and safety of County
residents.
The congested
ested condition of some of the County's existing roads will be significantly
g
exacerbated b new development, creating a condition dangerous to public health and safety by
delayinglaw enforcement, fire,. and paramedic emergency response times, unless increased funding
for regional transportation improvements is promptly made available.
The congested condition of some of the County's existing roads will be significantly
• exacerbated by new development, compromising public welfare by forcing motorists to endure long,
costly delays while commuting to and from school, work, local services, and other destinations,
unless increased funding for regional transportation improvements is promptly made available. In
2002, the averse motorist spent 73 additional hours traveling due to congestion at a cost of $1,516
per traveler (delay cost of $21/hour), according to the "2005 Urban Mobility Report published by the
Texas Transportation Institute (May 2005).
Construction of the eBART rail line will improve public health and safety by reducing the
frequency of automobile accidents and maximizing emission reductions as some new residents and
employees elect to commute using mass transit, which experiences fewer commuter vehicle
accidents andp roduces less air emissions per rider than single-occupant automobiles. Prompt,
additional funding is necessary to allow construction at the earliest time.
Certain roadways and intersections in the County do not meet current accessibility standards
as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, thereby placing new residents and employees of
the community in a condition that is potentially dangerous to their health or safety. Prompt, additional
funding is necessary to-provide facilities that comply with applicable requirements. Construction of 24
of the 26 projects identified in the ECCRFFA Report will make much-needed accessibility
improvements by removing barriers and obstructions, closing gaps between missing segments of bike
lanes and sidewalks, and installing accessible ramps in some locations.
Revenues received from regional transportation fees imposed by Other Member Agencies and
transmitted to ECCRFFA also are not sufficient at the current rates to meet the funding needs for the
26 regional_traffic/tr-ansportation_projects identified in the Project List, Table 3 of the_ eport.
_7_
Ordinance No. 2005-26
A number of new residential developments are currently in the planning stage, including the
proposed Summerlake Subdivision and the Pantages property. If development is allowed to occur
withoutrom tiY increasing the fee intended to fund infrastructure needs to mitigate regional
P p
transportation impacts from new development, the circulation system will further degrade without a
source of critical funding to implement those improvements.
of the fee on an interim basis is necessary to protect the public health, welfare,
The adoptionrY . .
and safety, b assuring the earliest practical construction of the improvements, both those identified
in the existing regional transportation fee programs and those additional improvements identified in
the Report.
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.
SECTION VI 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 Inas 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.
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
_ 8_
Ordinance No. 2005-26
Official or otherg Y official designated b the County Administrator shall determine the amount of the fee
in accordance with the standards set forth in-this ordinance.
B. The ro ert owner shall pay to the County, the Regional Transportation Development
p P Y
Impact Mitigation (the "RTDIM") imposed under this chapter in the amount established by this
Fee
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.
P p g
E. Developments that are subject to and pay the RTDIM Fees shall be exempt from
payment ment 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 p p 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
toPaY ment 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 p p Transportation Impact Fee, adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-05 enacted on February 22,
2002.
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
Y
destroyed b fire or other natural disaster or constructed as part of a redevelopment project, or to
Y
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.
-g-
Ordinance No. 2005-26
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 andro ert acquisition for, and
P p Y q
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 an of
Y
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 XII PERIODIC REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENTS TO FEES
A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the close of each fiscalear, the County
u my
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 beginningand end of the fiscal
i
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_reasonabl_e._relations_hir) between the fee and the-purpose
- 10-
Ordinance No. 2005-26
for which it is charged. This annual review may warrant adjustments to the RTDI M fees adopted
herein subject to recommendations by the ECCRFFA Board.
SECTION XIII FEE AREA The RTDIM Fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all property
described in Exhibit B 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 VIII or XII shall be commenced within One hundred twenty (120)days of
the increase.
SECTION XVII EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective August 18, 2005 and shall
be operative for thirty days from that date. 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.
- 11 -
Ordinance No. 2005-26
PASSED and ADOPTED on August 16, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: YO-Y, �..
ABSENT:.
ABSTAIN: f n
Attest: John Sweeten, Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator
Z
By: _ - --
t
De oard it
12_
Ordinance No. 2005-26
EXHIBIT "A"
ECCRFFA FEE SCHEDULE
Regional
Transportation
Development
mpact 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 $ 91208.00
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
- 1 -
1
•
Boundary Description
East Contra Costa Regional Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit
EXHIBIT "B"
The eastern portion of Contra Costa County, California, bounded on the north, east, and
south by the boundary of said county, and bounded on the west by the following described
line:
Beginning in Suisun Bay on the boundary of Contra Costa County at the northern
prolongation of the west line of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo
Meridian; thence from the Point of Beginning, along said prolongation and west lines of
Sections 5 and 8 (T2N, R1 W), southerly 14,225 feet, more or less, to the west quarter
corner of said Section 8; thence along the midsection line of Section 8, easterly 5,280.06
feet, more or less, to the east quarter corner of said Section 8; thence along the east lines
of Sections 8 and 17 (T2N, R1 W), southerly 6,430 feet, more or less, to the southwest
corner of PARCEL "A" of Subdivision-MS 9-83 filed January 20, 1984 in Book 109 at
page 10, Parcel Maps of said county, also being an angle point on the boundary of
"CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION ANNEXATION" to the City of Concord
certified November 1, 1966; thence along said annexation boundary as follows: (1)
southeasterly 8,670.76 feet to the north line of Section 27 (T2N, R1 W, (2) southeasterly
10,641.44 feet, (3) southerly 3,015.62 feet, (4) southerly 1,478.05 feet, and (5)
southwesterly 817.33 feet to the south line of U.S.A. Explosive Safety Zone recorded
December 27, 1977 in Volume 8645 at page 682, Official Records of said county, and
shown on the Record of Survey filed January 8, 1985 in Book 76 at page 12, Licensed
Surveyors Maps of said county; thence leaving said annexation boundary and following the
boundary of said safety zone (also being the boundary of "BRINTON ANNEXATION" to the
City of Concord certified July 15, 1987) as follows: (1) easterly 1,398.01 feet, (2) easterly
660.00 feet, (3) northerly 646.64 feet and (4) easterly 659.60 feet, to the west line of
Section 1 (T1 N, R1 W); thence leaving the boundary of said safety zone, along said west
line, southerly 2,582 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of"BRI NTON
ANNEXATION" on the north right of.way line of Kirker Pass Road (also being the northeast
corner of"BERNSTEIN ANNEXATION" to the City of Concord certified March 29, 1972);
thence continuing along the west line of Section 1 (also being the east line of"BERNSTEIN
ANNEXATION"), southerly 2,300 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said
Section 1 on the north line of"OAKHURST COUNTRY CLUB AREA ANNEXATION" to the
City of Clayton certified November 30, 1987; thence leaving the boundary of the City of
Concord and following the boundary of said City of Clayton annexation as follows: (1) along
the south line of Section 1, easterly 5,254.46 feet, to the northeast corner of Section 12
(T1.N, R1 W) on Mount Diablo Meridian, (2) along said meridian, southerly 10,353.95 feet,
to the northeast corner of Section 24 (T1 NJ R1 W), (3) along the north line of Section 24,
westerly 1,406.17 feet, to the northeast right of way line of Marsh Creek Road shown on
the Record of Survey filed September 29, 1966 in Book 45 of Licensed Surveyors Maps at
page 2, (4) along said right of way line in a general southeasterly direction 1,526.21 feet to
Mount Diablo Meridian, and (5) along said meridian, southerly 936.04 feet, to the most
southeastern comer of said annexation; thence leaving said annexation boundary,
continuing along said meridian, southerly 72.75 feet, to the northwest comer of
"OAKWOOD ANNEXATION" to the City of Clayton certified August 16, 1990; thence along
the boundary of"OAKWOOD ANNEXATION" (also being the boundary of Subdivision
7259 "Oakwood"filed December 12, 1990 in Book 354 of Maps at page 5) as follows: (1)
easterly 339.92 feet, (2) in a general northeasterly direction 339.14 feet, (3) in a general
southerly direction 618.45 feet, (4) southwesterly 632.77 feet, and (5)westerly 215.95 feet
to the southwest corner of"OAKWOOD ANNEXATION" on Mount Diablo Meridian; thence
leaving said annexation boundary, along said meridian, southerly 13,854.07 feet, to
National Geodetic Survey Station "Mount Diablo;" thence continuing along said meridian,
southerly 15,840 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of Section 18 (T1 S, RI E);
thence along the south lines of Sections 18, 17, 169 15 and 14 (T1 S, R1 E), easterly 26,373
feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of Section 24 (T1 S, R1 E); thence along the west
lines of Sections 24 and 25 (T1S, R1 E), southerly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the
southwest corner of said Section 25; thence along the south line of Section 25 (T1 S, R1 E)
and the south line of Section 30 (T1 S, R2E), easterly 8,575 feet, more or less, to the
southwest right of way line of Morgan Territory Road shown on the map of Subdivision MS
18-86 filed February 28, 1992 in Book 157 of Parcel Maps at page 43; thence along said
southwest line in a general southeasterly direction 686 feet, more or less, to the
southwestern prolongation of the northwest line of Subdivision MS 31-78 filed December
31, 1980 in Book 91 of Parcel Maps at page 44; thence along said prolongation and
northwest line,, northeasterly 2,255.06 feet, to the west line of Section 29 (T1 S, R2E);
thence along said west line, southerly 1,020.02 feet, to the southwest corner of Section 29;
thence along the south lines of Sections 29 and 28 (T1 S, R2E), easterly 10,560 feet, more
or less to the northwest corner of Section 34 (T1 S, R2E); thence along the west line of
Section 34 (T1 S, R2E) and the west lines of Sections 3 and 10 (T2S, R2E), southerly
14,960 feet, more or less, to the boundary of Contra Costa County.
EXCLUDING THEREFROM:
1. Those portions lying within the boundaries of incorporated cities.
2. The sphere of influence for the City of Clayton as adopted by the Local
Agency Formation Commission and as shown in Exhibit 1-4, page 1-9 of the
Clayton General Plan adopted July 17, 1985.
2