HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08052008 - C.75 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
Costa
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR County
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DATE: AUGUST 5, 2008
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE EAST CONTRA COSTA BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT EXTENSION (eBART) PROJECT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPROVE as presented the First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding for the
proposed East Contra Costa Bay Area Rapid Transit Extension(eBART) Project, and, AUTHORIZE
the Chair, Board of Supervisors to sign the amendment to the agreement on behalf of the County.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE )
_ ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM TTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): joe_19_�
ACTION OF BOARD ON S APPROVED AS RECO MENDED _�`07ER_
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
'v UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ,�_'_ ) SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: P. Roche, DCD-AP(925)335-1242 ATTESTED "V" u�;'/t 16" CX
cc: CAO JOHN CULLEN,J CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Clerk of the Board SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
Public Works Department:
Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg By Wqft�w �)WCtakl�- DEPUTY
Bay Point MAC
Bethel Island MAC
Byron MAC
Knightsen MAC/CSD
Discovery Bay CSD
Tri-Delta Transit
SF-BARTD
CCTA
August 5, 2008
Board of Supervisors
First Amendment to MOU East Contra Costa BART Extension (eBART)Project
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The First Amendment to the eBART Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would delete
Contra Costa County and the cities of Oakley and Brentwood from the list of parties subject to the
MOU, relieving each affected jurisdiction from the requirements of the MOU to prepare a Ridership
Development Plan for stations that were proposed in their jurisdiction. The First Amendment to the
MOU would thereby relieve affected jurisdictions, including the County, from expending any local
funds on this project.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
In August 2005, Contra Costa County along with the cities in East County entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with SF Bay Area Rapid Transit District (SF-BARTD), and other
transportation agencies for the proposed East Contra Costa BART Extension (eBART) Project (see
under Attachment No. 1, 7/11/2005 Board Order approving the MOU). Under this MOU each of the
local jurisdictions committed to prepare a Ridership Development Plan for the eBART station
proposed within their respective jurisdiction. The MOU obligated Contra Costa County to prepare a
Ridership Development Plan for a proposed eBART station in Byron to serve the Byron/Discovery Bay
area. However, due to substantially higher project cost estimates and an inability to acquire the
Mococo railroad line from the Union Pacific Railroad, the project has been substantially revised to
extend BART service from the existing Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station to a terminus in Antioch in
the Hillcrest Avenue area near State Route 4.
Since the revised project would not, at this time, extend eBART to the cities of Oakley or Brentwood,
or further to the unincorporated communities in eastern Contra Costa County, SF-BARTD has
proposed an amendment to the 2005 MOU that would delete Contra Costa County and the cities of
Oakley and Brentwood from the list of parties subject to the MOU and thereby relieve each affected
jurisdiction from the requirements of the MOU to prepare a Ridership Development Plan. See under
Attachment No. 2, the First Amendment to the eBART MOU, as prepared by SF-BARTD. The other
parties to the eBART MOU, which include the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg,
have all approved the amendment to the MOU.
The Department of Conservation and Development recommends the Board of Supervisors approve
the first amendment to the eBART MOU, as proposed by SF-BARTD, and authorize the Chair, Board
of Supervisors to sign the amendment to the MOU on behalf of the County.
Attachments (2)
Attachment No. 1: 7/11/2005 Board Order, Memorandum of Understanding East Contra Costa BART Extension(eBART)
Project
Attachment No. 2: First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding East Contra Costa BART Extension(eBART)
Project
FAeBART Corridor Planning\1 STAMDEBARTMOUB008-05-09.final.doc
Attachment No. 1 : 7/11/2005 Board Order,
Memorandum of Understanding
East Contra Costa BART
Extension (eBART) Project
FL S®.2
TO: Board of Supervisorsf
{ Contra
FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Costa
County
DATE: July 11, 2005
SUBJECT: Approval of the Memorandum Of Understanding Regarding the East Contra Costa Bay
Area Rapid Transit Extension Project
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDER APPROVAL in substantially the form presented the attached Memorandum of
Understanding for the proposed East Contra Costa Bay Area Rapid Transit Extension Project,
and, subject to further language modifications recommended by East County cities that clarify
local responsibility for land use decision-making, AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors
to sign the agreement bn behalf of the County.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X REC ENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHEiR
SIGNATU S : rvisor ejedly Piepho //Supervisor Federal D. Glover
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RE OMMENDED -;OTHER_
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
__111. UNANIMOUS(ABSENT/1"C (`) SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
AYES: _________NOES:__ _
ABSENT ABSTAIN: —
Contact: P.Roche, CDD-AP (925)335-1242 ATTESTED ,
cc: CAO ---= VL—
--�---
Clerk of the Board JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department
Cities of Antioch, Brentwood,Oakley,and Pittsburg BY "'� E � DEPUTY
Bay Point MAC
Bethel Island MAC
Byron MAC
Knightsen MAC/CSD
Discovery Bay CSD
Tri-Delta Transit
SFBARTD
CCTA
MOU East Contra Costa BART Extension Project
July 12,2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
i
There will be some County costs due to the commitment of staff time and consultants
i
necessary to guide and direct work in preparing a Ridership Development Plan and any related
environmental review or planning actions for a proposed station in the Byron/Discovery Bay
area. However, approximately $2.4 million from various transportation funding sources has
been earmarked to local jurisdictions and transit agencies within the corridor to help cover
these costs. Use of these funds will be subject to a separate agreement.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has proposed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between BART, East County cities—Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and
Pittsburg, Contra Costa County, Tri-Delta Transit, and the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority to undertake work on the East Contra Costa BART Extension Project (also known as
"e-BART"). The purpose of this MOU is to define the respective roles and responsibilities of
the transportation agencies and the local jurisdictions in developing and planning for a rapid
transit system that would serve communities in eastern Contra Costa County. On February 8,
the Board referred this matter to the Transportation Water& Infrastructure (TWI) Committee.
In December 1999, the BART Board of Directors adopted a System Expansion Policy that
requires a Ridership Development Plan be prepared for a proposed infill station or a station
proposed as part of an expansion to the existing BART system. The Ridership Development
Plan must demonstrate that a target ridership number at the corridor level can be achieved
through measures such as transit supportive land uses and investment in access programs and
projects. The purpose of the Ridership Development Plans is to improve the cost-effectiveness
of the transit project through increased ridership. The proposed MOU is also intended to serve
as the local jurisdiction's commitment toward the development and implementation of a
Ridership Development Plan for a station proposed within their jurisdiction. In Contra Costa
County's case, the MOU expresses the County's commitment toward planning and
implementing certain measures for a station proposed in the Byron / Discovery Bay area.
The Transportation Water & Infrastructure (TWI) Committee has reviewed the draft
agreement, as have staff from Community Development and County Counsel. Contra Costa
County's concerns with the agreement have focused on clarifying and asserting local discretion
in setting land use policies for a station area within its jurisdiction. Several of the East County
cities have also expressed similar concerns with retaining local discretion over land use
planning around a station in their jurisdiction. BART has prepared several versions of the draft
agreement, making modifications to the language in response to concerns or issues raised by
all the parties involved, including Contra Costa County, and to a large extent the County's
previous concerns or reservations about the agreement have been satisfactorily addressed by
BART. Attached for the Board's consideration is draft version number 17 of the MOU,which
was received on July 7, 2005. The TWI Committee is scheduled to consider this most recent
version of the MOU at its July 11 meeting and will report its recommendation to the Board.
Attachments(2)
Attachment No. 1 Memorandum of Understanding East Contra Costa BART Extension Project
Attachment No.2: BART System Expansion Policy
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Among San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
City of Antioch, City of Brentwood,City of Oakley,City of Pittsburg,
Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
and Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority
In Connection with the Proposed East Contra Costa BART Extension
RECITALS
1. The Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") are the City of
Antioch,City of Brentwood,City of Oakley, City of Pittsburg,(collectively,the
"Cities"), Contra Costa County(the"County"), San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District ("BART"), Contra Costa Transportation Authority ("CCTA"), and Eastern
Contra Costa Transit Authority("ECCTA")(collectively the"Parties").
2. The Parties support the goal of expeditiously bringing high quality rapid transit
service to east Contra Costa County residents.
3. The Parties desire to achieve this goal by cooperating in the development of a
proposed project by BART for a high quality rapid transit system to serve the east Contra
Costa County communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley,Brentwood and Byron, known
as the State Route 4 East Corridor Transit Project ("the Project').
4. The Parties acknowledge that BART has initiated the environmental review for
the proposed Project, commencing with publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report(EIS/EIR) in the Federal
Register on July 6,2005. BART will be conducting scoping meetings on July 19 and 20,
2005 for the alternatives and impacts to be studied in the EIS/EIR.
5. The Parties acknowledge that BART and CCTA have prepared a feasibility study,
which examines transit alternatives for the proposed Project corridor, entitled the State
Route 4 East Corridor Transit Study("the Feasibility Study"). The Feasibility Study
considers Conventional BART,Diesel Multiple Unit("DMU"), Express Bus and Bus
Rapid Transit alternatives_
6. The Parties acknowledge that rapid transit ridership is generated by the population
and employment that surround stations,and by providing adequate access to and from
stations for transit passengers.
7. The Parties acknowledge that in the proposed Project corridor, the Cities and
County have authority over land use planning within their respective jurisdictions and
have adopted general plans, zoning ordinances and other land use plans,policies and
controls addressing matters such as density of land uses,mix of land uses and the future
growth and character of their residential and business communities.
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 1
8. The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to their respective land use planning and
control jurisdiction,the Cities and County make and/or participate in making decisions
on local transportation and infrastructure including the placement and capacity of local
streets and roads,pedestrian, bicycle, and public auto-use and parking facilities, all of
which are important factors in encouraging rapid transit ridership.
9. The Parties acknowledge that regional, state and federal transportation funding
sources all require ridership sufficient to justify the public investment in transit
infrastructure along with coordination between land use and transportation policies at the
local level.
10. The Parties acknowledge that in December 1999 and December 2002,
respectively,the BART Board of Directors adopted the BART System Expansion Policy
and the System Expansion Policy Criteria and Process(together the"System Expansion
Policy,"--attached hereto as EXHIBIT A), which contains evaluation criteria for
proposed projects that expand BART transit service. These criteria include evaluation of
local land use plans and policies, existing land uses and station area access in order to
determine whether anticipated ridership levels appear to be sufficiently high to favor
investment in a proposed expansion project. The System Expansion Policy is intended to
both guide BART's review of proposed projects and to help local jurisdictions identify
ways to effectively achieve the ridership necessary for a proposed BART expansion
project to be favorably evaluated. The System Expansion Policy was adopted with the
intention of guiding evaluation of all future BART expansion projects.
11. The Parties acknowledge that in order to demonstrate sufficient anticipated
ridership for favorable evaluation of the proposed Project,BART's System Expansion
Policy provides that a Ridership Development Plan be prepared and implemented for
each station in the Project corridor. The individual Cities and the County acknowledge
that they are responsible for preparing and implementing the Ridership Development
Plans for the station or stations within their respective jurisdictions,with the cooperation
and assistance of BART.
12. The Parties acknowledge that BART has in place Transit Oriented Development
Guidelines (2003)that provide guidance on TOD at and near BART stations,and Access
Guidelines (2003)that outline a hierarchy of access modes to BART Stations, i.e.,
walking, transit,bicycle,pick-up/drop-off,and vehicle parking.
13. The Parties acknowledge that the concept of a ridership threshold applicable to an
entire corridor has been established by the BART System Expansion Policy_ However,
the proposed Byron/Discovery Bay Station is located near the County Agricultural Core
and has very limited capacity to increase ridership via land use and access changes.
14. The Parties desire to enter into this MOU to express their commitment to the
development and implementation of Ridership Development Plans for stations in the
proposed Project corridor that will achieve sufficient ridership,access, and development
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 '?
to ensure that the proposed Project represents a productive transit investment that satisfies
BART's System Expansion Policy.
AGREEMENT
NOW,THEREFORE,the Parties, for good and valuable consideration,the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, agree as follows:
1. Roles of Participants in the Ridership Development Plan Process
The Parties recognize and acknowledge the following roles for the participants in the
Ridership Development Plan process:
1.1 The Cities and County are responsible for the development and implementation of
their own land use and local transportation plans,policies and controls within their
respective jurisdictions.
1.2 BART,as the Bay Area's regional rail transit system, is responsible for developing,
evaluating and adopting proposed projects to expand rapid and reliable transit service
beyond the service area of the existing BART system. As a prudent steward of public
resources,BART is responsible for developing and implementing policies regarding
expansion projects to help ensure that anticipated ridership levels are sufficiently high to
justify the large public investment that such projects represent.
1.3 CCTA,as the entity that collects and administers the County's half-cent sales tax, is
responsible for working with local and regional partners to identify funding priorities and
ensuring these priorities receive adequate funding. CCTA is responsible for ensuring that
the $150 million in Measure J funds earmarked for East County transit are spent cost-
effectively. CCTA also provides resources to the Cities and County completing the
Ridership Development Plans.
1.4 ECCTA is responsible for providing bus services in eastern Contra Costa County,
which will include feeder service to the existing Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station and
proposed Project transit stations in east Contra Costa County.
2. Agreements of the Parties
2.1 The Parties agree that a Ridership Development Plan shall be prepared for each
station of the proposed Project by the respective City, Cities, or County with jurisdiction
over land within the half-mile radius surrounding that station,with cooperation and
assistance from BART_
2.2 The Parties agree that the Ridership Development Plans shall be prepared and
implemented by the Parties substantially in the manner described in the Ridership
Development Plan Process, attached hereto as EXHIBIT B. Any substantial departure
from the process described in EXHIBIT B with respect to the Ridership Development
Final MOU for signature, August 3,2005 3
Plan for an individual station shall be mutually agreed to in writing by the Parties
participating in the development of that station's Ridership Development Plan.
2.3 The Parties agree that,as shown in Exhibit B,the Ridership Development Plans will
be supported by a combination of Regional Measure 2,Measure C, Station Area Planning
Program,and T-PLUS funds, along with additional local funds. MTC,CCTA and BART
confirm that these funds will be available on or after July 1, 2005. MTC, CCTA, BART
and the jurisdictions will establish a system for prompt payment of properly prepared
invoices.
2.4 Ridership estimates for the Project will be prepared for purposes of this MOU using
the modeling methodology as described in the Ridership Estimation MethodoloD),
attached hereto as EXHIBIT C. All ridership estimates are for the planning horizon year
of 2030. The Parties agree that the methodology to be used is acceptable and appropriate
for the proposed Project.
2.5 The Parties agree that a corridorwide ridership threshold must be achieved in order to
comply with the BART System Expansion Policy. BART, in close collaboration with the
other Parties will develop the corridorwide ridership threshold. The methodology and
assumptions for developing the ridership target will incorporate the input and feedback of
the other Parties. The corridorwide ridership threshold for the alternatives presently
expected to be evaluated are as shown in Table 2.1. These figures were developed during
the Feasibility Study and are subject to refinement as subsequent studies are undertaken
and feedback is received by BART during the environmental review process.
Table 2.1
Conidorwide Ridership Threshold Estimates
byTechnology Alternative
Technology Alternative Threshold
Estimate
Conventional BART to Hillcrest 14,000
DMU to Byron 14,055
Bus Rapid Transit to Byron 15,124
2.6 The Parties agree that, as part of the proposed Project, BART commits to developing
a transfer between conventional BART trains and the new rapid transit system that is as
convenient and efficient as reasonably possible for passengers. BART will develop a
schematic transfer plan for the intermodal transfer between conventional BART and the
new rapid transit system as part of its environmental process. BART will also develop a
schematic design for a typical eBART station. These documents will be provided to the
Parties within six months of the July 19,2005 scoping meeting.
2.7 The Parties agree that BART shall comply with applicable Americans with
Disabilities Act(ADA) standards in designing the proposed Project.
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 4
2.8 The Parties agree that BART will apply the same fare structure in place throughout
the BART system to the proposed Project stations, and that ticketing will be convenient
and efficient for passengers.
2.9 The Parties agree that BART will provide similar hours of revenue service operation
and appropriate frequency of service for the proposed Project stations as for the
remainder of the BART system,taking into consideration East County population and
ridership at the proposed Project stations.
2.10 The Parties agree that, as part of the proposed Project, the Cities and the County
commit to achievement of the corridorwide ridership threshold for the horizon year
(2030) through preparation and implementation of the Ridership Development Plans. For
jurisdictions whose current General Plan does not extend to 2030, BART and the
jurisdiction will utilize the projections incorporated into MTC's "Transportation 2030"
Regional Transportation Plan.
2.11 The Parties agree that the Cities and the County commit to preparing and
implementing Ridership Development Plans incorporating land use and/or access
improvements at and around the proposed Project stations that are sufficient to achieve
the corridorwide ridership threshold.
2.12 The Parties agree that the Cities and the County commit to implementing convenient
and efficient access to the proposed Project stations for pedestrians, transit users,
bicyclists and automobiles that is sufficient to achieve the corridorwide ridership
threshold.
2.13 The Parties agree that as part of the proposed Project,BART will solicit and
consider comments from ECCTA in designing stations along the corridor. BART and
ECCTA will work to develop bus access and loading/unloading areas that are
conveniently located for passengers.
2.14 The Parties agree that ECCTA commits to providing transit access to each of the
proposed Project stations that is convenient and efficient for transit users.
2.15 BART has initiated the environmental review process for the proposed Project and
alternatives under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and, the National
Environmental Policy Act("NEPA"). In conducting such environmental review, BART
shall consider both the Base Estimates(as defined in EXHIBIT B hereto)and Threshold
Estimates identified in EXHIBIT B.
2.16 Following execution of this Memorandum,the Cities and County will undertake
development of their respective Ridership Developments Plans (RDPs). The Ridership
Development Plans shall propose actions to enhance transit ridership through access
and/or development as described in EXHIBIT B hereto.
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 S
2.17 Following or concurrent with development of their respective Ridership
Development Plans,the Cities and County will undertake any environmental review
process required under CEQA for the adoption of the proposed ridership and
development enhancement actions identified in the Plans. At the conclusion of
environmental review,the Cities and County will make the discretionary decision
whether or not to adopt and implement the actions identified in their RDPs.
2.18 When evaluating the proposed Project under the System Expansion Policy criterion
for transit-supportive land use,BART will consider the information contained in the
Ridership Development Plans,whether the Plans demonstrate that the corridorwide
ridership threshold for the proposed Project can be achieved, and whether ridership
enhancement actions identified therein have been adopted and implemented by the Cities
and County. BART will consider this information in deciding whether or not to adopt the
proposed Project.
2.19 The Parties agree that in the event of disputes concerning the matters addressed in
this MOU,they will utilize the dispute resolution process described in EXHIBIT D.
3. Schedule
3.1 The Parties agree that the Ridership Development Plan process will be completed in
phases, with proposed milestones indicated below in calendar days. The Parties agree to
work towards achieving the milestones according to the schedule presented below. This
schedule may be modified by mutual written agreement of the Parties.
Table 3.1
Ridership Development Plan Schedule
Phase Activities Milestones to be achieved
I.Within 60 Circulation of • Initiate proposed Project
Days of July • EIS/EIR
19,2005 • Initial ridership
scoping estimates
meeting • BART Access
Guidelines
• BART TOD
Guidelines
II.Within Development of Ridership • Completion of Ridership
365 Days of Development Plans Development Plans
July 19,2005 • Access Component
scoping • Land Use Component
meeting • Station Component
• Revised ridership
estimates
Continued work on Project
EIS/EIR
III.Within • Environmental review • Cities and County adopt
270 Days of of actions identified in actions identified in Ridership
substantial Ridership Development Development Plans
Final MOU for signature,, August 3, 2005 6
completion Plans • Release of Draft Project
of Phase 1I EIS/EIR
Continued Work on Project
EIS/EIR
IV.Within 30 • BART Board considers
Days of certification of Project EIS/EIR
substantial and adoption of Project
completion
of Phase III
3.2 Pursuant to the above schedule, Phase II of the Ridership Development Plan process
contains the bulk of the significant planning activity undertaken by the Parties. The
Parties agree and acknowledge that there may be significant differences in Plan structure
and scheduling among the Cities and County. Recognizing the need for flexibility,the
Parties will work toward completion of the Phase II planning component of the Ridership
Development Plan process with a target completion date of 365 days from the July 19,
2005 scoping meeting and proposed milestones as follows:
Table 3.2
Phase 11 Planning Schedule
From July 19,2005 Scoping Meetin
Deliverable Due Date
Draft RDP Scope Dav 30
Draft Land Use and Access Data Day 60
Parties Review of Draft Ridership Day 77
Estimates
Parties Review Schematic Transfer Plan Day 180
and Schematic eBART Station Plan
Development of Land Use and Access Day 270
and Station Plans if necessary)
Evaluate Ridership enhancement Day 300
measures(if necess
Draft Final Plans Day 330
Final Plans presented for review by Day 365
Parties
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of
Understanding effective as of the latest date set forth below.
Final MOU for signature, August 3,2005 7
City of Antioch:
Mayor
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 �
City of Brentwood:
Mayor
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 9
City of Oakley:
Mayor
Final MOU for signature, August 3,2005 10
City of Pittsburg.•
Mayor
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 11
Contra Costa County:
Chair,Board of Supervisors
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 12
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority:
Board Chair
Final MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 13
Contra Costa Transportation Authority:
Board Chair
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 14
BART:
Board President
Final MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 15
EXHIBIT A
BART SYSTEM EXPANSION POLICY
Attachment A
System Expansion
Criteria and Process
Adopted by BART Board-12.5.02
System Expansion Policy
Introduction
Over forty years ago, residents of the Alameda, Contra Costa and San
Francisco Counties supported the creation of the BART District. Since
that time, BART has become a critical component of the region's
transportation system.
Today the pressures of growth in the Bay Area continue. Accommodating
this growth continues to drive further dispersal of jobs and housing. At the
same time, BART and other transit systems demand a continued level of
reinvestment to maintain service. Finally, financial support for BART and
other transportation systems must compete with their infrastructure and
social needs. It is imperative that BART. as a steward of public funding
for transportation investments,continue to:
• Ensure cost-effective transportation investment decisions;
• Protect the taxpayers'investment in the District's physical infrastructure;
• Ensure the financial health and sustainability of the District;and
• Enhance the Bay Area's environment and quality of life.
It is with these considerations that the BART Board adopts the following
Project Advancement Criteria and Process for all System Expansion
projects.
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 16
Project Advancement Process
Strategic Opportunity Assessment
No
Yes
Legend
Ridership Development Plan Environmental
(Cvmprelrn:ive suit..Pon) Review
Staff Activity •Sunon A—Develop merit
•Motion Accrtt
•Station Capacitc&FunctionalitV
No
TYes
1 Project
Implementation
Project Advancement Process
Sake 1
Strategic,Opportunity Assessment
Intttal planning assessment of transit exppaannsion oppportunities
Level of effort commenswate with furtding availabdih for studyy
May include several planning efforts before project recommendation brought forward to the
Board
Y Project Advancement
Staff uses study reports to evaluate a project against the criteria and decides whether to
recommend a project for advancement to the next stage
Board considers staff recommendations and decides whether to advance project
recommendation to the next stage for further study
Stage 2
Y Ridership Development Plan
• Work in partnership with local jurisdictions to develop a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOlaying out coordinated timelines for transit project Environmental Review and the
Ridership Development Plan pprocess
Work in partnership with local urjsdictions
to achieve transit ridership thresholds by
balancing transit-oriented devel'opmcnt(TOD)and access goals with community desire;
seek commitments from local jurisdictions regarding land use and access plans
Y Environmental Review
• CEQA and/or NEPA environmental review process(as applicable).
Y Project Advancement
Ridership Development Plan prepared concurrently with Environmental Review and
brought forward to the Board
Staff uses both documents to evaluate project with the criteria and decides whether to
recommend a project for advancement
Board considers staff recommendations and decides whether to advance project to the next
stage
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005
17
Project Advancement Criteria
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
• Existing Land Use:Residential and/or Employment
• Existing Intermodal Connections
• Land Use Plans and Policies
Ridership Development Plan
• Ridership Threshold
• Station Context
Cost-Effectiveness
• Cost per New Rider:Base Case
• Cost per New Rider:with TOD
• Cost per Transportation System User Benefit
Regional Network Connectivity
• Regional Transportation Gap Closure
System and Financial Capacity
• Core System Improvements
• Capital Finance Plan
• Operating Finance Plan
Partnerships
• Community and Stakeholder Support
Attachment B
Metrics for Staff
Recommendations
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 18
PROJFLT Sr IIIF
$batrglc Fiirwanarnbl Cteanam'
Oppar.nity Irhknhip t)evelopo:er
PROPOSED CRITERIA A-- rlo
Tnosit Supportive Land Use and Aecesa
E.mrm find Use-Rcaidera�d and�or lvvmrnt IiI.NM:MWH ULN�MMWN
Glaring lntcrt.odal Connauon. LLMiMlMHH ULNiMMWH
L-d Use P—-d Pokes LLNtMMWH LTMiMMWH
Rttlenhip Develepnleot Plan
Rderah, Thrcah.ld L'LWMMWH
stat..Conba LMIH
Cos t Effectiveness
Cost PC,New Rides a—C— :4UfM�:MMWH UIMM
iMl4H
Cost 1,—Kw-aih TOO LIMMM WH UIMM/MWH
Coca pa T—s nnio.5ystcm U—Eienear ULM.MMWH
Re(tionol Network Conneetivity
Rcgonal Trnspnrt.tion Gap Clos.R L'M!H UMiH
system artd Financal Capacity
CaR sntem ltgsove.enn ULM/MMWH UIMM/MWH
til F.ancc Pbn Us1iH LM/Ff
t/N/H LMM
Partnerships
Co d ®i sralurh m.NWpv UfMMMWH ULNrMMWH
RatittQLegend
L Low LM:Low-Medico M:Medium MH:MedimHO H:Hgh
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Land Use:
Low- Medium-
Residential Low Medium Medium Hiph Hiph
Residential Density <5 5-9 10-14 15-24 >25
(units per Bross acre)
Residential Density <15 16-25 26-45 46-75 175
(units per net acre)
Total Unirs w/i 1.?mile <2,500 2,501- 5,001- 7,501- >12,500
radius 5,000 7,500 12,500
Estimated Trips at 30% <1,800 1,801- 3,601- 5,401- >9,000
mode share" 3,600 5,401) 9,000
Residential units within X mile radius of stations
••Estimated trips(two-way)based on 1.2 workers per household.
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 19
Examples of Residential Density
tY
within 1/2 mile radius of BART Stations
Low- Medium-
Low Medium Medium High High
Net North MetroWalk Strobridge Court Coggins Square Gaia Building
Berkeley Richmond Castro Valley Pleasant Hili Berkeley
BART BART BART BART BART
(10+du/a) (20+du/a) (41 du/a) (58 du/a) (250 du/a)
•
a r
e
Gross* Orinda Rockridge Ashby 16th Street Civic Center
(2 du/a) (9 du/a) (11 du/a) (22 du/a) (42 du/a)
*Dwelling units per Gross Acre within 112 mile of station Wervem,1990)
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Land Use: Low- Medium-
Em to went Low Medium Medium High High
Employment Density <10 10-20 21-50 51-100 >100
(employees per gross acre)'
Million Sq.Ft.of <1.7 1.7-3.3 74-9.3 6.4-16.6 >16.6
Commercial Space w/i
`./i mile radius
Total Employees w/i <5,100 5,100- 9,901- 24,901- >49,800
I/2 mile radius 9,900 1 24,900 49,800
Estimated Trips at 10% <1,000 1,000. 2.001- 5,001- >10,000
mode share" 2,000 5,000 10,000
' Employment within 1/2 mile radius of stations
•' Estimated tnps(two-way)based on 3 employees per 1,000 square feet
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 20
Examples of Employment Density
within 1/2 mile radius of BART Stations
Low Low- Medium-
Medium Medium High High
Grass* Union City Walnut Creek Berkeley 19th Street Montgomery
(2) (19) (24) (65) (234)
'Employees per Gross Acre within 1!2 mile of station(Cervero,1990)
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Low_ I I Medium-I
Intermodal Low MediumHMedHi h High
Connections'
g
Pedestrian
ualissess ent
BicycleQualissess tent
Transit
ualissess lent
Pedestrian
Comprohrnsrvane_ es
o(Pedtrian Nerwork
• Safe Access to Station Saes
• Topography
Bicyck
• Bicyck Network Connectrvny
• F-Wing Bicycle IJsagc
• Camprehansivencsa of Buycic Network
Transit
Peak-Hour Trareir Routes
•
P.ak-Hour Routes w!Headws_ys 15 Mutates ax Less
• Evening&Weekend Routes
Final MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 21
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Low Meddium Medium Medium
Hi h High
_ g
Land Use Plans
and Policies Quall alive Assessment
Growth Mamgemeot •Con—tration ofdevelopment armnd esmbhah d activity centers and regional trantu
Transit Supparti% Plans and policies to increase corridor and station era development
Corridor Policies •Plans and policies to enhance tramiofriendly clvusaer of svtion area development
•Cammitment to imer-junscimional consensus on land use
Sapportive Z•niag •Zoning that mereages development demity in transit station areas
Regulotlons Fear .Zoning that encourages mixed-use development
Transit Sution
•Zoning that eMatlro rami[-oriented character of area,and pedestrian access
•Zoning that reduces parking and traffic mitigation
Tools to Implement •Community outreach in support of land use planning
Land Use Poacles •Regulatory and financial incentives to promote"tail support development
Ridership Development Plan
(Comprehensive Station Plan)
Ridership Low- Medium-
Threshold* Low Medium Medium High High
BART <5,000 5,000- 10,000- 14,000- >20,000
9,999 13,999 20,000
Other Rail
Technology %of BAA T per mile apital costs
Express %ofBAN T per mile apital costs
Bus/Bus
Rapid Transit
Includes:
• Station Area Development
• Station Access
• Station Capacity&Functionality
" Thresholds based on comdor-wide station avenge for daily trips to and from(entries and
exits)new stations in horizon year with planned transit-oriented development and access
improvcmcnts
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 22
Ridership Development Plan
(Comprehensive Station Plan)
Low Medium 1 High
Station Context Qualitative Aj sessment
Low:Station location that would not support transit-oriented development and that
would negatively affect the quality of the station experience for patrons(i.e.freeway
median)
Medium:Station location with good potential for transit-oriented development and an
acceptable station experience for patrons
High:Station location that already has or would greatly facilitate transit-oriented
development and would provide a good experience for patrons(i.e.downtown
locations)
f
Cost Effectiveness
Low Low- Medium Medium- High
Medium High
Cost per New Rider >S40.00 $25.01- $15.01 - $10.00- <$10.00
-Base Case 40.00 25.00 15.00
I
Low Low �Medium Medium- High
Medium High
Cost per New Rider >S40.00 $25.01- $15.01- $10.00- :$10.00
-with TOD 40.00 25.00 15.00
(Costs in 2002 dollars)
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 23
Cost Effectiveness
Low Low Medium Medium- High
Medium High
Cost/Transportation TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
System User Benefit
The cost effectiveness-transportation system user benefits measure is defined as a multimodal
measure of perceived travel rime for all transportation system users in the forecast year,divided by
the recommended cost of the project The nein measure de-tmphasires new riders and insieud
measures the benefirs,jor users changing modes as well as existing transit riders and highway users.
The cost effectiveness-transportation system user benefits measure will be phased in over time,
becoming effective on September 1.2001.
Federal Transit Administration-Frequently Asked Questions on New Starts Final Rule
Regional Network Connectivity
Low Medium High
Regional
Transportation Qualitative Assessment
Gap Closure
Assess the interconnected relationship of the transit expansion project and the existing
transportation network,identifying opportunities for major gap closures(i.e.,airport,inter-city
rail,commuter rail,light rail).
Final MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 24
System and Financial Capacity
Low Medium High
Core System
Improvements Qual tative As essment
Enhances(at best)or minimizes demands on core system:
• Yard/Support Facilities
• Redundancy/Recovery Capabilities
• Station and Line Haul Capacity
System and Financial Capacity
Low Medium High
Capital Finance
Plan* Quali adve Ass ssment
*Capital Finance Plan rating based on:
1) A fully-funded project;
2) The stability,reliability and availability of proposed funding sources;and
3) Funding sources not competing with those that can be used for BART System
Renovation and Core System Capacity needs(i.e.RTP/CMAQ or RIP).
4) For projects outside the District-funding sources not competing with those that
can be used for District extensions.
5) For projects outside the District-core system improvements are funded in the
Capital Financial Plan for the project
6) For project inside the District-core system improvements are funded in a
parallel financial pian.
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 23
System and Financial Capacity
Low Medium High
Operating Finance
Plan* Qualitative As essment
Operating Finance Plan rating based on:
1) Estimated fambox recovery(Low:X30%;Medium:30-50%;and High:>50%);
2) The stability,reliability and availability of proposed operating subsidy.
3) For projects outside the District-funding sources that do not draw on,or risk the
use of,District operating revenues.
Partnerships
Low ' i°W k Medium Medium- High
Medium i High
Community and
Stakeholder ualitaltive A essment 1
Support
Community Support Degree of Support
Stakeholder Support •Degree of Support
I
Final MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 26
EXHIBIT B
RIDERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS
The BART System Expansion Policy requires that a Ridership Development Plan be
undertaken for all proposed expansion projects of the existing BART system. The
Ridership Development Plan must demonstrate that a corridor-wide ridership threshold
can be achieved through measures such as transit-supportive land uses and investment in
access programs and projects.
1. Ridership Estimates
Ridership at both the corridor- and station-levels is estimated using a standard modeling
methodology that incorporates assumptions regarding land use and transportation policies
and projected growth. Transportation conditions such as infrastructure and traffic and
congestion levels on local streets and highways were established in the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority's east county traffic model, and are carried forward into
CCTA's new Countywide model. A more complete description of the assumptions and
inputs used for ridership estimation is contained in Ridership Estimation Methodology,
attached as EXHIBIT C hereto. There are two categories of ridership estimates: Base
Estimates and Ridership Thresholds Estimates.
a. Base Estimates of station and corridor ridership are based on land use and
transportation policies as established by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG)applicable projections of population and employment.
b.Ridership Threshold Estimates represent the minimum ridership deemed
necessary to satisfy the criteria of BART's System Expansion Policy. Ridership
Thresholds are based on the minimum ridership figure required to meet the
recommended range of BART's System Expansion Policy.
Base and Ridership Threshold Estimates for ridership associated with the proposed
Project stations for the alternatives presently expected to be evaluated are as follows(in
units of entries and exits for an average weekday in 2030):
Conventional BART Alternative
Corridor Base Estimate Ridership Thresh_old—��
To Hillcrest � TBD 14,000
Diesel Multiple Unit Alternative
Corridor Base Estimate Ridership Threshold
To B on 8,400 14,055
Bus Rapid Transit Alternative
CorridorBase Esl dership Threshold
To Byron 8,100 15,124
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 27
Based on the results of the Feasibility Study, BART presently intends to evaluate a
conventional BART alternative to Hillcrest Avenue, a DMU alternative,a Bus Rapid
Transit Alternative and No Project alternative for purposes of environmental impact
review as required under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the
National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). This preliminary list of alternatives to be
evaluated may be subject to change based on the outcome of the scoping process required
under CEQA and NEPA.
2. Ridership Development Plans
Corridorwide Plan Objectives
As provided by BART's System Expansion Policy, in determining whether to adopt a
system expansion project and where to locate new stations, BART shall consider whether
Ridership Development Plans(RDPs)developed for each station can collectively
demonstrate that the project will achieve a threshold ridership level.
Strategies for boosting ridership include planning and implementation of transit-
supportive land uses, improvements in local transportation programs and infrastructure,
increases in transit feeder services and development of additional auto-serving parking
facilities including parking in the station area. Ridership thresholds are developed on a
Corridorwide and station-level basis. A Corridorwide threshold establishes the overall
ridership generated by all stations included in a project. Corridorwide ridership
thresholds are the basis for evaluation of the project under the BART System Expansion
Policy. Station-level ridership thresholds refer to an individual station's share of the
Corridorwide total.
While there are threshold estimates at both the Corridorwide and station level,it is the
Corridorwide ridership threshold that is considered under the BART System Expansion
Policy. Therefore,although an individual station may not reach its individual threshold
estimate, the Corridorwide threshold estimate must be met in order for the proposed
Project to be favorably evaluated under the System Expansion Policy. As a result,to
ensure favorable evaluation,the Cities and County must collectively demonstrate that the
Ridership Threshold Estimate for the project can be achieved. Whether an individual
station achieves its share of the Corridorwide threshold by land use changes or access
improvements or some combination of the two is at the full discretion of the local
jurisdiction as long as the Corridorwide ridership threshold is achieved.
Plan Development and Content
The planning process in the Cities or County will be led by city or county staff,with
cooperation and assistance from BART,the Project consultant team and ECCTA. The
RDP is obligated to address three component areas: Land Use, Access and Station Plans.
The Cities and County, working together with BART, ECCTA and CCTA,will develop a
detailed scope of work for the RDPs according to the unique setting and circumstances
for the station planning area. To satisfy the requirements of the System Expansion
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 28
Policy, the RDPs should perform the analysis necessary to produce the data required in
estimating ridership at the station level.
A. ADP Land Use Component
The City,Cities or County with jurisdiction over land within the half-mile radius
surrounding a proposed station will prepare the Land Use component of the RDP. If
existing land use plans,policies and controls in conjunction with existing access modes
are not sufficient to enable the station to achieve its share of the corridorwide ridership
threshold, the land use plan must describe proposed ridership enhancement actions that
would enable the station to do so. Such ridership enhancement actions may include
General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, zoning amendments or other actions elected at
the discretion of the city or county. To provide a basis for evaluating the station area
plan, information should also be provided on the existing land use plans for the area of
the City or County outside the half-mile radius; this information could be presented by
summarizing the local jurisdiction's General Plan Land Use Element. Land use
projections shall be for the planning horizon year of 2030. If a jurisdiction's General
Plan does not extend to 2030, BART and the jurisdiction will utilize the projections
incorporated into MTC's"Transportation 2030"Regional Transportation Plan. The
information provided should include,at a minimum, the following elements:
Table B.2.1
Detailed Land Use Plan Elements
Existing Conditions 2030 Conditions
Building permits approved
10- ear histo _ .
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Zoning Map Zoning Ma
Residential density Residential density
Employment density Employrnent density
Residential units Residential units
Employees Employees
Parking Requirements Parking Requirements
Total Build-out Square Total Build-out Square
Footage for: Footage for:
Retail,Office, Industrial, Retail, Office,Industrial,
Institutional,Recreation Institutional,Recreation
B. RDP Access Component
The City,Cities or County with jurisdiction over land within the half-mile radius
surrounding a proposed station, with assistance from BART,CCTA and ECCTA, will
prepare the Access component of the RDP. The RDP should develop a detailed Access
Plan for the area within the half-mile radius around the station and also,at a lesser level
of detail, information on access on a citywide or area wide scale. If existing access in
conjunction with land use would not suffice to enable the station to achieve its share of
the corridorwide ridership threshold, the Access Plan must describe proposed ridership
enhancement actions that would enable the station to do so. Such ridership enhancement
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 29
actions may include General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, access improvements or
other actions selected at the discretion of the city. The citywide access information
should include expected traffic conditions on routes of regional significance, anticipated
transit service and major bike and pedestrian facilities. Projected transportation and
congestion conditions shall be for the planning horizon year of 2030. For the half-mile
radius area, the Access Plans should contain,at a minimum,the following information:
TableB.2.2
Detailed Access Plan Elements
Existing Conditions 2030 Conditions
Intersection v/c ratios for Intersection v/c ratios for
AM and PM peak periods AM and PM peak periods
Roadway capacity for AM Roadway capacity for AM
and PM peak periods and PM peak periods
Pedestrian facilities Pedestrian facilities
Bicycle facilities Bicycle facilities
Bus routes Bus routes
Bus stops Bus stops
Urban design guidelines Urban design guidelines
Parking requirements Parkin requirements
— —__
� Number,frequency of bus
lines se-rving station
Parking in addition to
- Project-funded allotment
C. RDP Station Plan
In cooperation with the Cities, County and OCTA,BART will develop and provide the
Station Plan component of the RDP. The Station Plan will consist of a detailed plan of
the station property itself, including conceptual-level station design,related facilities and
parking proposed to be constructed and funded by the Project. The Station Plan will
present conceptual-level designs for station platforms, vertical circulation(stairs and
escalators) and fare equipment. It will also address station property circulation,including
paths of travel for buses, shuttles, taxis, automobiles,pedestrians,bicyclists and
wheelchairs. In addition to automobile parking,the Station Plan will present carpool and
accessible spaces along with bicycle parking facilities. Some local jurisdictions may
wish to allow development on station surface parking properties,which would also be
addressed in the Station Plan. Some local jurisdictions may wish to develop additional
parking or other access facilities off the station property,which would be addressed in the
Land Use and Access components rather than in the Station Plan.
Evaluate Effectiveness of Ridership Enhancement Measures
In e course of the RDP development process, new estimates of ridership may need to be
revithsed based on proposed ridership enhancement measures such as access improvements
and/or land use planning changes. In that event,Project staff will develop new estimates
of ridership to reflect the impact of such measures.
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 30
3. Ridership Development Plan Implementation
Under the System Expansion Policy criterion for transit-supportive land use,proposed
projects are evaluated based on existing land use plans,policies and controls.
Accordingly, in order to obtain favorable evaluation for the proposed Project on the
transit-supportive land use criterion,unless the corridorwide ridership threshold is
already met under existing conditions,the Cities/County must adopt and implement
ridership enhancement actions such as General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, zoning
amendments, access improvements or other actions selected at the discretion of the
City/County and proposed in the RDPs.
The Cities,County,BART,ECCTA and CCTA staff will work together to address
outstanding issues relating to access and/or land use or other factors that may be
preventing the threshold estimate from being achieved.
Following or concurrent with development of their respective RDPs,the Cities and
County will undertake any environmental review process required under CEQA for the
adoption and implementation of the proposed ridership enhancement actions identified ill
their RDPs. At the conclusion of environmental review, the City or County will make the
discretionary decision whether or not to adopt and implement the actions identified in
their RDPs.
Thereafter, when evaluating the proposed Project, BART will consider the information
contained in the RDPs,whether the RDPs demonstrate that the corridorwide ridership
threshold can be achieved, and whether the ridership enhancement actions identified in
the RDPs have been adopted and implemented. BART will consider this information in
deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Project as a whole and in deciding on the
number and location of stations.
4. Funding for RDPs
The RDP work undertaken by staff and consultants will be funded by a combination of
Regional Measure 2, Measure C, Station Area Planning Program and T-PLUS funds as
shown below,along with additional local funds:
RM-2 Funds MTC $1.4 million
Measure C Funds CCTA 0.4 million
Station Area Planning Program MTC 0.5 million
T-PLUS Program MTC 0.1 million
Total available for City/County RDPs $2.4 million
MTC, CCTA,BART and the jurisdictions will establish a system for prompt payment of
properly prepared invoices.
It is anticipated that each City or the County will commit staff time to the RDP work, and
that the above resources may not cover all costs associated with the.RDP process.
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 31
The total fund amount of approximately $2.4 million will be allocated among the Cities
and County in a mutually agreeable manner, with approximately the same amount going
to each station site for study.
Final MOU for signature, August 3,200 32-
EXHIBIT C
RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Overview
The ridership forecasting methodology will be developed in a manner providing
consistency with the previous ridership forecasts developed for the State Route 4 East
Corridor Transit Study. It will also recognize the need to utilize modeling techniques that
are acceptable at the regional level. CCTA has recently updated its travel demand
forecasting model by consolidating its four EMME/2 subarea models (including the East
County Model)into one Countywide Model that operates on the TransCAD software
platform. After conferring with both CCTA and MTC modeling staff, it has been agreed
that the Countywide Model is the appropriate tool for this analysis. The Countywide
Model network has already been modified to include the eBART project as it is part of
the Measure J funding program.
1. Base Ridership Forecast
BART and/or its consultant will obtain from CCTA a copy of the Countywide Model
which includes the eBART project and other planned transportation improvements
consistent with the current Regional Transportation Plan,as well as current land use
information from the Cities and County with jurisdiction within a half-mile radius of a
proposed station site. The forecast year will be 2030,or approximately 20 years after
project opening. For a jurisdiction whose current General Plan does not extend to 2030,
BART and the jurisdiction will utilize the projections of MTC's"Transportation 2030"
Regional Transportation Plan. A forecast will also be prepared for the first year of
project operation. The forecasts will be based on the ABAG Projections 2003 population
and employment estimates.
BART and/or its consultant will enhance the portion of the CCTA model which
represents Eastern Contra Costa County to more accurately reflect the actual planned
location and capacity of the stations,and the types of connecting transit services and
roadway access improvements which would be associated with the stations. Transit
networks will be developed for each of the alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR/EIS,
which would likely include a No-Build, Conventional BART(to Hillcrest),Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT)to Byron/Discovery Bay, and eBART.
The reasonableness of the model results will be evaluated through comparisons with past
estimates and with the performance of other comparable transit projects in the Bay Area
and elsewhere in the United States. Adjustments to the model will be made as
appropriate in coordination with CCTA's modeling staff and project partners to provide
more accurate forecasts. A working paper will be prepared presenting the modeling
assumptions and methodology,and presenting the results of the baseline forecast. The
working paper will be presented in draft form for review and comment by the Parties to
the MOU.
Final MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 33
2. Additional Ridership due to RDP Implementation
BART and/or its consultant shall estimate additional ridership potential as a result of
RDP Implementation. This estimation will involve a combination of analysis tools,
including application of the Countywide Model, and use of post processing techniques.
Estimation of additional ridership will focus on the three components of the RDP-- land
use,access and station plan-- individually and in combination with one another.
Land Use Component
BART and/or its consultant shall estimate potential increases to the Base Forecast as a
result of proposed General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, zoning amendments, or
other actions as considered in the RDP. The Countywide Model may be applied to assess
the impacts of increases in the number of households and employment as a result of the
land use changes. Further estimation may be accomplished through post-processing
techniques that consider in finer detail the impacts of density,diversity, and design on
transit ridership.
Access Component
The access component of the RDP will develop roadway and transit network
enhancements at a citywide and more detailed station-area level. BART and/or its
consultant may incorporate the citywide components into the Countywide Model to
estimate the additional ridership that could result if the access plan were implemented.
Further analysis at the station-area level would be conducted through combined use of the
Countywide Model and post-processing techniques.
Station Plan
The RDP will include a land use market analysis that will guide the development of each
station area land use plan. BART and/or its consultant will determine the incremental
growth in station area households(population) and employment that the station area plans
represent in comparison with the amount of growth anticipated in the ABAG Projections
2003. Using a combination of available analysis tools, a methodology will be developed
for estimating the additional ridership as compared with the Baseline forecast that would
result from changes in station area land use density, diversity(the mix of residential,
commercial, industrial,and public uses)and design as reflected in the station area plans.
MTC has assembled substantial documentation of the transit usage characteristics of
households and employment uses within one-half mile of a BART station. Depending
upon the methodology that is adopted,the estimate of ridership resulting from
implementation of the Station Plan may involve post-processing of the Countywide
Model results to further evaluate the impacts of density, diversity and design on ridership.
The transit trip generation factors which have been identified from this research will be
applied to the incremental growth expected around the station sites to estimate the
additional transit ridership that would likely result from this development.
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 34
BART and/or its consultant shall prepare a working paper to document the approach,
methodology and results of estimating the incremental increase in ridership due to RDP
implementation relative to the threshold ridership. The working paper will be presented
in draft form for review and comment by the Parties to the MOU.
3. Sensitivity Tests
BART and/or its consultant will conduct a series of sensitivity tests that will be designed
to determine how shifts or changes in the RDP assumptions would affect ridership
results. The assumptions will include not only land use, density and growth estimates,
but also transit fares, fuel prices, and the timing of other major transportation
improvements in the East County. A working paper will be prepared to document the
findings of the sensitivity tests. The working paper will be presented in draft form for
review and comment by the Parties to the MOU.
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 35
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event of a dispute between or among the Parties that cannot be resolved informally,
a formal dispute resolution process will be entered into with the goal of resolving
differences in a timely fashion. Disputes must be recognized and identified by each
Party. On a written request submitted to CCTA, acting as the overseeing body,disputes
will be addressed through the process presented below:
1. First Level
Each Party will designate staff to be the initial person(s)to confer regarding disputes.
For BART,the First Level person,unless BART designates otherwise in writing, will be
the eBART Project Manager. For the other Parties,the First Level person, unless
otherwise designated in writing, will be the Project Planner from the City, or the County
or ECCTA equivalent. After a dispute is submitted to CCTA,CCTA shall notify the
other Parties involved in writing. Following receipt of such notice,the other Parties will
respond in writing within ten (10)business days, or within such other period as the First
Level persons may agree to.
2. Second Level
Each Party will designate an individual to whom matters not resolved at the First Level
will be referred. For BART,the Second Level person,unless BART designates
otherwise in writing,will be the BART Executive Manager of Planning and Budget. For
the other Parties, the Second Level person,unless otherwise designated in writing,will be
the City Planning Director, or the county or ECCTA equivalent. If a dispute is not
resolved at the First Level,the Parties may direct it to the Second Level by written notice
to the other involved Parties. The Parties will respond within five(5)business days after
receipt of such notice,or within such other period as the Second Level persons may agree
to.
3. Third Level
Each Party will designate an individual to whom matters not resolved at the Second Level
will be referred. For BART, the Third Level person,unless BART designates otherwise
in writing, will be the General Manager. For the other Parties,the Third Level person,
unless otherwise designated in writing, will be the City Manager, County Executive, or
the General Manager of ECCTA. If a dispute is not resolved at the Second Level, any of
the involved Parties may direct it to the Third Level by written notice to the other
involved Parties. The Parties will respond within five(5)business days after receipt of
such notice,or within such other period as the Third Level persons may agree to.
4. Alternative Dispute Resolution
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 36
If the dispute is not resolved at the third level, the Executive Director of CCTA and the
Third Level persons involved in the dispute shall agree upon a mediator to be selected by
the parties to handle the issue. In the event of said private mediation, each Party agrees
to contribute an equal share of the cost of the mediation and to bear its own costs for said
mediation. If the Dispute Resolution Process fails to assist the Parties in resolving their
dispute,the Parties retain all of their rights under California law.
Final MOU for signature, August 3,2005 37
Table 3.2
Phase II Planning Schedule
From July 19, 2005 Scoping Meeting
Deliverable TDue Date
Draft RDP Scope Day 30
Draft Land Use and Access Data Day 60
Parties Review of Draft Ridership Day 77
Estimates
Parties Review Schematic Transfer Plan Day 180
and Schematic eBART Station Plan
Development of Land Use and Access Day 270
and Station Plans (if necessary)
Evaluate Ridership enhancement Day 300
measures (if necessary)
Draft Final Plans Day 330
Final Plans presented for review by Day 365
Parties
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of
Understanding effective as of the latest date set forth below.
City of Brentwood:
Mayor
City of Oakley:
Mayor
City of Pittsburg:
Mayor
Contra Costa County:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority:
Board Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority:
Board Chair
BART.-
Board President
City of Antioch:
Mayor
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 8
City of Brentwood:
Mayor [ �J
Final MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 9
city of Oakley:-
Mayor
akley:Mayor
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 10
City of Pittsburg:
Mayor
Final MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 t
Eastern Contra Costa ransrt Au rity:
Board Chair J`4' Os-
Final
SFinal MOU for signature,August 3, 2005 13
Contra Co. Ti- i n A t
Board Chair
Final MOU for signature,August 3. 2005 14
BART.•
Board President
Final MOU for signature,August 3,2005 15
City of Anh: 17
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: 11���1r�u- g- 'gi-'e'Azz
WILLIAM R. GALSTAN
City Attorney
Final MOU for signature, August 3, 2005 8
Attachment No. 2: First Amendment to the
Memorandum of Understanding
East Contra Costa BART
Extension (eBART) Project
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AMONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, CITY
OF ANTIOCH, CITY OF BRENTWOOD, CITY OF OAKLEY, CITY OF
PITTSBURG, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY AND EASTERN CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
IN CONNECTION WITH
THE PROPOSED EAST CONTRA COSTA BART EXTENSION
RECITALS
1. The parties to this First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (the
"First Amendment") are the City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley,
City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa County,the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District(`BART"), Contra Costa Transportation Authority ("CCTA"), and
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority("ECCTA") (collectively,the "First
Amendment Parties").
2. In or about August 2005, the First Amendment Parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")to memorialize their agreement
with respect to certain aspects of the Proposed East Contra Costa BART
Extension("the Project").
3. Over the course of the last two years, the scope of the project and the schedule for
completing certain aspects of the Project has changed. The revised Project would
extend BART service from the existing Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station to a
terminus station in Antioch in the area of Hillcrest Avenue. The revised Project
would not extend to the Cities of Oakley or Brentwood or further unincorporated
areas of Contra Costa County at this time
1
5176Ov4
4. Based on the Project schedule change, the First Amendment Parties now wish to
amend the MOU to acknowledge and provide for said revised schedule and to
delete Contra Costa County, the City of Oakley, and the City of Brentwood from
the list of Parties to the MOU. The remaining parties include the City of Antioch,
the City of Pittsburg, BART, CCTA, and ECCTA(collectively,the "Parties").
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE,the Parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, agree as follows:
1. Recital 1 to the MOU is deleted in its entirety and the following recital is added in
its place.
"1. The Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") are the City
of Antioch, City of Pittsburg (collectively, the "Cities"),the San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District ("BART"), Contra Costa Transportation Authority
("CCTA"), and Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority("ECCTA") (Collectively,
the "Parties")."
2. Recital 3 to the MOU is deleted in its entirety and the following recital is added in
its place:
443. The Parties desire to achieve this goal by cooperating in the development
of a proposed project by BART for a high quality rapid transit system to serve the
east Contra Costa County communities of Pittsburg and Antioch (the "Project")."
3. Recital 4 to the MOU is deleted in its entirety and the following recital is added in
its place:
464. The Parties acknowledge that BART has initiated the environmental
review for the proposed Project. BART conducted scoping meetings on July 19
and 20, 2005 for the alternatives and impacts to be studied in the environmental
document. A Notice of Preparation for the revised Project is being prepared and
will be issued shortly."
4. Recital 7 is deleted in its entirety and the following recital is added in its place.
447. The Parties acknowledge that in the proposed Project corridor,the Cities
have authority over land use planning within their respective jurisdictions and
2
517GOv4
have adopted general plans, zoning ordinances and other land use plans, policies
and controls addressing matters such as density of land uses, mix of land uses and
the future growth and character of their residential and business communities."
5. Recital 8 is deleted in its entirety and the following recital is added in its place.
648. The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to their respective land use
planning and control jurisdiction, the Cities make and/or participate in making
decisions on local transportation and infrastructure including the placement and
capacity of local streets and roads, pedestrian,bicycle, and public auto-use and
parking facilities, all of which are important factors in encouraging rapid transit
ridership."
6. Recital 11 is deleted in its entirety and the following recital is added in its place.
"11. The Parties acknowledge that in order to demonstrate sufficient
anticipated ridership for favorable evaluation of the proposed Project, BART's
System Expansion Policy provides that a Ridership Development Plan be
prepared and implemented for each station in the Project corridor. The Cities
acknowledge that they are responsible for preparing and implementing the
Ridership Development Plans for the station(s)within their respective
jurisdictions, with the cooperation, assistance and financial support of BART and
its funding partners."
7. Recital 13 is deleted in its entirety.
8. Recital 14 is renumbered Recital 13.
9. Paragraph 1.1 of the MOU is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is
added in its place.
"1.1 The Cities are responsible for the development and implementation of
their own land use and local transportation plans, policies and controls within
their respective jurisdictions."
10. Paragraph 1.3 of the MOU is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is
added in its place.
"1.3 CCTA, as the entity that collects and administers the County's half-cent
sales tax, is responsible for working with local and regional partners to identify
funding priorities and ensuring these priorities receive adequate funding. CCTA
3
517GOv4
is responsible for ensuring that the $150 million in Measure J funds earmarked for
East County transit are spent cost-effectively. CCTA also provides resources to
the Cities completing the Ridership Development Plans."
11. A new paragraph 1.5 is added as follows:
"1.5 The Parties acknowledge that, based on the revised scope of the Project,
the County, the City of Oakley, and the City of Brentwood will not be preparing
RDPs at this time. At such time that any further extension is contemplated,
BART and CCTA will work with MTC to attempt to obtain funding for the
development of RDPs by the appropriate entity."
12. Paragraph 2.1 of the MOU is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is
added in its place.
"2.1 An RDP will be developed by each of the Cities, to be funded pursuant to
Section 2.3."
13. Table 2.1 is deleted in its entirety and the following Table is added in its place:
Table 2.1
Corridorwide Ridership Threshold Estimates
by Technology Alternative
Technology Alternative Ridership
Threshold
Conventional BART to Hillcrest 14,000
DMU to Hillcrest 5,856
Bus Rapid Transit to Byron 15,124
14. Paragraph 2.10 is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is added in its
place.
"2.10 The Parties agree that, as part of the proposed Project,the Cities commit
to achievement of the corridorwide ridership threshold for the horizon year(2030)
through preparation and implementation of the Ridership Development Plans.
For jurisdictions whose current General Plan does not extend to 2030, BART and
the jurisdiction will utilize the projections incorporated into MTC's
"`Transportation 2030 Regional Transportation Plan."'
15. Paragraph 2.11 is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is added in its
place.
4
517GOv4
"2.11 The Parties agree that the Cities commit to preparing and implementing
Ridership Development Plans incorporating land use and/or access improvements
at and around the proposed Project stations that are sufficient to achieve the
corridorwide ridership threshold."
16. Paragraph 2.12 is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is added in its
place.
"2.12 The Parties agree that the Cities commit to implementing convenient and
efficient access to the proposed Project stations for pedestrians, transit users,
bicyclists and automobiles that is sufficient to achieve the corridorwide ridership
threshold."
17. Paragraph 2.16 is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is added in its
place.
"2.16 Following execution of this MOU, the Cities will undertake development
of their respective Ridership Development Plans. The Ridership Development
Plans shall propose actions to enhance transit ridership through access and/or
development as described in EXHIBIT B hereto. The Parties agree that BART
will participate in the review of the draft Ridership Development Plan documents
before adoption by the respective Cities and will also have the opportunity to
participate in any public outreach meetings or workshops conducted by the Cities
during the Ridership Development Plan process. The Parties agree that, as part of
the Ridership Development Plan process, they will actively share any relevant
data as needed."
18. Paragraph 2.17 is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is added in its
place.
"2.17 Following or concurrent with development of their respective Ridership
Development Plans, the Cities will undertake any environmental review process
required under CEQA for the adoption of the proposed ridership and development
enhancement actions identified in the Plans. At the conclusion of environmental
review, the Cities will make the discretionary decision whether or not to adopt
and implement the actions identified in their Ridership Development Plans."
5
51760A
19. Paragraph 2.18 is deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph is added in its
place.
"2.18 When evaluating the proposed Project under the System Expansion Policy
criterion for transit-supportive land use, BART will consider the information
contained in the Ridership Development Plans, whether the Plans demonstrate
that the corridorwide ridership threshold for the proposed Project can be achieved,
and whether ridership enhancement actions identified therein have been adopted
and implemented by the Cities. BART will consider this information in deciding
whether or not to adopt the proposed Project."
20. Table 3.1 is deleted in its entirety and the following table is added in its place.
Table 3.1
Ridership Development Plan Schedule
Phase Activities Milestones to be achieved
IIA. Within Identification of alternative • Completion of Refined
240 Days of land use and circulation Alternative Plans sufficient to
October 1, concepts identify the range of potential
2007 • Access Concepts development in the station area
• Land Use Concepts
• Development Program
—number of dwelling
units by type of
housing
-square feet of
commercial/industrial
floor area by type of
commercial and
industrial use
-number of rooms of
hotel/lodging,and
square feet of ancillary
conference and gym
facilities
IIB.Within Development of Preferred • Completion of Preferred
360 Days of Plan and Plan Proposals) Ridership Development Plan
October 1, . Access Component • BART releases Draft Project
2007 • Land Use Component EIR
• Station Component
• Revised ridership
estimates
• Environmental review
of actions identified in
Ridership Development
Plans b Cities
6
5176Ov4
• Continued work on
Project environmental
review by BART
II.0 Within • Preparation of • Completion of Administrative
420 Days of Administrative Draft Draft Plan and EIR
October 1, Plan,containing all
2007 components of the
Preferred Plan,plus an
Implementation
Strategy
• Preparation of
Administrative Draft
EIR
III.Within 30 • BART Board considers
Days of certification of Project
substantial environmental document and
completion adoption of Project
of Phase II
21. Paragraph 3.2 and Table 3.2 are deleted in its entirety and the following paragraph
and Table are added in their place.
"3.2 Pursuant to the above schedule, Phase II of the Ridership Development
Plan process contains the bulk of the significant planning activity to be
undertaken by the Parties. The Parties agree and acknowledge that there may be
significant differences in Plan structure and scheduling among the Cities.
Recognizing the need to coordinate with the Caltrans State Highway 4 Project, the
Parties commit to the completion of the Phase II planning component of the
Ridership Development Plan process and appropriate environmental review with
a target completion date of fourteen (14) months from October 1, 2007 as follows:
Table 3.2
Phase II Planning Schedule
From October 1, 2007
Deliverable Due Date
Final RDP Scope Day 1
Draft Land Use and Access Data Day 30
Parties Review of Draft Ridership Day 60
Estimates
Parties Review Schematic Transfer Plan Day 90
and Schematic eBART Station Plan
Identification of Alternative Land Use I Day 150
7
51760v4
and Access and Station Plans and
preliminary estimate of growth
projections and development program(if
necessary)
Evaluate Ridership Enhancement Day 180
Measures (if necessary)
Final Land Use and Access Alternatives Day 240
and Related Development Programs;
BART Review
Station Area Preferred Plan and final Day 360
growth and transportation assumptions
Final Plans Presented for Review by Day 420
Parties
Appropriate Environmental Document Day 495
Approved
22. The list of Base Estimate and Ridership Threshold figures on pages 1 to 2 of
Exhibit B is deleted in its entirety and the following list is added in its place.
The Proposed Project
Corridor Base Estimate Ridership Threshold
To Hillcrest 10,100 5,856
Conventional BART Alternative
Corridor Base Estimate----T—Ridership Threshold
To Hillcrest 12,000 14,000
Bus Rapid Transit Alternative
Corridor Base Estimate Ridership Threshold
To Hillcrest 10,300 6,325
23. The first full paragraph on page two of Exhibit B is deleted in its entirety and the
following paragraph is added in its place:
"For purposes of environmental impact review as required under the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), BART is evaluating a proposed project
consisting of Diesel Multiple Unit(DMU)technology, with Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT), conventional BART and electric light rail vehicle (LRV) alternatives, in
the median of State Highway 4 to a station in the area of Hillcrest Avenue. This
8
517GOv4
preliminary list of alternatives may be subject to change based on the outcome of
the scoping process required under CEQA."
24. The first paragraph on page 6 of Exhibit B is deleted in its entirety and the
following paragraph is added in its place.
"It is anticipated that each City will commit staff time to the RDP work, and that
the above resources may not cover all costs associated with the RDP process."
25. The second paragraph on page 6 of Exhibit B is deleted in its entirety and the
following paragraph is added in its place.
"The total fund amount of approximately $1.15 million will be allocated between
the Cities in a mutually agreeable manner.
9
5176Ov4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this First Amendment as follows:
City of Antioch
Mayor
City of Brentwood.•
Mayor
City of Oakley:
Mayor
City of Pittsburg:
Mayor
Contra Costa County.
Chair, p�
Board of Supervisors d n O
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority:
Board Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority:
Board Chair
10
517GOv4
Disco Bay Partners LLC,
General Plan Amendment Study Request for
APNs: 011-220-013/014 (County File: GP#08-0002)
Current General Plan OS p n pace)
P-1 4(Si e- a it Re idential)
A-40
AC(Agric I u
AL(Agricultural Lands) ter)
A-3
-�l
u i
LIL
Legend
C3 Site General Plan OS (Open Space)
Urban Limit Line SM (Single Family Resi. - Medium) AL (Agricultural Lands)
0 Parcels SH (Single Family Resi. - High) AC (Agricultural Core)
L7j Zoning PS (Public/Semi-Public) WA(Water)
PR (Parks and Recreation)
Proposed General Pla
I P-1 (Sin I -F m ly a 'dential) OS O en Space)
p )
SH (Single-Family Residential - High Density)
5.0 -7.2 Units per Net Acre
OS(Open Space)
PR(Parks & Recreation)
A-40
SH (Single-Family Residential - High Density)
5.0 -7.2 Units per Net Acre ater)
OS (Open Space)
PR (Parks & Recreation)
AC(Agric tL ral Core) AL(Agricultural Lands)
I N
PS(Pub
Mao created 7/8/2008
Feet by Contra Costa Conservation and Development Department
0 105 210 420 630 840 Community Development Division--GIS Group
651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095
37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W
This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be
reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.