HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02262002 - SD8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: February 26, 2002
SUBJECT: Urgency and Regular Ordinance for the East County Transportation Improvement Authority
Fee Program. CDD-CP#02-16, Project No.: 4600-6X4013
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
1. Recommended Action:
A. It is recommended that the Board take the following actions:
1. ADOPT and APPROVE the East County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee
Study pertaining to expanding the program of the proposed regional transportation
improvements.
2. DETERMINE that the activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per General Rule of Applicability (Section 15061(b)(3).
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: "~
.1-RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BO ON Febriary 26, 2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x_OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an
X UNANIMOUS {ABSENT Mone ) action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
AYES: NOES:, of Supervisors on the date shown.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
DS:je ATTESTED: Feb 26, 2(342
G:\TransEng\2002\ECTIA\BO-ECTIAordinance.doc JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Orlg.Div:Public works(TE) and County Administrator
Contact: Mary Halle,Tel.313-2327
c: PW Accounting—C.Raynolds
PW Eng.Srvs.—T.Torres
PW Trans.Eng._D.Spoto gy -fin, , Deputy
County Auditor/Controller y
County Treasurer/Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Urgency and Regular Ordinance for the East County Transportation Improvement Authority
Fee Program. CDD-CP#02-16, Project No.: 4660-6X4013
GATE: February 26, 2002
PAGE 2
3. ENACT the attached urgency and regular ordinance adopting the fee program to be
administered by the East County Transportation Improvement Authority.
4. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file the Notice of Exemption
with the County Clerk.
5. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director/Chief Engineerto arrange for payment of a
$25 fee to Community Development for processing, and a $25 fee to the County
Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption.
6. DETERMINE that a majority protest does not exist.
7. INCORPORATE in this resolution by reference the boundaries, costs, and method
of fee apportionment set forth in the attached ordinance, and the East County
Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Study on file with the Clerk of the Board.
6. DIRECT the Director of Public Works and the Auditor/Controller to establish a trust
fund for the East County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee.
0. DIRECT the Public Works Department and the Department of Community
Development to review the fee schedule every January 1 the East County
Transportation Improvement Authority fee is in effect, and to adjustforthe effects of
inflation as described in the attached ordinance. The adjustment for inflation is not
subject to CEQA.
10. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to monitor future amendments to
the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the East County
Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Area, and to report those amendments
to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the East County
Transportation Improvement Fee, and to make recommendations to the Board.
11. RESOLVE that it is the intention of the Board that the Agency aggressively pursue
outside funding sources, such as federal and state monies, to finance the roadway
improvement to the maximum extent possible.
III. Financial Imp,
Adoption of the interim road fees will result in the collection of potential fees from new
developments to fund regional transportation improvements within the East County Transportation
Improvement Authority fee area. There will be no impact to the General Fund.
SUBJECT: Urgency and Regular Ordinance for the East County Transportation Improvement Authority
Fee Program. CDD-CP#02-16, Project No.: 4660-6X4013
DATE: February 26, 2002
PAGE 3
111. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
On December 18, 2001 the Board of Supervisors approved the Joint Powers of Agreement
establishing the East County Transportation Improvement Authority(ECTIA)between the County
and the Cities of Antioch, Bentwood, and Oakley. ECTIA was formed with the charge to improve
the east county transportation network by establishing a fee authority, which will allow for an
increase in east county regional transportation fees to $7500 per single-family dwelling unit,
$4,600 per multi-family dwelling unit, and $1.00 per square foot for non-residential uses. In
addition, the project list covered by the program was expanded to include improvements to
specific arterials and regional or sub-regional routes in the east county as identified in the East
County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Program Report.
The ECTIA program will operate concurrently with and will support the East Contra Costa
Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA), which has been operating since 1994. In
December 2000,the ECCRFFA decided to move forward with an expanded program,which would
include an increase in developer fees and an expanded list of improvement projects. However,
since the City of Pittsburg disagreed with the fee uniformly imposed throughout the fee area, a
new Joint Exercise Powers Agreement for ECTIA was executed by the remaining members of
ECCRFFA, to include the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Contra Costa County.
The ECTIA fee program will allow for fee credit for payment of the ECCRFFA fee to avoid double
payment for those projects common to both fee programs, such that the combined (ECCRFFA
plus ECTIA) contribution does not exceed $7,500 per peak hour trip or the current ECTIA fee
adjusted for cost of living.
An additional administrative fee equal to 2% of the Program revenue shall be assessed.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
Failure to adopt the recommended road fees will result in the loss of potential revenues and would
be inconsistent with the intent of the Joint Powers Agreement, which established the ECTIA. In
addition,the developer contribution for regional or sub-regional improvement projects is necessary
to comply with the concepts of the County's Growth Management Program which requires new
growth to fund the additional infrastructure capacity required to serve that growth. The Growth
Management Program became a requirement with the passage of Measure "C" which was
approved by the voters in 1988.
Ordinance No. 2002"04
(Urgency Measure for Interim Authorization to Adopt
East County Transportation Improvement Fees)
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 and major thoroughfare improvements within the
East County Transportation Improvement Area of Benefit, which improvements are needed to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare and are necessary and desirable within the area of benefit.
SECTION 11 FINDINGS The Board finds that:
There is an urgent need for interim fees as the inadequacy of the transportation infrastructure within
the above-named area of benefit has caused significant congestion, delay and economic loss to the
entire East County region. The resulting stressful driving conditions and reduction in air quality are
adverse factors affecting the public health, safety and welfare.
Residential, commercial and other construction activity is increasing in the East County area and is
expected to remain strong in the near future. The corresponding increase in traffic along Highway 4
and connecting streets will further reduce the quality of travel throughout the entire East County area.
Failure to adopt the interim fees at this time will result in loss of potential revenues as residential and
commercial projects are built without having to contribute their fair share to the proposed
improvements. The ability to finance construction of necessary bridge and major thoroughfare
improvements within the East County area is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION III AUTHORITY This ordinance is enacted, in part, pursuant to Government Code Section
66484 and Division 913, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code..
SECTION IV PROCEDURE This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in
Government Code Section 66017(b).
SECTION V FEE ADOPTION The following interim fees are hereby adopted for the East County
Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Area to fund the bridge and major thoroughfare
improvements described in the Development Program Report (East County Transportation
Improvement Authority Fee Study) dated January 2002, and shall be levied and collected pursuant to
the above authorities:
East County Transportation Improvement Fees:
Land Use Fee
Single Family (SF) Residential $7,500 per dwelling unit
Multi Family Residential $4,600 per dwelling unit
- 1 -
Ordinance No. 2002-04
Commercial $1.00 per square foot
Office $1.00 per square foot
Industrial $1.00 per square foot
Other $7,500 per peak hour trip
In addition, a fee equal to 2 percent of the above amounts shall be levied and collected to cover the
County's administrative costs and expenses in collecting, handling, and forwarding the fees to the
East County Transportation Improvement Authority.
Fees shall be collected when building permits are issued in accordance with Section 913-4.204 of
Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
The interim fees payable under this ordinance shall be in.addition to fees payable for the following
areas of benefit:
1. Bethel Island Regional Area of Benefit
2. Discovery Bay Area of Benefit
3. Oakley/North Brentwood Area of Benefit
4. East County Regional Area of Benefit (including the East County Sub-area,
Pittsburg/Antioch Sub-area, and Marsh Creek Sub-area)
5. Bay Point Area of Benefit
6. Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit
However, fees paid under Ordinance No. 97-3'11L) (Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation
Mitigation Area of Benefit) and forwarded to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing
Authority (ECCRFFA) shall be credited against the fees payable under this ordinance, as necessary
to avoid double payment for the same project costs.
The following shall be exempt from the fees levied under this ordinance: (1) any developments
required under conditions of approval to construct certain off-site road improvements in lieu of fee
payment subject to approval of the East County Transportation Improvement Authority; and ( ) any
unimproved subdivision lots for which fees for one of the above areas of benefit previously were paid,
prior to February 26, 2002, at the time of map recordation.
SECTION VI FEE AREA The interim fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all property
described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION VII SENIOR HOUSING Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to abridge or modify
the Board's discretion, upon proper application for senior housing or congregate care facilities
pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, to adjust or waive the fees provided for within this
ordinance, in accordance with East County Transportation Improvement Authority policies.
SECTION Vlll PURPOSE AND USE OF FEES The purpose of the fees described in this ordinance
is to generate funds to finance improvements to certain bridges and major thoroughfares in the East
County Transportation Improvement Area of Benefit. The fees will be used to finance the road
improvements listed in the Development Program Report (East County Transportation Improvement
-2-
Ordinance No. 2002--04
Authority Fee Study). As discussed in more detail in the Report, there is a reasonable relationship
between the fees and the types of development projects that are subject to the fees, in that the
development projects will generate additional traffic on bridges and major thoroughfares in the East
County area, thus creating a need to expand, extend, or improve existing bridges and major
thoroughfares and a need to construct new bridges and major thoroughfares to mitigate adverse
traffic and infrastructure impacts that otherwise would result from such development projects.
SECTION IX SEVERABILITY If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board declares that it would have adopted
each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.
SECTION X EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective on February 26, 2002, and
shall be operative for thirty days, after which time it may be extended. Within 15 days of passage,
this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it, in
the Brentwood News, Antioch Ledger, and the Contra Costa Times, newspapers of general
circulation published in this County. Pursuant to Section 013-6.026 of the Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, the Clerk of the Board shall promptly file a certified copy of this ordinance with the
County Recorder.
PASSED and ADOPTED on February 26, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES. uIZKm, amen, Des=Nm, Qom. and GIOIA
NOES: mm
ABSENT. N
ABSTAIN: NM
Attest: John Sweeten, Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By.
Deputy Chair, Board of Supervisors
MH.DSJe
G:1GrpDataNTransEng\2002\EC IA\Ordinance W02-04.doc
-3-
Ordinance No. 2002-04
Boundary Description
East County Transportation Improvement Area
EXHIBIT "A►,
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,
R1W), 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, R1W),
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 ANNEXTION" 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, R1W), (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 (T1N, R1W);
thence leaving the boundary of said safety zone, along said west line, southerly 2,582 feet,
more or less, to the southeast corner of"BRINTON 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 5,254.45 feet, to the northeast corner
of Section 12 (T1 N, R1W) on Mount Diablo Meridian, (2) along said meridian, southerly
10,353.95 feet, to the nearest corner of Section 24 (T1 N, 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 corner of said annexation; thence leaving said annexation boundary, continuing
along said meridian, southerly 72.75 feet, to the northwest corner 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 518.45 feet,
(4) southwesterly 532.77 feet, and (5) westerly 215.95 feet to the southwest corner of
"OAKWO OD 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 Section 18, 17,
15, 15, and 14 (TIS, RIE), easterly 26,373 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of
Section 24 (T1S, R1E); thence along the west lines of Sections 24 and 25 (TIS, R1E),
southerly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said Section 25; thence along
the south line of Section 25 (t1s, R1E) and the south line of Section 30 (T1S, 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 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 (TIS, 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 (T1S, R2E); easterly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the
northwest corner of Section 34, (T1S, R2E), thence along the west line of Section 34 (TIS,
R2E) and the west lines of Section 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.
MH:DS:mp:je
G:1GrpDatalTransEngt20021ECT1A1Exhibd A.doc
3/31/94
4/18/94
1/17/02
Ordinance No. 2002-05
(Adoption of East County Transportation Improvement Fees)
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
SECTION I SUMMARY This ordinance provides for the adoption of fees to be used for bridge and
major thoroughfare improvements within the East County Transportation Improvement Area of
Benefit, which improvements are necessary and desirable within the area of benefit.
SECTION II AUTHORITY This ordinance is enacted, in part, pursuant to Government Code Section
66484 and Division 913, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
SECTION III PROCEDURE This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in
Government Code Section 66017(b).
SECTION IV FEE ADOPTION The following fees are hereby adopted for the East County
Transportation Improvement Area of Benefit to fund the bridge and major thoroughfare improvements
described in the Development Program Report (East County Transportation Improvement Authority
Fee Study) dated January 2002, and shall be levied and collected pursuant to the above authorities:
East County Transportation Improvement Fees:
Land Use Fee
Single Family (SF) Residential $7,500 per dwelling unit
Multi Family Residential $4,600 per dwelling unit
Commercial $1.00 per square foot
Office $1.00 per square foot
Industrial $1.00 per square foot
Other $7,500 per peak hour trip
In addition, a fee equal to 2 percent of the above amounts shall be levied and collected to cover the
County's administrative costs and expenses in collecting, handling, and forwarding the fees to the
East County Transportation Improvement Authority.
Fees shall be collected when building permits are issued in accordance with Section 913-4.204 of
Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
The fees payable under this ordinance shall be in addition to fees payable for the following areas of
benefit.
1. Bethel Island Regional Area of Benefit
2. Discovery Bay Area of Benefit
3. Oakley/North Brentwood Area of Benefit
Ordinance No. 2002-05
4. East County Regional Area of Benefit (including the East County Sub-area,
Pittsburg/Antioch Sub-area, and Marsh Creek Sub-area)
5. Bay Point Area of Benefit
6. Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit
However, fees paid under Ordinance No. 97-30 (Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation
Mitigation Area of Benefit) and forwarded to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing
Authority (ECCRFFA) shall be credited against the fees payable under this ordinance, as necessary
to avoid double payment for the same project costs.
The following shall be exempt from the fees levied under this ordinance: (1) any developments
required under conditions of approval to construct certain off-site road improvements in lieu of fee
payment subject to approval of the East County Transportation Improvement Authority, and (2) any
unimproved subdivision lots for which fees for one of the above areas of benefit previously were paid,
prior to February 26, 2002, at the time of map recordation.
SECTION V FEE AREA The fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all property described in
Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION VI SENIOR HOUSING Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to abridge or modify
the Board's discretion, upon proper application for senior housing or congregate care facilities
pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, to adjust or waive the fees provided for within this
ordinance, in accordance with East County Transportation Improvement Authority policies.
SECTION VI! PURPOSE AND USE OF FEES The purpose of the fees described in this ordinance
is to generate funds to finance improvements to certain bridges and major thoroughfares in the East
County Transportation Improvement Authority Program Area. The fees will be used to finance the
road improvements listed in the Development Program Report (East County Transportation
Improvement Authority Fee Study). As discussed in more detail in the Report, there is a reasonable
relationship between the fees and the types of development projects that are subject to the fees, in
that the development projects will generate additional traffic on bridges and major thoroughfares in
the East County area, thus creating a need to expand, extend, or improve existing bridges and major
thoroughfares and a need to construct new bridges and major thoroughfares to mitigate adverse
traffic and infrastructure impacts that would otherwise result from such development projects.
SECTION VIII SEVERABILITY If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or
Unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board declares that it would have adopted
each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.
SECTION IX REVIEW OF FEES Project cost estimates shall be reviewed every year that this
ordinance is in effect. The fee schedule shall be adjusted annually on January 1, to account for
inflation using Engineering News Record Cost Index. Such adjustment shall not require further notice
or public hearing.
-2-
Ordinance No.2002-05 ''`?
SECTION X EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective 60 days after passage, and,
within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it, in the Brentwood News, Antioch Ledger, and the Contra Costa Times,
newspapers of general circulation published in this County. Pursuant to Section 913-6.026 of the
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, the Clerk of the Board shall promptly file a certified copy of
this ordinance with the County Recorder.
PASSED and ADOPTED on February 26, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: M%, , DesAuucim, GLom and oiom
NOES: Nm
ABSENT: NM
ABSTAIN: N=
Attest: John Sweeten, Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator
E
By; '-ut
Deputy hair, 86d of Supervisors
MHOS.e
G,.1C,rpDatalTransEng120DMCTLA\Ordinance NW2-05.doc
_3_
Ordinance No.2002-05
Boundary Description
East County Transportation Improvement Area
EXHIBIT $$A"
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,
R1W), southerly 14,225 feet, more or less, to the west quarter corner of said Section 8; thence
alone 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, R1W),
southerly 6,480 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 ANNEXTION" 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, R1W), (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 (TIN, R1W);
thence leaving the boundary of said safety zone, along said west line, southerly 2,582 feet,
more or less, to the southeast corner of"BRINTON 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 5,254.45 feet, to the northeast comer
of Section 12 (TIN, R1W) on Mount Diablo Meridian, (2) along said meridian, southerly
10,353.95 feet, to the nearest comer of Section 24 (TIN, R1W), (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 corner of said annexation; thence leaving said annexation boundary, continuing
along said meridian, southerly 72.75 feet, to the northwest corner 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 13,354.07 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, R1 E); thence along the south lines of Section 18, 17,
16, 15, and 14 (T1 S, RIE), easterly 26,373 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of
Section 24 (TIS, R1 E); thence along the west lines of Sections 24 and 25 (TIS, 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 (t1s, RIE) and the south line of Section 30 (TIS, 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 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 (TIS, 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 (TIS, R2E); easterly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the
northwest corner of Section 34, (T1S, R2E), thence along the west line of Section 34 (TIS,
R2E) and the west lines of Section 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.
MH:DS:mp:je
G:1GrpDataiTransEng\20021ECTIA1Exhibd A.doc
3/31/94
4/18/94
1/17/02
NOTICE O' UBLIC HEARING AND AVAILABII Y OF DATA
(Urgency Ordinance for the Interim East County
Transportation Improvement Authority Program Fee)
The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on February 26, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in the Board
Chambers, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA. to consider adopting
an Interim Urgency Ordinance for the East County Transportation Improvement Authority (ECTIA)
for the East County Transportation Improvement Authority Program Area.
Fees collected through the East County Transportation Improvement Authority will be collected
only from new development within this portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County and will be
collected upon the issuance of a building permit.
The ECTIA its the result of a new Joint Powers of Agreement between the Cities of Antioch,
Brentwood, and Oakley, and Contra Costa County. The ECTIA will operate concurrently with the
East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) and will support an
expanded list of regional improvements described in the East County Transportation Improvement
Authority Fee Study.
The proposed fees for approval by the Board of Supervisors are:
Land Use Proposed Fee
Single Family Residential $7,600 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $4,600 per dwelling unit
Commercial $1.00 per square foot of gross floor area
Office $1.00 per square foot of gross floor area
Industrial $1.00 per square foot of gross floor area
Other $7,500 per peak hour trip generated
An administration fee equal to 2 percent of the Program revenue shall be assessed.
Fee contribution to the East Contra Costa regional Fee and Financing Authority shall be credited
against fees payable as necessary to avoid double payment.
As with most fee programs, the fee revenue from the ECTIA program will not pay the cost of all
regional improvements. Other funding must be generated, some of which include fees generated
from the ECCRFFA Program, Measure C, and State Transportation Improvement(STIP) Funds.
The Program Report, which includes a description of the proposed improvement cost estimates
and finding mechanism will be available by February 12, 2002 at the Clerk of the Board.
For more information, contact Mary Halle of the County Public Works department, Transportation
Engineering Division at 313-2327.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Joe Yee
Assistant Public Works Director
rtr
-aha.
2002
3
y L 14"M
11d.
4
Ai T1 C
i �B TWOOD
•
Not fo Scale
Prepared for:
East County Transportation Improvement Authority
Prepared by:
fp FEHR&PEERS ASSOCIATES,INC.
Pansportatfon Consultants
3685 Mt,Diablo Blvd.
Suite 301
Lafayette,Callfomla 94649
925-284.3200
igs6cvrs FAX:628-284-2691
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
Background.............................................................................................1
Purpose.................................................................................................... 1
' Study Area .............................................................................................. 1
StudyProcess..........................................................................................2
Organization of the Report......................................................................2
TT, RELATIONSHIP TO ECCRFFA PROGRAM.............................................4
Regional Improvements Encompassed by the ECCRFFA Fee...............4
Schedule of ECCRFFA Impact Fees ......................................................4
Relationship of ECTIA and ECCRFFA Programs .................................6
III. ANALYSTS METHODOLOGY......................................................................9
Process ....................................................................................................9
IV. ANALYSIS RESULTS...................................................................................12
Nexus Calculation of Regional Fees.....................................................12
ECTIA Fee Schedule ............................................................................13
V. FEE PROGRAM FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS...............................14
Other Funding Sources .........................................................................14
Program Surplus/Deficit.......................................................................15
Impact of Land Use Absorption Assumptions......................................16
Impact of Senior Mousing Development...............................................16
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
r
i
a
.t
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Jurisdiction Boundaries...................................................................................3
2 ECCRFFA Improvements...............................................................................5
3 ECTIA Improvements.....................................................................................7
"5
`r
LIST OF TABLES
1 Current ECCRFFA Regional Impact Fees........................................................ 6
2 Preliminary Nexus !Calculation of Total Regional Fees.................................. 12
3 Calculation of ECTIA Fee Schedule............................................................... 13
4 Financing Considerations. ............................................... .. ........................... 15
Final Re ort-East County Transportation PVrovementAuthariV Fee Pro ram
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Bast Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) is a regional
planning agency charged with obtaining the funding for regional transportation improvement
projects in East Contra Costa County. The ECCRFFA first implemented a transportation
impact fee in 1994. The fee was designed to provide a contribution from new development
toward a series of regional transportation improvements, such as the State Route (SR) 4
Bypass and the widening of SR 4 through Pittsburg and Antioch. Working with the member
agencies and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (OCTA), the Authority has
successfully utilized fee revenue to initiate the design and construction of the initial phases
of the SR 4 Bypass.
More recently, the ECCRFFA considered updating the impact fee to help fund an expanded
list of regional transportation improvements. In December 2000, the ECCRFFA initiated a
study to evaluate options for expanding the program to include the additional improvements. w
The initial results of the study were presented in the Fast Contra Costa Fee Program
Update, Draft Report, Fehr & Peers Associates, May 2001. After consideration of the
results presented in that report, the ECCRFFA decided to move forward with a fee increase
for an expanded program in which all jurisdictions would pay the same fees. The City of
Pittsburg disagreed with the recommendation that all jurisdictions pay the same fee.
Therefore, the ECCRFFA Board decided to pursue a new Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement, to be made up of the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley, and Contra
Costa County, which would assess fees to support an expanded list of regional
i improvements. The current ECCRFFA remains intact, the new agreement forms an entity
called the East County Transportation Improvement Authority(ECTIA).
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to provide the technical basis for the ECTIA fee program. This
report documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between the fees and the
regional impact created by anticipated development in East County.
STUDY AREA
Fehr&Peers Associates 1
{
FOW Re ort-East Co Trans ortation Ina rovement Authority Fee Program
As shown on Figure 1, the study area includes the unincorporated portions of eastern Contra
Costa County, as well as the Cities of Antioch,Brentwood, and Oakley.
STUDY PROCESS
This study was developed under the direction of the ECCRFFAJECTIA staff. Input was
obtained at key points in the study process from the Technical Advisory Committee
(including staff from each member agency) and the Executive Committee (i.e., the City
Managers from the affected jurisdictions and the County Chief Administrative Officer).
Input from the public and interest groups was solicited and received in a variety of ways.
First, the initiative to update the fee program was discussed at a series of public meetings
before the ECCRFFA Board in the Fall of 2400. This included review and approval of
proposed' improvement projects. Next, the preliminary results of the fee update were
presented to the Board in a public meeting on March 8, 2401. The Board then directed that
staff meet with several interest groups, including the Home Builders Association,
commercial developers, and the County Counsel's office. These meetings occurred in March
and April of 2001. An additional public meeting/workshop was held on April 17, 2401.
Authority staff then presented the results of those meetings, along with the Draft Report, to
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Antioch,
Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg in May and June of 2001. Further discussions between
representatives of the Authority Board and officials from.the City of Pittsburg took place at
study sessions of the Pittsburg City Council in August and September of 2001.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report contains a total of five chapters including this introductory chapter. Each is
a listed and briefly described below.
• Chapter II-- Relationship to ECCRFFA Program summarizes the status of the
current ECCRFFA fee program and describes the relationship between the
ECTIA and the ECCRFFA programs.
• Chapter III—Analysis Methodology describes the methods used in conducting the
technical analysis necessary to establish the nexus.
• Chapter IV—Analysis Results describes the results of the nexus analysis.
• Chapter V— Fee Program Financing Considerations discusses financing issues
regarding the overall regional transportation improvement program.
Fehr&Peers Associates 2
v
1
'o U
VL
to
�3Yrb"
i r
rest �+ j
i
a
AW
c
rxotwm
y
Final RV! rt-_East County Transportation LnTrovement Authority Fee Program
II. RELATIONSHIP TO ECCRF'A PROGRAM
The original ECCRFFA fee program is documented in Response to Proposed Route 4
Bypass Authority Development Fee Program, Korve Engineering, April 1993. The fee
program has undergone some modifications in the intervening years, with the fee levels for
each community being changed periodically to reflect increasing construction costs.
However, the list of improvement projects funded by the fee program has remained constant.
REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ENCOMPASSED BY THE ECCRFFA FEE
Figure 2 displays the location of the regional improvements encompassed by the original
ECCRFFA fee program first adopted in 1994. The fee provides a contribution toward
several improvements, including.
• Widening of SR 4 to three mined-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lane in each direction from Railroad Avenue to SR 160;
• Interchange improvements on SR 4 at Railroad Avenue, Loveridge Road, Hillcrest Road,
and SR 160;
* Construction of the SR 4 Bypass, with four lanes to Balfour Road and two lanes to Vasco
Road;
• New interchanges on the SR 4 Bypass at Lone Tree Way and Laurel Road, and
subsequent widenings and interchanges; and,
+ A contribution toward the Buchanan Road Bypass.
SCHEDULE OF ECCRFFA IMPACT FEES
:f
Table 1 displays the current schedule of impact fees for each land use category in the
ECCRFFA program.
J
Fehr&Peers Associates 4
LLI
W
•1 C
1
ANW 4tiib4�¢�
S�SN S�y4 S'YS i
wAr
El
q�yjI
!l44��44 f(jq��
1IJ r
i
Final Re ort-East Co 7`rans ortation Improvement Authority Fee Program
Table 1
Current ECCRFFA Regional Impact Fees
Bay Other
Land Use Unit Pittsburg Antioch Oakley Brentwood Point County
Single-family DU $1,364 $5,406 $5,406 $5,406 $1,364 $5,406
Multi-family DU $1,781 $4,324 $4,324 $4,324 $1,091 $4,324
Commercial Sq.Ft. $0.08 $0.63 $0.63 $0.63 $0.63 1 $0.63
Office Sq.Ft, $0.11 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65
Industrial Sq.Ft. $0.34 $0.34 $0.34 $0.34 $0.34 $0.34
Other Pk Hr $1,364 $5,406 $5,406 $5,406 $1,364 $5,406
Trip
Source:East Contra Costa Regional Fee and.Financing Authority,2002.
RELATIONSHIP OF ECTIA AND ECCRFFA PROGRAMS
As described in Chapter I above, the ECTIA is the result of a new Joint Powers Agreement
between the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, and Contra Costa County. The
ECCRFFA will remain in place and will continue to collect fees to support the regional
improvement projects described above. The ECTIA will operate concurrently and will
support an expanded list of regional improvements, which are shown in Figure 3. The
ECTIA program includes several additional improvement projects that are not part of the
ECCRFFA program,including:
■ Construction of the Laurel Road Connector.between the Laurel Road interchange on the
SR 4 Bypass and Laurel Road in Oakley;
Construction of the Vasco-Byron Connector between Vasco Road and Byron Highway
north of the Byron Airport;
a Project development and right-of-way protection of the Route 239 Corridor;
r Construction of operational and safety improvements to Vasco Road south of the SR 4
Bypass;
■ Construction of improvements to routes parallel to SR 4 in the City of Antioch and
unincorporated areas, including the Northern Parallel Arterials (Pittsburg-Antioch.
Highway, 10`s Street, Willow Pass Road, and the extension of Evora Road) and the
Southern Parallel Arterials (West Tregallas Road, Fitzueren Road, Delta Fair Boulevard,
and Buchanan Road in Antioch); and,
■ Widening of SR 4/Main Street between Lone Tree Way and Vintage Parkway in Oakley.
Fehr&Peers Associates 6
d! �
W
�4
x+aa y'
m
�.. CL
rb
now
C6
t
Final J a ort-East ConQ Trans ortation IMprovement Autho ' Fee Pro ram
Unlike the ECCRFFA program, the ECTIA program will not provide a contribution toward
the Buchanan Road Bypass.
The nexus analysis presented here determines the total amount of regional fees that should
be collected to support the list of regional projects above. Some of these funds will be
collected through the ECCRFFA program, and the rest will be collected through the ECTIA
program. The current fee schedule for the ECCRFFA has been defined through earlier
analysis, and was presented in Table 1. The ECTIA fee schedule will be set such that it
encompasses the remainder of the regional fee amount! that is, the ECTIA fee will be the
difference between the total regional fee calculated through this nexus analysis and the
existing ECCRFFA fee.
J
1
4
Fehr&Peers Associates 8
Final Report-East Cour Trans ortation X rovement Authori Fee Pro ram
III. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology used to determine the nexus between the impact
from new development in East County and the needed improvements.
PROCESS
The technical analysis for this study was completed through a series of eight steps. Each is
listed below, along with a brief description. All of the calculations are presented in the
Technical Appendix.
Step 1 - Obtain Background Information - Authority staff provided a list of improvement
projects that are proposed to be included in the ECTIA fee program. These projects have
been identified as needed improvements in General Plans or other regional planning
documents. Staff also provided cost estimates for all improvements. The project costs
provided by staff were estimated by the responsible local agencies, and include land
acquisition, engineering, and all relevant project development costs, in addition to direct
construction casts. These cost estimates were first provided in early 2001. To account for
increasing construction costs over the intervening months, the cost estimates have been
increased by 2%, as directed by staff.
Step 2 - Select Analysis Tool -The most recent version of the East County Travel Demand
Model was selected for use in this study. The model is maintained by OCTA and serves as
the official regional model for transportation analyses in the East County area. The model
uses forecasts of land uses in the region to generate vehicle travel, and distributes that travel
to the major roadways represented in the model's transportation network.
Step 3 - Update Transportation Network - The East County model network was first
updated with financially-constrained projects from the 2000 Update to the Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), to ensure that it adequately represented current
improvement plans. Next, the improvements proposed for the ECCRFFA and ECTIA fee
programs were coded into the model network, based on project descriptions provided by
Authority staff.
Step 4 - Segregate Land Use Forecasts by Jurisdiction - Land use forecasts to 2020 were
obtained from CCTA's Land Use Information System (LUIS), which is consistent with
ABAG's Projections '98 (see Appendix A) and is generally representative of the land uses
outlined in the General Plans of the respective jurisdictions. Total land uses were segregated
Fehr&Peers Associates 9
Fina!ke rt-East Cour ?'runs ortation Improvement Autho!LQ Fee Program
by jurisdiction within the study area, based on zone correspondence tables provided by the
jurisdictions and OCTA. For purposes of this study, all unincorporated areas (including Bay
Point)were consolidated within a single category.
Step 5 - Determine Traffic Contributions - A series of select link analyses was performed
under year 2000 and 2020 evening pear hour conditions. First, the relative contributions of
existing (year 2000) traffic and new traffic were determined for each ECCRFFA and ECTIA
improvement. Then, the new traffic volumes were further split into the following categories,
based on trip origins and destinations: Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, unincorporated. East
County, and through travel. Because each improvement usually spans multiple links within
the model, results from each segment of the improvement were averaged together.
Screenline analysis was used for those improvements for which parallel routes exist, such as
the widening of SR 4 and the SR 4 Bypass. In those cases, volumes from the subject facility
and from parallel roadways were averaged together, to ensure that all future traffic affected
by the improved facility was included in the calculation of fees.
Step 6- Determine Cost Contributions- The jurisdiction-specific percentage contributions
computed from Step 5 were applied to the improvement costs to determine the total fee
revenue to be paid by each jurisdiction for each improvement.
Step 7 - Distribute Costs to the Various Land Uses - The model includes residential and
non-residential land uses. lion-residential uses are,represented in the model in terms of
numbers of employees. Because the fees will be assessed on a per unit area basis, the
forecasts of total employees were converted to square feet of non-residential development by
applying the following factors, which have been used in other recent East County studies:
■ Office: 275 square feet/employee;
■ Retail: 500 square feettemployee; and
■ Other: 400 square feet/employee.
The non-residential uses were converted to dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs), taking into
account the fact that different development types generate traffic with different
characteristics. This conversion was accomplished by applying use-specific trip rates from
ITE Trip Generation, 6�h Edition, estimates of pass-by trips from SANDAG Brief guide of
Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, July 1998, and average trip lengths for each trip purpose
as calculated from the East County model. All DUES were then normalized to the single-
family residential rate.
Fehr&Peers Associates 10
r
I
.J
Final Re ort-East Co Trans orlation 1 rovement Autho ' Fee Pro ram
Step 8 - Determine Fee Amounts - The total cast to be contributed by each jurisdiction
(Step 6) was then divided by the total number of new DLJEs in each jurisdiction (Step 7) to
determine the appropriate fee for different land use categories.
i
Fehr&Peers Associates 1
i
i
Final Re ort-East Coun Trans ortation I rovement Authority Fee Pro ram
IV. ANALYSIS RESULTS
This chapter summarizes the results of the nexus analysis for the expanded list of
improvements that are proposed to be included in the ECTIA program.
NEXUS CALCULATION OF REGIONAL FEES
Table 2 displays the computed impact fees. These fees represent an average for all
jurisdictions, singe it is assumed that a uniform set,of fees will be adopted for all the ECTIA
member agencies. As described in Chapter II above, these are the total fees required to
support the list of projects in the ECTIA programs the actual ECTIA fee schedule will be
determined after comparison with the existing ECC RFFA fee schedule.
Table 2
Preliminary Nexus Calculation
Of Total Regional Fees
Land Use Category Regional Fees'
Single-Family Residential(DU) $7,498.89
Multi-Family Residential(DU) $4,603.28
Commercial(SF) $7.95
Office(SF) $9.86
Industrial(SF) $5.83
Other $7,498.89
Includes both the FCCRFFA and ECTIA fee components.
Represents an average fee for all,jurisdictions in the ECTIA
program.
Source:Fehr&Deers Associates,January 2002.
As this shows, the addition of the improvement projects would increase the fee amounts for
single-family residential units by roughly $2,100 per unit. Fees for multi-family residential
units would increase by about $300 per unit. The fees shown for non-residential
development are exclusive of any reduction that the agencies may choose to implement, such
as the 90% reduction included when the program was initially adopted in 1994. Therefore,
the non-residential fees shown here are not directly comparable to those in Table 1.
Fehr&Peers Associates 12
J
E
Final Report-_East County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Program
Please refer to Appendix B for detailed information regarding improvement casts, traffic
contributions by jurisdiction,DUE calculations, etc.
ECTIA.FEE SCHEDULE
Table 3 presents a comparison of the ECCRFFA fees and the total regional fees presented in
Tables 1 and 2 of this report, and calculates the proposed ECTIA fee schedule. As directed
by the Board, fees for non-residential uses in the ECTIA program are set such that the total
regional fee will be $1.00 per square foot. This reflects a reduction when compared to the
non-residential fees calculated in Table 2 and in the detailed tables in Appendix B, and is
roughly similar to the 90% reduction applied to non-residential uses in the original
ECCRFFA fee program.
Table 3
Calculation of ECTIA Fee Schedule
ECCRFFA Total Regional ECTIA
Land Use Category Fees t Pees Z Fees 3
Single-family Residential(DU) $5,406.00 $7,500.00 $2,094.00
Multi-Family Residential(IDU) $4,324.00 $4,600.00 $276.00
Commercial(SF) $0.63 $1.00 $0.37
Office(SF) $0.65 $1.00 $0.35
Industrial(SF) $0.34 $1.00 $0.66
1 Other(Peak Hour Trip) $5,406.00 $7,500.00 $2,094.00
Notes: Fees for the ECTIA jurisdictions that are also part of the ECCRFFA.
2 Residential fees from Table 2 have been rounded,and non-residential fees reduced to$1.00 per square foot.
3 ECTIA Fees are the difference between Total Regional Fees and ECCRFFA Fees.
Source: Fehr&Peers Associates,January 2002.
Fehr&Peers Associates 13
7
i
i
Final Depart-Fust County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Program
V. FEE PROGRAM FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter describes the impact of various financing considerations on the ECTIA
program.
OTHER FUNDING-SOURCES
As with most fee programs, including the original ECCRFFA program, the fee revenue from
the ECTIA program will not pay the total cost of all regional improvements. Other funding
must be generated, some of which has already been identified. The following describes the
estimated revenue from known sources that could be applied to improvements in the
program.
Projected Revenue from ECCRFFA Program—Both the ECCRFFA and ECTIA fees will be
used to support major projects in East County, including the SR 4 widening and the
construction of the SR 4 Bypass. The revenue projected to be collected through the
ECCRFFA program over the next 20 years has been estimated at$190 million.
Current ECCRFFA Fund Balance - Approximately$22 million is expected to be available to
support the improvement projects in common between the ECCRFFA and ECTIA programs,
according to Authority staff.
Measure C - Approved by Contra Costa County voters in 1988, it imposed a 1/2 cent sales
tax to help pay for transportation improvements over a 20-year period. There are eight years
remaining on this measure (i.e., 2000-2008). According to OCTA staff, a total of $137
million of Measure C funds is currently programmed for the widening of SR 4 east of
Railroad Avenue. Therefore, this $137 million was assumed to be allocated to the widening
project. If Measure C is re-authorized in 2008, additional funds may be available. However,
these funds were not assumed to be available to the program for purposes of this study.
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds - Generated by gas tax revenues,
these funds are allocated by the State of California to Contra Costa County every two years
for programming transportation improvement projects. Based on recent historical revenue
allocations, OCTA staff estimates that a total of $26 million per year will be available to
Contra Costa County for County-wide programming over the next 20 years. It is also
estimated that 25 percent of that total will be allocated for improvements in East County.
The total STIP funds assumed to be eligible to support improvements in the regional
program is therefore$130 million by 2020.
Fehr&Peers Associates 14
Final Report-Fast County Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Program
PROGRAM SURPLUS/DEFICIT
Table 4 shows the combined effect of the funding mechanisms described above on the
overall regional improvement program. As this shows, a funding deficit is expected. As
described above, the re-authorization of Measure C would provide additional funding, but it
is not assumed in this summary.
Table 4
Financing Considerations
{ ECTIA Fees
Single-Family Residential(DLT) $2,094.00
Multi-Family Residential(DLT) $276.00
Commercial(SF) $0.37
Office(SF) $0.35
Industrial(SF) $0.66
Other(Peak Flour Trip) $2,094.00
Program Funding($miHion)
Total Program Cost $812
Total Fee Revenue Generated from FCTIA Program $59
Projected Revenue from ECCRFFA Program $190
Current Balance in ECCRFFA Program $22
Current Measure C Funds $137
Estimated STIP Funds 2000-2020 $130
Total Funding $538
Total Surplus/Deficit -$274
'I Notes:
I Based on the amount of new development projected in each jurisdiction.
2 Cost for the SR 4 widening from Railroad through the Loveridge
interchange.
9 Estimate assumes 25%of total County share from 2000-2020(25%of
$26M per year for 20 years).
°One potential mechanism to help reduce the deficit would be a re-
authorization of Measure C beyond 2008. An extension of the current
revenue stream could yield an estimated$132M(assumes 20%of re-
authorized Measure C from 2008-2020 at$55M per year for 12 years).
i
Source: Fehr&Peers Associates,January 2002.
Fehr&Peers Associates 15
Final leport»East Counq Trans ortation 1rowement Au#pori Fee Pro ram
IMPACT OF LAND USE ABSORPTION ASSUMIPTIONS
It should be noted that the land use absorption assumptions used in this study are based on
ABAG's Projections' 98. If development occurs more quickly than assumed in this study,
the traffic impacts would occur sooner, thereby accelerating the need for the improvement.
ECTIA fee revenue would also be accelerated commensurate with the increase in the rate of
development. If development occurs more slowly than assumed in this study, the traffic
impacts would not occur as quickly, possibly postponing the need for certain longer-range
improvements. The collections of ECTIA fee revenue would also slow proportionately. In
this case,the improvements would likely occur in the 5-10 year period after 2020.
IMPACT OF SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
The analysis presented above is based on development assumptions from ABAC's
Projections `98, which do not differentiate between conventional housing and senior
housing. Research shows that senior housing developments generate fewer trips than
conventional single-family residential units. In fact, according to Final Report - Brentwood
Active Adult Housing Trak Fee Review, Fehr & Peers Associates, May 18, 1999, traffic
counts showed that senior housing units in East Contra. Costa County generated
approximately 43% of the trips of conventional single-family units. Total trip generation
reduction for a given project depends on the type of senior housing development proposed.
It is difficult to determine the specific impact of senior housing units on the fee program
without knowledge of the extent and location of the development. If the senior units
replaced some of the units previously assumed to be conventional, the fee revenues would be
reduced. The effect on the fee program depends on whether any planned improvements
could be reduced or eliminated due to the reduction in trip generation. If the senior units
were in addition to those already assumed in our analysis, total fee revenues would increase.
In this case, additional improvements may or may not be required to accommodate this
added development.
It is recommended that the Authority not try to address the fee levels required for senior
housing developments at this time. This issue should be addressed once plans for the type,
extent, and location of senior housing development in East County are more clearly
understood.
Fehr&Peers Associates jay
I
e
{
Final Ile ort-East Coun Trans ortation I rovemenr Authori Fee Pro ram
TECHNICAL APPENDICE
•1
Appendix A - ABAG Nojections 198 Data
Appendix B - Technical Calculations
Fehr&Peers Associates 17
1
J
Final Re ort-Eos#CounV 7 rang ortation jinprovement AuthoriV Fee Program
Appendix A
DATA FROM ABAO'S PROJECTIONS '98
Table A-1
Forecasted Growth In East County
Year 2000 Year 2020
Em Io ees Em to ees
Jurisdiction Households Service Other Retail Households Service Other Retail
Antioch 29,182 5,350 81134 5,982 43,581 9,417 12,278 11,39-9
-
Brentwood 7,8€12 2,268 2,028 2,352 19,350 6,721 5,966 7,961
Oakley 8,572 270 659 574 14,217 536 1,043 1,447
Unincorporated East County 12,994 941 1,599 1,327 15,918 1,271 2,696 1,97
otal ECTIA Area 58,549 8,829 12,420 10,235 93,066 17,91451 21,983 22,747
utside ECTIA Area 282,007 110,606 120,840 76,644 326,579 149,6431 160,023 101,451
ource:Land Use Information 5 stem(LCTIS ,CCTA, 1999.
Fehr&Peers Associates
4
Final Re ort-East Coup TM ortation Lmprovement Author( Fee Pro ram
Appendix $
TECHNICAL CALCULATIONS
This Technical Appendix contains the calculations necessary to complete the nexus
determination, presented in a series of tables. The following describes the information
represented in each table.
Table B-1
This table presents the growth that is anticipated to occur between 2000 and 2020 in East
County jurisdictions, according to ABAG's Projections '98. This information is presented
in two forms: first, the numbers of households and employees in different industries,
followed' by the same information converted to DUEs. The DUE conversion involved
determining the trip characteristics of each employment category from the model data. In
this case, the conversion included the daily trip generation rate contained in the model for
each employment type, the average trip length by purpose calculated from the :model, and
estimates of pass-by trips.
Table B-2
This table lists the improvement projects to be supported by the regional impact fees, and the
percentage traffic contribution of each jurisdiction to each project. These relative traffic
contributions for each project were determined by applying the East County Travel Demand
Model and conducting a series of select link analyses. (Please see Chapter III, Analysis
Methodology, for additional information.)
Table B-3
This table lists the estimated cost for each improvement project in the second column. The
percentage traffic contributions by jurisdiction (as presented in Table B-2) were multiplied
by the estimated project cost to determine the appropriate financial contributions of each
jurisdiction to each project. The totals at the bottom of the table represent the total amount
each jurisdiction should contribute to this list of projects through collection of regional fees.
Table B-4
This table summarizes the number of new DUES by jurisdiction (from Table B-1), and
presents the fair share cost that each jurisdiction should bear to support the fee program, as
determined in Table B-3. This fair share cost is divided by the number of new DUES in each
jurisdiction to determine the cost per new DUE.
Fehr rbc Peers Associates
t
1
Final Re ort-East Coun Trans artatian I ravement Authority Fee Pra ram
Table B-5
This table presents the method for allocating the cost per new DUE calculated in Table B-4
to the land use categories represented in the;East County fee program. The uses included in
the fee program are listed on the left side. DUE rates were determined by applying use-
specific trip rates, estimates of pass-by trips, and average trip lengths as calculated from the
East County model.
ti
Table B-6
This table presents the preliminary fees that were calculated from this nexus study, by
jurisdiction and type of use. The DUE per Unit figures from Table B-5 were multiplied by
the Coast per New DUE presented in Table B-4, and the result is the schedule of fees by
jurisdiction and by land use category. The average is weighted by the amount of new
development expected in each jurisdiction.
Fehr&Peers Associates
1
Table B-1
Growth in East County,Based on ABAG Projections'911
Estimated Growth,2000.2020 Estimated Growth in DUUEs,2000-2020
Employe" Em to ees
Jurisdiction Households Service Other Retail Households Service tither Retail Sum
Antioch 14,399 4,067 4,144 5,387 14,399 651 '9;5 1,939 17,98
Brentwood 11,548 4,453 3,938 5,609 11,548 712 945 2,019 15,225
alley 5,645 266 384 873 5,645 43 92 314 6,094
Ier
incorporated East County 2,924 330 1,097 643 2,924 53 263 231 3,472
tal EMA Arca 34,516 9,116 9,563 12,512 34,516 1,459 2,295 4,504 42,77tside ECT1A Area 44,57239,03739,183 24,807 44,572 6,246 9,404 8,931 69,153
tes:
imted Growth calculated from data in Appendix A. DUE conversion based on model output.lationship between land use categories in the model and the feeprogram was assumed to be:Retail=Commercial;
vice=Office;and Other=Industrial.
i
Fehr&Peers Associates 1/10/02
}
i
a � v�
lo��raio� 10� .nwwv� ♦ vv �+ra
♦ ae.rat rnmen�en<nery w .ta rtr�r-rr- r` er •. N v wi
8 €3€3 cid e�3
Ne4 � �Cw.lR tR d�aR eR Mt e�d 3 eR
� N���N N Yr.•.s�.e�N < Kl 4l Hi
.• i�P1 k1 W Vit vl M t�Tl M M e�ii M l��f Y V ? tl`R V �t7t W�'# �fi 09� N
N
`F N
��-
IN
a� � aW �
a a
i
Ordinance No. 4
(Urgency Measure for Interim Authorization to Adopt
East County Transportation Improvement Fees)
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
SECTIO. N I SUMMARY This ordinance provides for the adaption of an urgency measure as an
interim authorization for fees to be used for bridge and major thoroughfare improvements within the
East County Transportation Improvement Area of Benefit, which improvements are needed to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare and are necessary and desirable within the area of benefit.
SECTION 11 FINDINGS The Board finds that:
There is an urgent need for interim fees as the inadequacy of the transportation infrastructure within
the above-named area of benefit has caused significant congestion, delay and economic loss to the
entire East County region. The resulting stressful driving conditions and reduction in air quality are
adverse factors affecting the public health, safety and welfare.
Residential, commercial and other construction activity is increasing in the East County area and is
expected to remain strong in the near future. The corresponding increase in traffic along Highway 4
and connecting streets will further reduce the quality of travel throughout the entire East County area.
Failure to adopt the interim fees at this time will result in loss of potential revenues as residential and
commercial projects are built without having to contribute their fair share to the proposed
improvements. The ability to finance construction of necessary bridge and major thoroughfare
improvements within the East County area is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION III AUTHORITY This ordinance is enacted, in part, pursuant to Government Code Section
66484 and Division 913, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
SECTION IV PROCEDURE This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in
Government Code Section 66017(b).
SECTION V FEE ADOPTION The following interim fees are hereby adopted for the East County
Transportation Improvement Authority Fee Area to fund the bridge and major thoroughfare
improvements described in the Development Program Report (East County Transportation
Improvement Authority Fee Study) dated January 2002, and shall be levied and collected pursuant to
the above authorities:
East County Transportation Improvement Fees:
Land Use Fee
Single Family(SF) Residential $7,500 per dwelling unit
Multi Family Residential $4,600 per dwelling unit
Ordinance No.02/04
Commercial $1.00 per square foot
Office $1.00 per square foot
Industrial $1.00 per square foot
Other $7,500 per peak hour trip
In addition, a fee equal to 2 percent of the above amounts shall be levied and collected to cover the
County's administrative costs and expenses in collecting, handling, and forwarding the fees to the
East County Transportation Improvement Authority.
Fees shall be collected when building permits are issued in accordance with Section 913-4.204 of
Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
The interim fees payable under this,ordinance shall be in addition to fees payable for the following
areas of benefit:
1. Bethel Island Regional Area of Benefit
2. Discovery Bay Area of Benefit
3. Oakley/North Brentwood Area of Benefit
4. East County Regional. Area of Benefit (including the East County Sub-area,
Pittsburg/Antioch Sub-area, and Marsh Creek Sub-area)
5. Bay Point Area of Benefit
6. Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit
However, fees paid under Ordinance No. 97- (Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation
Mitigation Area of Benefit) and forwarded to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing
Authority (ECCRFFA) shall be credited against the fees payable under this ordinance, as necessary
to avoid double payment for the same project costs.
The following shall be exempt from the fees levied under this ordinance: (1) any developments
required under conditions of approval to construct certain off-site road improvements in lieu of fee
payment subject to approval of the East County Transportation Improvement Authority; and (2) any
unimproved subdivision lots for which fees for one of the above areas of benefit previously were paid,
prior to February 26, 2002, at the time of map recordation.
SECTION V1 FEE AREA The interim fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all property
described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION VII SENIOR HOUSING Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to abridge or modify
the Board's discretion, upon proper application for senior housing or congregate care facilities
pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, to adjust or waive the fees provided for within this
ordinance, in accordance with East County Transportation Improvement Authority policies.
SECTION Vill PURPOSE AND USE OF FEES The purpose of the fees described in this ordinance
is to generate funds to finance improvements to certain bridges and major thoroughfares in the East
County Transportation Improvement Area of Benefit. The fees will be used to finance the road
improvements listed in the Development Program Report (East County Transportation Improvement
_2_
Ordinance No, 02104
Authority Fee Study). As discussed in more detail in the .Report, there is a reasonable relationship
between the fees and the types of development projects that are subject to the fees, in that the
development projects will generate additional traffic on bridges and major thoroughfares in the East
County area, thus creating a need to expand, extend, or improve existing bridges and major
thoroughfares and a need to construct new bridges and major thoroughfares to mitigate adverse
traffic and infrastructure impacts that otherwise would result from such development projects.
SECTION 1X SEVERABILITY If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board declares that it would have adopted
each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.
SECTION X EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective on February 26, 2002, and
shall be operative for thirty days, after which time it may be extended. Within 15 days of passage,
this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it, in
the Brentwood News, Antioch Ledger, and the Contra Costa Times, newspapers of general
circulation published in this County. Pursuant to Section 913-6.026 of the Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, the Clerk of the Board shall promptly file a certified copy of this ordinance with the
County Recorder.
PASSED and ADOPTED on February 26, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES. uni,, Gum, oes �, aom and GiolA
NOES: Nm
ABSENT: NM
ABSTAIN: mNE
Attest: John Sweeten, Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By: Danielle M11v
Deputy Chair, Board of Supervisors
MH: :*
G XC,- 7atalTramEngk20MEC7M'tOrdnance Nc02-04.doc
Ordinance No.02/04
Boundary Description
East County Transportation Improvement Area
EXHIBIT "A"
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, Flange 1 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence
from the Point of Beginning, along said prolongation and west lines of Sections 5 and 8 (T2N,
R1W), 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, R1W),
southerly 6,480 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 ANNEXTION" 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, R1W), (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 (TIN, R1W);
thence leaving the boundary of said safety zone, along said west line, southerly 2,582 feet,
more or less, to the southeast corner of"BRINTON ANNEXATION" on the north right of way
line of Kirker Pass Road (also being the northeast comer 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 5,254.45 feet, to the northeast corner
of Section 12 (TIN, R1W) on Mount Diablo Meridian, (2) along said meridian, southerly
10,353.95 feet, to the nearest comer of Section 24 (TIN, R1W), (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 corner of said annexation; thence leaving said annexation boundary, continuing
along said meridian, southerly 72.75 feet, to the northwest corner 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 alone 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 Section 18, 17,
16, 15, and 14 (T1S, RIE), easterly 26,373 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of
Section 24 (TIS, RIE); thence along the west lines of Sections 24 and 25 (T1S, R1E),
southerly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said Section 25; thence along
the south line of Section 25 (t1s, RIE) and the south line of Section 30 (T1S, 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 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 2,256.06 feet, to the west line of Section 29 (T1S, 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 (TIS, R2E); easterly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the
northwest corner of Section 34, (TIS, R2E), thence along the west line of Section 34 (T1S,
R2E) and the west lines of Section 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.
MH:Ds:mp.je
G:1GrpData\TransEngt2002TCTtA\Exhibit A-doe
3131/94
411819+4
1/17/02
Ordinance No. 5
(Adoption of East County Transportation Improvement Fees)
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
SECTION I SUMMARY This ordinance provides for the adoption of fees to be used for bridge and
major thoroughfare improvements within the East County Transportation Improvement 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 913, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
SECTION III PROCEDURE This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in
Government Code Section 66017(b).
SECTION IV FEE ADOPTION The following fees are hereby adopted for the East County
Transportation Improvement Area of Benefit to fund the bridge and major thoroughfare improvements
described in the Development Program Report (East County Transportation Improvement Authority
Fee Study) dated January 2002, and shall be levied and collected pursuant to the above authorities.
East County Transportation Improvement Fees:
Land Use Fee
Single Family(SF) Residential $7,500 per dwelling unit
Multi Family Residential $4,600 per dwelling unit
Commercial $1.00 per square foot
Office $1.00 per square foot
Industrial $1.00 per square foot
Other $7,500 per peak hour trip
In addition, a fee equal to 2 percent of the above amounts shall be levied and collected to cover the
County's administrative costs and expenses in collecting, handling, and forwarding the fees to the
East County Transportation Improvement Authority.
Fees shall be collected when building permits are issued in accordance with Section 9134.204 of
Title 9 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
The fees payable under this ordinance shall be in addition to fees payable for the following areas of
benefit.
1. Bethel Island Regional Area of Benefit
2. Discovery Bay Area of Benefit
3. Oakley/North Brentwood Area of Benefit
Ordinance No.02/05
4. East County Regional Area of Benefit (including the East County Sub-area,
Pittsburg/Antioch Sub-area, and Marsh Creek Sub-area)
5. Bay Point Area of Benefit
6. Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Area of Benefit
However, fees paid under Ordinance No. 97-30 (Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation
Mitigation Area of Benefit) and forwarded to the East Contra Costa regional Fee and Financing
Authority (ECCRFFA) shall be credited against the fees payable under this ordinance, as necessary
to avoid double payment for the same project costs.
The following shall be exempt from the fees levied under this ordinance. (1) any developments
required under conditions of approval to construct certain off-site road improvements in lieu of fee
payment subject to approval of the East County Transportation Improvement Authority; and (2) any
unimproved subdivision lots for which fees for one of the above areas of benefit previously were paid,
prior to February 26, 2002, at the time of map recordation.
SECTION V FEE AREA The fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all property described in
Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION VI SENIOR HOUSING Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to abridge or modify
the Board's discretion, upon proper application for senior housing or congregate care facilities
pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, to adjust or waive the fees provided for within this
ordinance, in accordance with East County Transportation Improvement Authority policies.
SECTION VII PURPOSE ANIS USE OF FEES The purpose of the fees described in this ordinance
is to generate funds to finance improvements to certain bridges and major thoroughfares in the East
County Transportation Improvement Authority Program Area. The fees will be used to finance the
road improvements listed in the Development Program Report (East County Transportation
Improvement Authority Fee Study). As discussed in more detail in the Report, there is a reasonable
relationship between the fees and the types of development projects that are subject to the fees, in
that the development projects will generate additional traffic on bridges and major thoroughfares in
the East County area, thus creating a need to expand, extend, or improve existing bridges and major
thoroughfares and a need to construct new bridges and major thoroughfares to mitigate adverse
traffic and infrastructure.impacts that would otherwise result from such development projects.
SECTION Vill SEVERABILITY If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or
Unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board declares that it would have adopted
each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.
SECTION IX REVIEW OF FEES Project cost estimates shall be reviewed every year that this
ordinance is in effect. The fee schedule shall be adjusted annually on January 1, to account for
inflation using Engineering News Record Cost Index. Such adjustment shall not require further notice
or public hearing.
_2_
Ordinance No. 02105
SECTION X EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance small become effective 60 days after passage, and,
within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the Supervisors
voting for and against it, in the Brentwood News, Antioch Ledger, and the Contra Costa Times,
newspapers of general circulation published in this County. Pursuant to Section 913-6.026 of the
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, the Clerk of the Board shall promptly file a certified copy of
this ordinance with the County Recorder.
PASSED and ADOPTED on February 26, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: uujm , j z , GLMM and cIoIA
NOES: M
ABSENT: MM
ABSTAIN: N
Attest: John Sweeten, Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By: Danielle Kelly
Deputyhair, Bio d of Supervisors
MH:Dsj
G:iGrpDatalTmnsEng't2WMC1'tAUJrdn No02- ,doc
-3-
Ordinance No.02105
Boundary Description
East County Transportation Improvement Area
EXHIBIT ;'A"
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 I West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence
from the Point of Beginning, along said prolongation and west lines of Sections 5 and 8 (T2N,
R1W), 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, R1W),
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 ANNEXTION" 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, R1W), (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 (TIN, R1W);
thence leaving the boundary of said safety zone, along said west line, southerly 2,582 feet,
more or less, to the southeast corner of"BRINTON 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
ARRA 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 5,254.45 feet, to the northeast corner
of Section 12 (TIN, R1 W) on Mount Diablo Meridian, (2) along, said meridian, southerly
10,353.95 feet, to the nearest corner of Section 24 (TIN, 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 1,5.26.21
feet to Mount Diablo Meridian, and (5) along said meridian, southerly 936.04 feet, to the most
southeastern corner of said annexation; thence leaving said annexation boundary, continuing
along said meridian, southerly 72.75 feet, to the northwest corner of "OAKWOOD
ANNEXATION" to the City of Clayton certified August 16, 19901; 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 fleet,
(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, R1 E); thence along the south lines of Section 18, 17,
16, 15, and 14 (TIS, RIE), easterly 26,373 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of
Section 24 (T1S, RIE); 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 (T1S, 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 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 (T1S, 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 (TIS, R2E); easterly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the
northwest corner of Section 34, (T1S, R2E), thence along the west line of Section 34 (T1S,
R2E) and the west lines of Section 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.
MH.DS:mp:je
G:tGrpdatatTransEng\2002XECTtA\Exhibit A.doc
3/31/94
4/18/94
1/17/02
ccc Dt-ic
313 2333
28fA? ION 14'O6
925
IDI/
ZS^�{y`"1y � � j r .��•F„ t � Y� `tom {},.,�., ✓
31
M
r �
' � ~} �.»
R
G
No
1
. ii