Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 02242004 - D2
....................................................................................................................................................................................... . ......... TO: Board of Supervisors Contra FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (Supervisor Millie Greenberg, Chair) Costa County DATE: February 9, 2004 ra xb.z. SUBJECT: Committee Report on the Reauthorization of Measure C-88 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS CONSIDER report from the Transportation Waterand Infrastructure Committee on the activities supporting the reauthorization of Measure C-88, a half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements and growth management; and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to forward any comments from the Board to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Regional Transportation Planning Committees. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors asked the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee (Committee) to monitor the activities in support of reauthorization of Measure C-88. On February 9, 2004, the Committee considered a report from County staff on this matter. That report included a review of background information. The Committee directed staff to consult with Chair Glover on this background information and include the appropriate material in the Committee's report to the Board (see Exhibit C). The balance of this report highlights the issues discussed by the Committee. The Committee reviewed the public information material prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) shown in Exhibit A. This material summarizes the alternatives for the Expenditure Plan,the options for the Growth Management Program, related policy issues, and the schedule for submitting the measure to the voters the November. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE - APPROVE OTHER 41, SIGNATURE(S): Supervisor Millie Greenber� A/ uPe`rvIs`6r"Gay_Ie B. UlIkerna ACTION OF BOARD ON . tQ114,�"O APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER ' 4 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT"U" AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Steven Goetz (925/335-1240) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED Public Works Department JOHN SWEE N, CLIkRK OF 7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GATransr)ortaflon\TW1C\Board Orders=041measurec,doc ....................................................................................I........................................................................................ .... .................................... Report on Reauthorization of Measure C-88 February 9, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) The Committee had two specific comments on the policy issues for Expenditure Plan alternatives as described this exhibit: • The Board should re-examine the need to allocate funds to planning charrettes under the Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities(CC-TLC)Program. These planning charrettes are costly compared to the competing needs for sales tax revenue from a reauthorized Measure C-88. The County has sponsored community-based planning charrettes at Pleasant Hill BART, in El Sobrante and on the Bay Point waterfront, with costs of$400,000, $150,000 and $132,000 respectively. • The Board should also acknowledge certain information in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the 2004 Update to the Countywide Transportation Plan. The Draft EIR indicated that allocating 3 to 5% of Measure C-88 revenue to paratransit, as proposed in Expenditure Plan Alternatives A and B, will not be sufficient to even maintain the existing level of service in the face of anticipated demand for this service. The Committee also believes the Board should address the policy issues for the Growth Management Program (GMP) as described in Exhibit A, which are highlighted as follows: • Links to the Expenditure Plan. If we continue to have a GMP, what incentive should we offer to encourage local participation? Under the existing program, jurisdictions that comply with the GMP receive their share of local street and road maintenance funds. One option is to use only 9 percent of those funds as an incentive, or to just have jurisdictions comply on good faith, with no incentive. Should funds under the proposed CC-TLC program be allocated only to jurisdictions that comply with the GMP? • The Housing Question. Should jurisdictions be required to actually build affordable housing? Or should the only requirement be to develop an implementation program as part of a jurisdiction's Housing Element that may or may not be carried out? • The Urban Limit Line. Should the Urban Limit Line(ULL)be part of the new GMP? If so should local jurisdictions develop a new ULL or adopt the County's existing ULL? • Level of Service and/or Traffic Service Objectives. Should attainment of one or both of these "performance standards" be continued, or be eliminated as a requirement? The Board previously addressed many of these policy issues in prior comments to the Authority on the reauthorization of Measure C-88. The Committee has summarized these comments in Exhibit B, according to the current policy issues identified by the Authority. The background material on the reauthorization of Measure C-88 is provided in an Appendix to this report(see Exhibit C). Exhibit C consists of the following attachments:Attachment 1)the Expenditure Plan Alternative prepared by the Authority's Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee;Attachment 2)the top 10 projects and top 10 program goals from the Authority's April 2003 poll of likely voters; Attachments 3 and 4)prior correspondence from the Board of Supervisors to the Authority,Attachment 5) Opinion of the Attorney General on whether the Authority can reimpose the sales tax for an additional period of time without first adopting a new county transportation expenditure plan; and Attachments 6 through 8) comments from County departments that are interested in the Board's participation in the reauthorization effort. Please be aware that the Committee has invited staff from the Authority to make a brief presentation to the Board on the draft 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan Update and its associated Draft EIR. As part of finalizing these documents, the Authority will select a preferred Expenditure Plan and GMP, request the cities and the Board to approve this Expenditure Plan and GMP, and then request the Board to schedule this measure for the November election. The measure will need approval by two- thirds of the county electorate to implement the new Expenditure Plan and GMP. If the Board wishes to forward any further comments to the Authority,the Committee recommends that these comments also be transmitted to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees. Transpac, the Southwest Area Transportation Committee,and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee will be meeting on reauthorization of Measure C-88 after this Board workshop. Exhibit A: 2004 CTP Update and Extension of the Measure C Sales Tax,January-February 2004,prepared by the Authority and distributed at the four public workshops. Exhibit B: Summary of Previous Board Comments on Policy issues for Expenditure Plan Alternatives and Growth Management Program Options. Exhibit C: Appendix-Background Material on the Reauthorization of Measure C-88 Exhibit A 1.,x Vk4'.u[l.'�[..T..,.�13t.adr,."x3 d....,...fi.:::dU.�UV R,+9nli!u:'.tlkA'1u;)u'Su..Y'NrB,IURR,JL},kY..iYl.94.x�IL34N;k);I"c.N.;A61!d6.M/.f,9dgF.�7,NAk1M7h RtKC!!t%L'iVI14Ct;S4?..d.,,d'n)v.1:.bL1.1,:d::5':�Y,'vB+S.Gtu94VP)$'...uF''A.:.:.tlGx..LXYu:.:L:4k:,A:l"^.9 2004 CTP Update and Extension of the Measure C Sales Tax January-February 2004 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ . ... .._...... .......... .......... ........ ......... ................................................................................................... _ _. _..._... .......... 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Proposed Expenditure Plan Alternatives - Funding A-Project-Focus B-Local-Focus C-Program-Focus $(in $(in $(in Projects millions) % millions) % millions % CaldecottTunnel {:25 7.8 ... f00 63 e-BART 174 10.9 150 9.4 150 9.4 State(route 4,(Loveridge to SRI 60) 650: 9.4 125 : . 78', 0. 0.0' Capitol Corridor Rail Service&Station 70 4.4 20 1.3 0 0.0 Improvements at Martinez and Hercules East County,_Cor6d.Ors{Vasco„;:Non- 140 8 8.. 5( 31 0 Freeway 5R4 SR4 Bypass,etc,) ' . _.. I 1-6801SR4Interchange 70 4.4 25 1.6 0 0.0 Local frterchar�ges.in Central bounty 30 19: I5 09 0. 00 1-80 HOV and Interchanges 65 4.1 15 0.9 30 1.9 Improvements i 680 HDV Gap Closure end Direct I 1'(}0 6 4{7 5 f 00 6:3 Richmond lParkway j� 1150.9 15 r0{.9 0 0.0 BART II +ptVvbmV 117 I� 4 Local Arterials 65 4.I 176 11.0 0 0.0 Subtotal Projects 1,104 690 746 46.6 280 17.5 Programs Local Tr anspor`tatron Marntenar ice& 288 18 4 288 18 0160 10.0 improverrtent i , { i CC TLC incentive Program 0 0.0 32 2,0 240 15.0 Bus C7pertionsCi 5 0 160 10 0 240 I .0 Safe Transportation for Children 0 0.0 80 5.0 80 5.0 Express Bus Service 0 00 30 X191 J50 '.4 Ferries 0 0.0 40 2.5 50 3.1 Transpc i-tlition i"6��nror 64People 8 1) �1 5 0 0$ 13.b Pedestrians, Bicycles and Trails 0 0.0 48 3,0 80 5.0 Trrp Recluctroi�fTC7C1 l6 10 32 2 0 48 Subtotal Programs 432 27.0 790 49.4 1,256 78.5 Other Adminstratron 110 Contingency 32 2.0 32 2.0 32 2.0 Subtotal Other 64 4.0 64 4.0 64 4.0 Total 1,600 100.0 1,600 100.0 1 1,600 !-- Source:Contra Costa Transportation Authority,July 23,2003. 2 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Policy Issues for Expenditure Plan Alternatives The Authority has identified three Expenditure Plan alternatives for the proposed extension of Measure C. • Project-Focus option would focus more on major capital improvements and maintain the current distribution—70 percent to 30 percent—between projepts and programs. This option would also use bond financing to start construction on projects such as Route 4 east, eBART, the Caldecott Tunnel and I-680 improvements in the 2010 to 2016 time frame. • Local-Focus option,while funding many of the projects in Alternative A,would shift more Measure C funds towards local investments. Funding would be split roughly between projects (47 percent) and programs (49 percent). Major projects would largely be funded on a"pay-as-you-go"basis,so project construction starts would tend to be sequential and extend over the 2012 through 2026 period. • Program-Focus option would focus on expanding transit service and alternative transportation programs (68.5 percent). While it would reduce the local streets program from 18 percent to 10 percent, it would set aside 15 percent for a new CC- TLC program. Only 17.5 percent would go to major projects—principally eBART and 1-680 HOV lanes—and the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel would not be built, Route 4 east would be widened only to six lanes or have limited staged improvements, and other project investments would be constrained by available federal funds. General: • What mix of projects and programs should the Authority choose for its final Expenditure Plan? Should it be focus on major projects as illustrated in Alternative A? Or focus on programs as illustrated in Alternative C? Should we set aside more funds for some projects—as Alternative A does compared with B—so that those projects can be delivered sooner? 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._. ... _ . _._._._...................................................................................................................................................................._.. _.. ......... ................. 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Table 4-1 GMP Options Summary Table GMP Component Option ( Option 2 Option 3. Grov,�th Management .' Junsdictiorisiopt. Same as Option 1; Same as Option.I Element.(Gh?lE� a General€.64n GME that pledges to Impferner t key Growth Mat' ' iagemont res stbi itks. Development Jurisdictions continue Same as Option I Same as Option I Mitigation Program local and regional mitigation programs. -oaperatrve'i iulti ontii ue RT'C forums, Sane as-Option l.i Same as Option i JurisdfG�i�al fslannttsg standardized rric5dt�is and` �>: G , eVatuatlon meihoi3to ogy, and assessrnet�cif � � , ' � , per formariC of Regici5 TSM Ordinance or Jurisdictions must Same as Option I Same as Option I Resolution adopt and ordinance or resolution consistent with Authority model resolution. 7.1 Tra C L$Vel�52rvEce Allow exgn Ions fbr Eh nlnatw lir tl t to (LOSj tan daPtts far frarisrt or f�edstrrai tAV}on,Regionof'Routes 016e6ted DeV ofs se%t (TO-1c POI },or trffi tnartagtnent wr�th Authr�rtt ` .., guideHtses Action Plan Traffic Keeps TSOs on Regional Same as Option I Eliminate Action Plans, Service Objectives Routes,with exemptions GPA review process, (TSOs)for Routes of for TOD, POD,or traffic and conflict resolution Regional Significance management corridors, process consistent with Authority guidelines. Per fatarree Jurlsdtctionstabilsh Elirnirte 'ilimin ate Standards standed for capital faolitres for fire,pal. i parks,sanitarywater, end flo6a Control Five-Year CIP Jurisdictions prepare Jurisdictions prepare Eliminate CIP to meet or maintain CIPS traffic and facility standards. Housin O tw is rindg Contlhue Allow eithe. U `p r.� , sing a rolling 7 year Elirinina�er Job= {i¢ortunifies', HCCTap(�r t7val;c�r self ° $v r ge,jurrsdt`,I ris certifcetton rrts demonstrate. progress towards ' achrevrng,gr�ais 0 ad, their Housing f�lement Urban Limit Line No requirement for an Require local compliance Local jurisdictions work (ULL) ULL. with County's voter to develop a new,jointly approved ULL established ULL with (Measure C 1990)and which all Jurisdictions any amendment or must comply. reauthorization,* Local General Plans that allow urban development beyond the ULL would be found to comply if they reflect an equal or greater amount of land or permanent open space within the ULL. 4 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Policy Issues for Growth Management Options The GMP now requires local jurisdictions to comply with eight core requirements to receive their share of the 18 percent of annual sales tax revenues set aside for local streets and roads maintenance (--$12 million annually). Three formal GMP options have been assembled: What shape should the proposed Growth Management Program(GMP) take? Option 1,2, or 3, or a mix? • Option 1 carries forward the existing GMP with a few modifications; • Option 2 eliminates some components—the requirements to adopt level-of-service and performance standards—while adding the County's Urban Limit Line (ULL); • Option 3 eliminates further components while adding compliance with a ULL jointly established by all the jurisdictions in Contra Costa. Specifics • Links to the Expenditure Plan.If we continue to have a GMP,what incentives should we offer to encourage local participation?Under the existing program,jurisdictions that comply with the GMP receive their share of local street and road maintenance funds. One option is to use only 9 percent of those funds as an incentive,or to just have jurisdictions comply on good faith,with no incentive. The GMP funds allocated under the proposed CC-TLC program only to jurisdictions that comply with the GMP? • The Housing Question.Should jurisdictions be required to actually build affordable housing? Or should the only requirement be to develop an implementation program as part of a jurisdiction's Housing Element that may or may not be carried out? • The Urban Limit Line.Should the ULL be part of the new GMP? If so should local jurisdictions develop a new ULL or adopt the County's existing ULL? • Level of Service and/or Traffic Service Objectives. Should attainment of one or both of these "performance standards" be continued, or be eliminated as a requirement? S 2004 CTP Update and Meastire C Extension Proposed Meeting Schedule REV 17: JANUARY 26, 2004 Group Date Activity 2003 Authority staff Dec 15 Release Draft 2004 CTP Update including proposed Expenditure Plan,revised policy directives for GMP,proposed Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities(CC TLC)component,and alternative projects ....._............._...,._.__.. ,.......,_...._._ ..__..._.._....__.._._... ._..__.,._. ......,.. _.._...__. Dec 15—Mar 3 Public, RTPC and County review of draft 2004 CTP Update (2004) ............. Authority Dec 17 [Adopt Final 2003 CMP Update] [Adopt Final Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan] ......................................................................._._...._......,_...................................,._......._......... ..._....._..._._.. _....._........_.._....._._,...._.._. TCC Dec 18 — 2004 PC Jan 7 Review public outreach plan for the DCTP, DEIR,and Expenditure Plan Alternatives [Review Draft Transportation 2030 Financials] ........_.................._......._........_................................................._.._....._............._._........_,........_ _._..........__.__..._._....... Authority Staff Jan 20 Release CTP DEIR 1 Jan20—Mar 8 Public Review/Comment Period for CTP DEIR ti Public comment on the Draft CTP and its DEIR at four public meetings (West,Central,East,and Southwest) Telephone tracking poll on Expenditure Plan and GMP element (tentative) _. _ ..._.....__....__.____._.._____............. EPAC Jan 14 Review Draft CTP and DEIR ....._.......................................__...._..................................._........ ................_.........._.._............. ....... TCC Jan 15 [Review Draft Transportation 2030 Financials and Project List] Authority Jan 21 [Discuss Draft Transportation 2030 Financials] EPAC Jan 28 Continue Review of Draft CTP and DEIR^ ..........................._ . .... ... . .,_..................._,.._........._ CAC Jan 28 ReviewDCTPiDEIRondExpenditure Plan Alternatives .--........................._.......__.._..........._..............................._..._.__........_............_................._......_._..._.__.........._ _.....__............ PC Feb 4 [Release Draft Transportation 2030 Project List to RTPCs] .......__....................._....................,._...................___.._.............._.. ..._.. ..._.......,._._._......_..........._.__...._._....___........... EPC Feb 9 — Authority Feb 18 [Review Drat Transportation 2030 Project List] _—.... .........._._.....____..._.__..........._......,.._........_........_..._........__...._............._....._......... _._._................_..............._..._....._.._..........._.__......__......_........_._._.................._.........__.. EPAC Feb 25 Continue Review of DCTP/DEIR,and Expenditure Plan Alternatives (Tentative) _....___....._..._......................__......____._.__.._.___..._._..._._..._...,_.._..............._..... ...__...___.. CAC Feb 25 Continue Review of DCTP/DEIR,and Expenditure Pian Alternatives (Tentative) ..... _._........__..._......___.._...._____.__.._._.................._..._.__.. ................ CTP TF Feb 26 — 6 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Group Date Activity PC Mar 3 Report on comments received at the 3 Public Meetings Receive additional comments on draft 2004 CTP Update Public Hearing on Draft Plan and DEIR Mar-8 End of comment Period on DEIR,Draft CTP,and Draft Expenditure Plan Alternatives and Growth Management Program Options _..... ._..._ .__..__.........._...__......_.__.._...._.,,................_..............._.......... __...__....._............_.............._.__.._....... EPC Mar 8 Review comments on draft 2004 CTP Update Recommend proposed expenditure plan refinements,clarifying project and program investment level in alternatives and in relationship to 2005 RTP(T-2030) _....._......_..... _.__._... _.............._.._... .......... __........ -Authority Mar 24- - Review comments on draft 2004 CTP-Update-and Draft Expenditure - --- - - Plan Alternatives _..........._._..............._................_..._.._.._..._._..._................................_...._......._...._........._._... Mar 24 (Comments due on Draft T-2030 Project List) CTP TF Mar 25 Review comments on DCTP and discuss;propose revisions ...._,.._..__.._._..............___..........._............._..__.._...._............,...__.,__.._.___......._.___._____._.._............. ...___...._..____...___....___._._............._...._._._...__.........__.. PC April 7 Formulate Draft Final GMP Policies and TLC program Discuss issues re:FEIR Response to Comments [Review Draft Final T-2030 Project List] _.__ . ....... _..........._....._.._...._...._..........__......._.........,............. Authority Staff April 9 Transmit responses to comments to DEIR commentors. _._.. _.._.. __.._._._._._......_ _... a ..__._....__..._.._.. EPC April 12 Formulate Draft Final Expenditure Plan ........_.........................._........._...._................._........_...__..._......................._......_........__....._..._..._........._...._....._.......... ._.__..._.,.._._......W........_.............. Authority April 21 Certify FEIR Issue Draft Final Expenditure Plan and GMP for consideration on the November 2004 ballot [Adopt Final T-2030 Project List and transmit to MTC) CTP Task Force Aril 22& ~Review Proposed Final 2004 yU._date to the C....__..................__._.....__._................__........_.......- P P P TP April 29 _..___.._.,.... _.....__.._......_......_............._ _______._..__.._...___........__...__..._,.._.............__.._.____— Elected Officials May I Countywide Summit of Elected Officials to discuss Draft Final (Sat AM) Expenditure Plan _._...._,_.........._............ ,..............._............__.._._._...................._......_.__.................................._...................,......................._._..........,._,.__.,......_.............,._..._....._.._............ _._..._........ PC May 5 Review and recommend approval of proposed Final 2004 Update to the CTP,including proposed GMP Policies and TLC Program .............._.._._.....__.............._......._............................_..........__._......_.....__............._.._._................._......___.............._..._......._..._.._.............-....._._...._._........._.._._...... _.._..._ EPC May 10 Review and recommend approval of proposed Final Expenditure Plan _........_--.._......._�._....._......._...................._._....._.............._......._....__.._.._...._._._...__.._..._..........._........................_.._.____._._........_.............._..._.__........._........_. Authority May 19 Adopt Final Expenditure Plan and GMP Adopt Final 2004 Update to the CTP Release Final Expenditure Pian for Review by Local jurisdictions and the public - ... .._ ............... ......................... ............................................................................ ............,............... _......__...._._...._._..._..__. CTP Task Force May 27 — 7 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Group Date Activity ... _._........_..................._................._.................._..._........................w...................._........ June/July Public Reviews Final Expenditure Plan Secure"resolutions of support"from Board of Supervisors and "majority of cities representing a majority of population" ..........._.........._. .._......._........_._._..........._................_..........._._....._.___.._..............._._........... August b Last day for Board of Supervisors to place measure on November 2, 2004 ballot(88 days prior to election day) _................_............_.__...................._._._............................_....._.........._..........................................�._......,.........................._..._........_.._._......_...._..._......_....._.............._..__..._..._...._.............._._._...........................__......._ Nov 2 Election Clay,2004 8 ..................................... EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS BOARD COMMENTS ON POLICY ISSUES FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF MEASURE C-88 EXPENDITURE PLAN ALTERNATIVES Issues Previous Comments of the Burt!of Supervisors What mix of projects and CCTA should consider the Board's principles for selecting projects and program should the Authority choose program to include in the neve Measure C: for its final Expenditure Pian? 0 Focus on providing commuters with reliable,convenient and affordable alternatives to driving alone,and the safe and efficient movement of people and goods; • Support a countywide policy for mixed-use compact neighborhood development and redevelopment that achieves long-term protection of open space,appropriate infill of developed areas as sustainable communities; Promote good health by producing measurable reductions in air pollution from motor vehicles and providing pedestrian/bicycle oriented opportunities for residents; Dedicate a percentage of revenue that will significantly address the unmet need to adequately maintain and operate our existing road system; Dedicate a percentage of revenue sufficient for development and maintenance of a comprehensive countywide public transit system that meets the mobility needs of low income, elderly,disabled and school-age residents; • Increase revenue available to bus operators for capital and operating costs provided that they achieve measurable results in coordinating and consolidated their operations; and Revenue for cities and the county should be linked to a GMP that requires measurable results for traffic relief, affordable housing (affordable by design), and compact development. Require adherence to the existing requirement prohibiting the costs to administer the ordinance from exceeding one percent of the annual revenues generated by the ordinance. Should it be focused on + Sales tax funds should be allocated to a Smart Growth Program major projects as illustrated in that includes:a)publicly-sponsored planning charrettes,and b)transportation Alternative A, or focus on programs projects that will support transit-oriented development or housing that is as illustrated in Alternative C? affordable to low and very-low income households. • Include capital and operating funds for school bus transportation Should we set aside more funds for some projects – as Alternative A does compared with B – so that those projects can be delivered sooner? GROWTH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Issues Previous Comments of the Board of Supervisors Links to the ExpendiWLO Plan Return to Source funds should be tied to compliance with the GMP. If we continue to have a growth management program,what incentives should we offer to encourage local participation? Smart Growth Incentives Provide rewards for "smart growth" planning and projects (e.g. infill, Should funds allocated under redevelopment, affordable housing, transit-oriented development, planning to the proposed CC-TLC program only accommodate growth in a manner supported by the community while improving be allocated to jurisdictions that the performance of the transportation system). comply with the GMP? The Housing Question The Board strongly supports the goal of Measure C-88 to address housing Should jurisdictions be options and job opportunities by fostering the creation of housing opportunities required to actually build affordable pursuant to state-mandated housing elements. Relying solely on a jurisdiction's housing, or should the only self-certification of their Housing Element will not help accomplish this goal. requirement be to develop an Consider supporting achievement of Housing Element objectives through a implementation program as part of a Measure C-funded Smart Growth Program (e.g. MTC's Housing incentive jurisdiction's Housing Element that Program). may or Tay not be carried out? The Urban Limit Line Reauthorization Measure C-88 should include compliance with the existing Should the ULL be part of the Urban Limit Line. new GMP? if so, should local jurisdictions develop a new ULL or —adopt the County's existing ULL? Traffic Standards Allow different LOS standards for pedestrian or transit-oriented Should attainment of Level of development. Service standards on non-regional routes or Traffic Service Objectives on regional routes be continued or be eliminated as a requirement of the GMP? EXHIBIT C APPENDIX— BACKGROUND MATERIAL ON REAUTHORIZATION OF MEASURE C-88 THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMTTEE + Attachment 1: Expenditure Plan Alternative from the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee. • Attachment 2: Top 10 Projects and Top 10 Programs from the Authority's April 2003 poll of likely voters in Contra Costa. • Attachment 3: June 25, 2002 correspondence from the Chair of the Board to the Honorable Donald P. Freitas, Chair of the Authority, responding to the Authority's request for comments on the projects and programs to include in the reauthorization of Measure C-88. Attachment 4: January 28, 2003 correspondence from the Chair of the Board to the Honorable Donald P. Freitas, Chair of the Authority, responding to the Authority's request for comments on options for a growth management component to a reauthorized Measure C-88. • Attachment 5: February 4, 2004 Opinion of Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, on whether the Authority can reimpose a sales tax for an additional period of time without first adopting a new county transportation expenditure plan. Attachment 6: February 2, 2004 memo from Tracey Rattray, Director Community Wellness & Prevention Programs, Comments on Measure C. + Attachment 7: February 4, 2004 memo from John Cunningham, Senior Transportation Planner, Issues for Consideration re: Selected Measure C Programs. • Attachment 8: February 18, 2004 memo from Steve Kowalewski, Assistant Public Works Director, Measure C Reauthorization - Local Streets and Roads Allocation. ................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................... ATTACHMENT 1 1-28-04 EPAC Expenditure Plan Alternative 41. 7 Caldecott Tunnel 125 7.8 e-BART 125 7.8 Consisting of$100M capital;$25operations State Route 4(Loveridge to SRI 60) 120 TS Include HOV lanes Capitol Corridor Rail Service&Station 3 0.2 Hercules station only improvements at Martinez and Hercules East County Corridors(Vasco, Non-Freeway SR4, 116 7.3 Contingent upon building in safeguards to SR4 ByRass,etc.) preclude rowth inducement 1-6801SR4 Interchange 0 0.0 Local Interchanges in Central County 0 0.0 1-80 HOV and Interchanges Improvements 22 1.4 For construction(Ua closure) 1-680 HOV tap Closure and Direct Connectors 90 5.6 Includes HOV gap closure and"advanced transit way" Richmond Parkway 15 0.9 BART Improvements 0 0.0 Local Arterials 0 0.0 Subtotal Projects $ 616 38.5% „?a VV X Local Transportation Maintenance&Improvement 168 10.5 Not tied to Growth Management Program (GMP) Must comply with GMP;details of compliance CC-TLC Incentive Program to be worked i out;linked to housing around (Smart growth) 120 m1fi transit and/or downtowns; all communities would be eligible; no requirement to spend money to get money Bus Operations 178 1 1 Include audit/performance standards associated' with fundinz Express Bus Service 57 3.6 1-80: 65 4.1 For operations,equipment,infrastructure such as park and ride lots East County: 37 23 Ferries 25 1.6 1 st priority Richmond;2nd priority Hercules Funds for land side improvements only Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities ISO 9.4 Safe Transportation for Children 60 3,8 Pedestrians,Bicycles and Trails 60 3.8 Trip Reduction/TDM 16 1.0 Subtotal Programs 936 58.5% Administration/Regional Planning 48 3.0 f5i". Note:This is a preliminary draft that has NOT been formally endorsed by the EPAC. ATTACHMENT 2 a j X �� o N t� W El "tV N� .. 19„K� LO J rte+^ � ,�g� y�•.�, fir` .. w�„ h l j�I� 5 VI �f� acs," � �p�-'R �r 4a d' c dam' o M C E D e- . o E to '~ w cn U in O "a C cu C C �r. ❑ a) m 0 70 U) cot-- Cy L 04 E ►.t7 w oo toCD N CD v U C) co 0 � tl m 3,7 t V c t� CL co El Pam O CL IR CN CSS 3c, CD ° 0 M a) cs M C7 ' r� n , CN co 0 e CL C) to to Q 'co -� d c N t © tQ N Aw o C: dCL d C) E m U) L 00 > E . r a C) z, CY "` C� ._....... ......... ......... ............................... . . _ . ........... .......... . . .._... .......... .. . ....... . ........ . ...... . ........... ..... ........... ........ .... ....... ....... ATTACHMENT 3 The Board of Supervisors CQCItI"cc JohrrSwe oar Gistkofthe Board County Administration Building Cc�S CountyAdmin6trator V 651 Pine Street,Room 106 t (825)335-99 0 Martinez,California 94563-1283 County John Glola,1st District Gayle B.Uilketna,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnler,4th District Federal D.Glover,5111 District qac. - Honorable Donald P. Freitas, Chair June 25, 2002 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 140 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas, I am writing on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to respond to the Authority's request for comments on projects and programs to include in a reauthorization of Measure C: The Board of Supervisors adopted the recommendations of its Ad Hoc Committee on Smart Growth and its Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee,.which are enclosed with this letter. These recommendations are summarized as follows: I. Consider the Board's principles for selecting projects and programs to include in the new Measure C (see Enclosure, Recommendation 3). These principles are similar to those-adopted by the Board on February 15; 2000, as part of the Board's action in support of the prior effort to reauthorize Measure C through Senate Constitutional Amendment 3. These principles acknowledge the fact that our transportation investments not only affect traffic congestion, but also other factors important to the quality of life that we enjoy in Contra Costa County. The intent of these principles is to ensure these other factors are considered in the new Measure C. 'The Authority may also wish to use the Board's principles to modify the vision of your Comprehensive Transportation Plan so that its is integrated with the efforts of others to improve our quality of life. 2. Include the following programs or requirements in anew Measure C: * a Smart Growth Program that includes funds for planning and for transportation projects in support of transit-oriented development and housing development affordable to low and very- low income households; * capital and operating funds for school bus transportation; * a requirement that cities include the County Urban Limit Line in their general plans or an alternate urban growth boundary that lies within the Urban Limit Line; and * adherence to the existing requirement in Measure C prohibiting the costs to administer the ordinance from exceeding one percent of the annual revenues generated by the ordinance. Chair Freitas June 25,.2002 Page Two 3. Participate in a study session with the,Board prior to the development ofanew Expenditure Plan. This joint study-sessionwouldconsider the following issues: • Development of alternate scenarios for a new Expenditure Plan; • Evaluation of a new Expenditure Plan that supports a smart growth strategy for Contra Costa; and Institutional changes in Measure C that would allow integration of the Growth Management Program with countywide goals for land use planning and economic development. These institutional changes would include broadening the scope of the Growth Management Program to fund land use planning and economic development activities, and direct representation of every jurisdiction in the county on the'entity that will administer the Growth Management Program. The Board believes that the joint study session will help support its role in this reauthorization effort,which includes adopting a new expenditure plan(along with a majority of the cities),and scheduling this plan far the ballot in November 2004. The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Authority's interest in our comments on this important effort and we look forward to being an active participant in the reauthorization. Please contact I& Steven Goetz of the Community Development Department at(925) 335-1240 to make arrangements for scheduling the joint study session. Sincerely, John Gioia,Chair Board of Supervisors Enclosure: g:lfiransportationtsteve%letterkiraftlfreitas.0l.doc cc: Members,Board of Supervisors Regional Transportation Planning Committees .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... . ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ENCLOSURE Adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on June 25, 2002 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SMART GROWTH FOR REAUTHORIZING MEASURE C-88 1. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign of letter transmitting comments on the reauthorization of Measure C,�Andexpressing the Board's interest in being an active participant in the reauthorization effort, including working.with the Authority to adopt a new expenditure plan and to schedule this plan for the ballot in November 2004, and 2. REQUEST the new expenditure plan allocate sales tax fund for planning activities (e.g. planning charTettes) and transportation projects that will support development that is consistent with smart-growth principles. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION,WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE CO?4A11TTEE FOR REAUTHORIZING MEASURE C-88 3. ADOPT the following principles for selecting projects and programs to include in the Expenditure Plan for the renewal of Measure C: aT Focus on providing commuters with reliable, convenient and affordable alternatives.to driving alone, and the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. b) Support a countywide policy for mixed-use compact neighborhood development and redevelopment that achieves long-term protection of open space, appropriate infill of developed areas and sustainable communities; c) Promote good health by producing measurable reductions in air pollution from motor vehicles and providing pedestrian/bicycle oriented opportunities for residents-. d) Dedicate a percentage of MeasureC revenue that will significantly address the unmet need to adequately maintain and operate our existing road system; e) Dedicate a percentage of Measure C revenue sufficient for the development and maintenance of a comprehensive countywide public transit system that meets the mobility needs of low income, elderly disabled and school-age residents; f) Increase the Measure C revenue available to bus operators for capital and operating costs provided that they achieve measurable results in coordinating and consolidating their operations;and g) Measure C revenue for cities and the County should be linked to a growth management program that requires measurable results for traffic relief, affordable housing, affordable by design, and compact development; ................................ ...................................................... ..................................... . ........................ 4. REQUEST the new Expenditure Plan allocate sales tax funds for a Smart Growth Program that includes: a) publicly-sponsored planning charrettes, and b) transportation projects that will support transit-oriented development or housing that is affordable to low and very-low income households. Eligible transportation projects must support development that is a result of a publicly-sponsored charrette(e.g. a planned community-based collaborative and detailed design and typological coding process involving all stakeholders for a specific site). 5. REQUEST-the new Expenditure Plan to include capital and operating funds for school bus transportation. 6.' REQUEST the-new Growth Management Program require cities to include the County's Urban Limit Line in their General Plans or an alternate urban growth boundary that is within the County's Urban Limit Line. 7. REQUEST the Contra Costa Transportation Authority participate in a joint study session with the Board of Supervisors prior to development.of the new Expenditure Plan to consider the following issues: a) The development of alternative scenarios for a new Expenditure Plan; b) institutional changes in Measure C to enable implementation of a Growth Management Program that integrates transportation planning with land use planning and economic development; c) institutional changes in Measure C that provides direct representation from every jurisdiction to ensure buy-in and compliance with a more effective Growth Management Program; and d) evaluation of traffic forecasts to ensure the new Expenditure Plan supports a smart growth strategy for Contra Costa,including possible evaluation of the land use plan from the Shaphig Our Future project, and use of transit-oriented performance standards(e.g. population within walking distance of transit stations or number of trips that use walking to access transit). ......I............................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . . ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... tut lift"W1 atful I uU11VIAsw k_.,U Z:)LCI %avul fly�,tumanbutim ,e Street,Room 106 (925)335-1900 iz, California 94553-1293 COU N ATTACHMENT 4 ,n Giola, 1st District tyle B.Ulikerna,2nd District ,tonna Gerber,3rd District -Mark DeSaulnler,4th District Fedeml D.Glover,5th District n: January 28, 2003 Honorable Donald P. Freitas, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas, I am writing on behalf of the Contra Cost County Board of Supervisors to respond to the Authority's request for comments on the paper entitled: "Options for a Growth Management Program"(October 21, 2002). The County understands that this paper is aimed at stimulating discussion about the shape of growth management provisions in the reauthorization of Measure C-88. Two committees of the Board of Supervisors have reviewed the options paper. On January 28, the Board of Supervisors authorized transmittal of this letter, which contains the following comments. 1. Allow alternative Level of Service standards for pedestrian or transit oriented development. On page 11,the paper describes options for the Measure's Traffic Level of Service(LOS)and Performance Standards. The Board of Supervisors supports the option of allowing different standards for pedestrian-or transit-oriented developments. The current standards focus of moving cars rather than people and could discourage more pedestrian-or transit-oriented designs.This problem has recently occurred in Alamo,where the LOS standards prevent redesigning roads to be more pedestrian-friendly. Offering an alternative performance standard that accommodates increased pedestrian activity would give communities more, flexibility in achieving the type of community they like. 2. Reauthorization of Measure C-88 should include compliance with the existing Urban Limit Line. On page 13,the paper describes options for Measure C-88's requirement for cooperative,multi jurisdictional planning. One option is to add a requirement to jointly establish and comply with Urban Limit Lines. Rather than have each RTPC and their member jurisdictions establish joint urban limit lines,the Board of Supervisors recommends the existing Urban Limit Line.Contrary to what has been suggested in the options paper, the County believes that there is already a consensus around the existing Urban Limit Line. This consensus was established when a majority of voters countywide approved the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance(Measure C-1990)which contained the Urban Limit Line. It is worth noting that when the Board under took a comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2000, which resulted in a unanimous n' nanimous decision(5-0)ori modifications that placed approximately 16,000 acres outside the Urban Limit Line, the public's commitment to the Urban Limit Line was reaffirmed.The Year 2000 Urban Limit Line review and boundary modifications were subjected to an Environmental Impact Report and extensive public hearings conducted by the Board of Supervisors. The adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Board's action in Year 2000 was subsequently challenged and then ultimately upheld in court. Additionally, the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission in its public deliberations has adopted a policy to honor the Urban Limit Line in discouraging sphere of influence(SOI) amendments and annexations beyond the Urban Limit Line(adopted 2/10/99). .......... ..................................................................... ............................................................... Consistent with the voters' intent in 1990 and the LAFCO policy,the County believes that the cities should use the existing boundary of the Urban Limit Line as the absolute maximum extent ofpotentiall urbanization at least through the Year 2010. We would have no objection to the cities establishing their own Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth Boundary for the purpose of complying with the Growth Management Program so long as it did not extend further than the current Urban Limit Line. Such a provision will ensure that a reauthorized Measure C-88 will have a meaningful impact on future growth in the County and provide a significant base of voter support. 3. The Authority should strengthen strategies to promote affordable housing. The Board strongly supports the goal of Measure C-88 to address housing options and job opportunities by fostering the creation ofhousing opportunities in Contra Costa pursuant to state-mandated housing elements. The growing number of residents outside the Bay Area who commule,to Bay Area jobs underscores the need to increase the supply of housing for these type of workers. Without such opportunities,continued freeway congestion is truly inevitable. Options to eliminate the current housing element requirements in Measure C- 88 or to rely solely on ajurisdiction's self-certification of their housing element will not help accomplish this goal. Rather,reauthorization provides an opportunity Authority to strengthen its effort to promote affordable housing to help achieve the Authority's vision. 4. Expenditure Plan investments should support the type of growth that makes our transportation system work better. On page 17,the paper describes options for growth management that increase links to the Expenditure Plan and other Authority programs. The Board favors all of these options,but is particularly supportive of the following four: • Supporting infill and redevelopment; Subsidizing transportation needs of infill, affordable housing and redevelopment; • Investigating the impacts of land use,changes; and Focusing investments on growth management. In the Board's previous comments to the Authority regarding the reauthorization of Measure C-88,we urged the Authority to allocate funds for planning activities(e.g, planning charrettes)and transportation projects that will support development that is consistent with smart growth principles. Using the reauthorized Measure C-88 funds to support infill,redevelopment and affordable housing would be consistent with this earlier request. Such investments make for efficient use of existing roads and transit service and help accomplish local planning goals. The Authority is currently involved in evaluating land use changes by participating in the Shaping Our Future effort. The Authority could use its travel demand model to investigate potential changes in Contra Costa and the region that could reduce demands or improve the efficiency of the transportation system,and allocate transportation funds that would support those changes. This activity would assist localities in matching their land use decisions with transportation investments,and help the Authority realize the vision it adopted as part of its Countywide Transportation Plan, Reauthorization of Measure C-88 would provide$1.6 billion to invest in the County's transportation system. This revenue could significantly influence local land use decisions and the performance of our transportation system. For instance,any sales tax funds allocated for future transit extensions should be tied to local efforts to plan for transit-oriented development adjacent to these new services, The State Route 4 East Corridor .............................. .f LLS,LVV_I >:3 of 3 Transit Study identified the potential for substantial increases in transit ridership if e-BART were accompanied by transit-oriented development around e-BART stations. The reauthorized Measure C-88 funds could be provided to these jurisdictions to fund planning activities around these new stations. Such growth management policies would maximize the Authority's investment in these facilities and encourage the type of growth that makes the transportation system work better, as well as attract jobs that would provide a better jobs-housing balance in Contra Costa County. 5. Legal Procedure for Reauthorizing Measure C There is disagreement with the interpretation provided by the Authority's Legal Counsel that Measure C can be extended under the procedure allowing for an annual amendment to the measure's existing Expenditure Plan,as described in Public Utilities Code Section 180207.This procedure would essentially only require a two-thirds vete by the Authority to amend the existing Expenditure Plan and place reauthorization of the measure before the electorate. Then a two-thirds vote by the electorate would be necessary for reauthorization of Measure C. We are greatly concerned with the legality of this approach,as we have been advised by County Counsel that in their review of the statute the Authority must prepare a new Expenditure Plan and have it approved by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the city councils i • b N _ O eI— to C c Gl. a ¢moi U N C c as vi cn o c tTt0 EZ E c u� E 4 c w CL o `o CL E EE 0 (,D to 4) o k2 � 8 C, 0 0 c► 0 , Lo N vj COfnCZ1 aw ro Q (obcvro �U ° ° ea a� 'ts o Ei .c CL as tCL cL d c • c3 � w n 4` ovi °cv 4. ti cn COz0 40 'o , � �, �v, o00 M4 Qaco :Z3c0 20 ' f- CL cel c cuwm . � � 10 C (a AL 0 Q Q C Co 40 Ca t 23 CJ fi> :, to co LL 7r L7s tis cU Cs C U ca ' ti co � 03 E z ujEv > v�iro m C? c0a� as U " c o E0 w 0A U C3 `0 E z + U ? t: G? E -2 � c h fL q CL oepi z na o v� CL z 0 4) 0 > ' E U o v° cn ro c o `) c 1. aN a � (Y) w w• +ua � � ccs ev cti ;° ° a tt w c, � as cx eoa. uo�i v CL 0 m 0 c CCU: Baas c cmc tuck a 6 ' c cu W— CL CL CL ECJL cE z o0a`E E- n 0 �. c+ �c IV v U 0 (D Q 0 � Ew. c wv v o o v o o a C9 c U `v w C1 tz .:. C U tJ a fl Q a.� E .r EL. CL U 0 � 0 � 0) CL v o -OR 0 CL C 0o � -G0 3: 9 CL o '>CG c W "E � - m co to a a ° �, Q co E 3 v T c o � Evw' CL0E r+t ice. c E ,a 0 0 CL voi a. CL X `c t�Y '*, o am oa oo ami cric W ca us Too �- E 'Q !1 eo c se va *� a U, 0Uw cn ca o c o c c o .Eao c . c � 0 - ,aC� Uc�U0 0) cc o Axa cootz3 `a . _ o F`- E o a oo c d Eroa as~coca o , a � o �+�.. Ute' C ' m c © S o m U V B $ r v� o E E , Imo— L3 vCL E 3 cr m iCL 0 ' ¢'as U m © v oo � � tYyOclUu to c �. O a a W > c n g Q ° QI-. E t:� .............. ............................... . ........... _.._..... ..._..... ........ . .................................. . .. ..... ..... ......... .... ...... .............................................. o t� co co oa, r ar c c �. ut •EU 4 U � U a c vs c L � E .E m ua wc 00 tum �-w � ' a � E o cr Cs i � C cE (DQi z M O O Q7 � � C1 +'i+ C V 0 E E CL) m a) O E Q _. 0 U < a � m O - U OCl Q y Q *�' Q. rr CL 0) E Vl C O !4 U C w U w d a w °' 0 a. a M ° i z 0 U F= tL a 0 C E 10 < c E o 0 � m Z3 Y c G. Z d. a a W ,C m0 .c m w cu o 2 ++ L j © c-= N sn acs.;a > c c Ci p C x MA � Q> = C "' c CT m 'Ov v c�0 .� W 0 > 0 0 o v c 0 CL f c c o -a 0 Co y U. `w 0 4- to vi > v c v ? v tY N c w us m Qa a� �scaea0 � EWa. OR t.'? Ccei, o0c'+ a, m w z0 cn = vaO0 �V ) ar° t'n o -vc°rm a H g 0 W y c Q ' r � 0 � 0 E O z c*7 �- g c as �- C; w ao CL OL w © Q c a o 2) VjVj m u m q p C C 0 Cl. +e s E M v' U CL a, !n a CL �= ` m 0 w <C 0 ` 0 ~ r CL oc,. o O c Z ¢moi E o •> CL 0 s tM 0 0 o con � o F 2 n = N > CL 0 O o 0 CCL o E u°_ a0 LU ' c a a r- C ~ Z mE -Q 4) ' is w 0, p C ,Z� W ED E 5ui 20 y c°� a o o tL' a E rn Cl. C _ 0 o fl ° s O vy N Q L E E O c,a m .- o 0 0 t+7 CV O Q g U O � � 0 -0 m >. N CS W Cl w ro 0 ,v c c O YJ E ro o ro 9> EE N > 4 o _m O 4) b C 0 gy C 0 U w �- tU 91 O .'.. ,t�/1 VI ts0 c: Q p Z > O. twit U M `CL ' w Z ? Q O m y Q. > �ll W r. E0. O 07 U- O y O V V N E 0 o EE C d 'o V N > s C 0 C p -gyp O q O CLE CL 0 tW C5 Z to 0 i 0 611 �C � N 4�f p, b kCCL } U 4 � > vo Q o m o Q> ar E Q) , as i p 0 CL CL CL CL M $ 4 U a CL n (h t!3 iu > zi I I lu) Z ami c E CO P oEE 0 Z E a CL :3 E © o m c E ° m y c m ro 0 i Uig U 0 0 o `tn CL M-p i] C X — CM L > M 0 {t1 o a) CC ro x CO 0 C `moi tot m W vs ps W c E tri >- s ro _j o c d m cn ° 13 Rt o C -0 o p � L1 Q C �S 0 w LU-6 ~ _ O O E t: ,C N 0 -078 00 0) tl1 Q} 0. (MZ U C «? Q. ro E v y C1�{ C cu me r Q {ty E z a) � c!1 E {`�S� 9 N 62 (1)W COv °. �[ ro z CL F- O c ,��+ o Q _} c Q Nd , ro ro to to > U > 7+ tCJ � Z Z O .a. 0 O ui E ''I'll'',........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .......................................................... ........ m co 0 .0 E 0 E LL a. > —0 v�c co '0 (D ro c cn M co a) -c E 0 '2 to C: 0 to a ca CL 0 (L 0 (D O E E 0 CL ull� 00 1 1 1 z 0 75 c 0 0 E cr E -a a c c z E 0 cr S- C 0q? 0 c U) w 0 -2 0) 03 u tin 0 4) x w c 0 Lh ° A —C CL >% >, Q> cu ca m E LU CL 0 '0 v 5 5 - 7 0 0 0 �c o 2 .0 0 -6 (D to cr, z z zoo 0 UJ = c 0 9 0 0a (,D 0 0: 0 75 Q)0. — OL ru-) C L z (D = 8 .0 c 0 E zo 0 0 w 0 r a Z E 21 C: 0 C13 E0 > z z E > w 0 r- c 0 ror E co 0 r- Q A2 0 0 CL a. CL W 0 0) c+� w- o a IN i w 0 3 Ea c`> Ac co + ' 0E acro {� L �y L r-. ya.. o C C C � W L Z210 0 V 3 CIO m 0 0L L E EDz w Q3 co �y co i - LD �k3 Z3 2 0 co40 d ' ct 5 =) a o v► � a W 4 4 z p �. 0IRL Q Or a, S (;o 40 E•- L J b'•,- z e r C ` W 4) _O th c C cri Z qC3 Cl C 0 O Cy to cl cl CL i I WCL LU tL CL { ry Q? N " m E CL CL 0 y"" r, c 8tS SG C Q N Q w Lw rC{� rer� r+�} `4y � _ fJ a. c ,wr' n7 .J Q CL 0 t0 �} V U E .......................... . ........................ .... ........................ ................... Ce) r— C7 G7 CY) CV Lw rr W -00 �0) Kv =0 0 0 C 4. CVi c CI- 0 0 0 O 1 a 0 -ro- IOD 4w 4 8 t 0' tY c 0 E Q> CL UO C, 0 wE 97 G. -E V- t: 0O 0 0 z a 2 CL a.2 z w CL 0- a a cl- rL 9 W 8 z CL a. co co - -0 z z F-1-- ma Z .0 0 CL 0- V) 0 I-- C z 0 UU 4 :E 2 > E 0 ........... �- <U C D N 0 M QL Q N 1- . CO C3 0 "9 G} 42> v+ 0 { E ;5 tU gc> - O E .m F'Q. -0 0 W E W 0 C = E t: c U (n !!7 CO 0 0 Cn S c � r:. -05 c' c � , 0 y � �z .0 va ca'> cam ° s« E U 3 0 cr C 0 CL CL a CL OL OG tip CUaEi uj— Q, ro 0 0 - > c � 0 itsus $ oa *- Eo eaua Lcap �vEtaa E00i,' cy mac oce Zc o d, Q ca 0 M N E 0 in , R3 c7 ei E LT. Z) m C « +J _ > ) OC 0 ?m 0 a 3 W E C c co •' to > o E a U1 '" a) a � o c c acs' o0 LU •• tii "" CL co Lo o y 0 0 E Nc m c to is O ' a > ams as ° e c { _ c cn , �s 2 E - oGa -. 75 m 41 a its avi t c w c i 0) M �, E c . ns U .+ ESC ' = ucr CC c ui CL uj p sz acre to a � ro 0) t7 � m E 5. v C c 0 M5c' c w Uaci an c cu o �, 0 o tss et X E w E a = a > 0 r 0 — u sa pit O C = E i © d d o ' C7 ao o =2 a � Cbz 0 4500 cT e m 0 f 0 uj C 0 E {0? 0 cca c a U Z E ''I,.,,,,,.,..,................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CY) go N , CY) C'4 Z IT ro AW 0 E 0 cri C: E 2 .0 z co 9> c co �s 0) Lb o = .Z3 0 u 0 co I- , — CL,— -Z m v E 15 10 — 0 o 0 C M co 0 co m 4) co Q) CO "j, QCo 0 >75 0 0) (v b E 0 x — 0 a) -0 W .0 co co > S cz Q) wc 2 (D 6 w a) CL 0 E E iC U 0 — tTi c 0 0 C,0- 2 F- 01 1 1 0) w mas I E as O 2 O E ru E E 04 4) 0 w 0 0 z (L 4) w 0 "0 Z c 0 m 0 0 L. E 0 e rr 0) 0 c 0 e teff Ix cr w E Z 4) ui 0 2 2 Uj (D c CL V- (D E E U) x 0 a 4) CL CL o- 0 U) 0 z wil) U) c n mc: (D W c0 z E CL 0 to (n c Z 1 .0 Cl (j) 0 Co �5C t Q 0 _3 0 cu 0 3:w 0 0 Z CL w E 0 E r7 �- 0 a r� 75 _' •� c as ° -mss o u1 0 o co 'D tt3 to Nw U) 0 m tU C1 t0 p t. a •-w � 0 o ass � w '� � o p co c 1 tU Cf Z` 0 097 CL O ql C1 0. a CL= CL Q3 v3 0 o CJ C? o U v Ci O 5, E Com} H U C9 15 : *� Uz 4. E vo 00 > ro �-' ; r^ oscu C Cj Luto C y t�3 N tJl N-3 E IX C;� � t3Y 8 C t0 C p c'a 2 n3 E E 4a CL o a c7 CL v3 .._ c3. as � F as c � vcz � U •v co oro 0 W E yr » "` a 0 cs w- 0 ro � a E C (D C 0 c S � CL LTi z 0 D d Nw E Cl. Q. {ll co ns t2 CDa o � � w U E E 0 0 n C4 e- (t Cri � tb Citi ca .— O 0 q .0 Q ER 4 Q .U, 04--�. c ub o i� 1z, E o U. ro " cow . 0 .. c eu cam, �- w 0 Am o > a w t) S N U a tL 13. w o c tli � CE 0 a CL V 0 y } Z U N 0 tU C cl, z m �. � W co C 0's iu tS} U tic) OAZO p V O CO 4 4S 'y` cyir7� RS N ��4 q�j � L �. CL CL Vj U lZ o C3 $ Q`� c� z pqW, U7 0» 0 .0 � c o z 18 c ° Cti o � � � o � v 0 zs m m va _ to g � � 0,0 _ 0 zv� v a - o =.n EZIt G4 Cr b Z t!! .;? cJ co b E c c W `° °' m co c ew ma c d tr + cO _a 'c : ." w U- C CZ10 "i , cC E ,� 0y0O :: 0 0 x 0 W �+ o Z 0 a W a� E o U ..rt sv I*HE 0 ... _. rta, . l�l{14 4'lrlVl t, t, t Ounty Uunsel NO, ATTACHMENT 5 T4 BE PUBLISHED M I HE ( MCIAL REPORTS ()FFICE OF THE At CORNRy GENEp State ofC'alifornia AL BILL l;, CKYER Attotney General . C}PINION No.03-401 Of Fobmm7 s,2404 BILL LOC YLzR A.ttomey GeAeW DANIEL G3 STONE Deputy Att er U O' eraj THE HONORABLE SIL MARCIMg COUNTY COUNS19L COLIN ..017 CONTRA COSTA, has requ d an opinion an tete fol owing que tiou. May a couxtty traisportation aud ority reimpose a for an additiO tal period of time without t adopting � xte� �t ac do d use Upendit�ure plan? traatsp xtation CON'CL SION ton atxthoz may n©t reimpose a retail tr�ctir�xzs and use tax for -additional�Qd of time withau� cst ad expmdiiture plan, opting a new cly tt."? rta�on t • 03-401 fit . h. 2004 h:42FM C, C. County Counsel ANA YSIS The Legislatare.has enacted a comprehewive statutory scheme, tha Local Transportation .Authority and Improvement Act (Pub. U'til,, Code,, H l80000--480264;----------- "Act!), 80000--180254;-------___---°Act"),m to "raise additional local revenues tx .provide highway capital improvements attd maintenance-and to meet low transportation sed in a timely mwmer." (§ 180001:,subd. (d).) Under this legislation, the board of 4 upervaisors of a county may crew a local transportation authority(§§ 180050-180051, "Authority"), empowered to impose a.reel' transactions and use tax of up to one percei t to fhad transportation improvements and services in the county (§ 180202). A coup y transportation expenditure plata must be approved"for the pe iod during which,the tax.is to be irnposed"(§ 18W406,subd.(a)),aiad the tax, which must receive voter approval, i ay"r=ain in effect for the period of time specified in the tai,ordinance"(§ 180201). We am mformecl that an Atxth a retail transactions and use tax will soon expire at the end of a 20-year perio& Maythe utharity reimpose the tax for ars additional periodwithout adapting a now county tran spo tion expenditure plan? We conclude that a new ply must first be adopted. The legal issues presented requir an examination offhereladonship between, three different staitmttes, k'hA section 1802 1 authorizes an Authority to impose and reimpose a reW transactions and use tax: "A retail transactions and us tax ordinance applicable in 1he incorporated and unincorporated territ of county maybe imposed`bythe authority in accordance with this chap and fart 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Re sone and Thou Code, if the tax ordinance is adapted:by a two-thirds vn a of the authority and imposition of the tax is subsequently approved by a n aaority of tate electors voting on the remeasure, or by any otherwise applicab a voter approval: requirement, at a special election called for that purpose by the board of supervisors, at the request of the autlmarity, and a county transportation expenditure plan is adopted pursuant to Section 180206, "°.A.retail transactions and uset&Xved by the electors shall reum:n in effect for the period of#n specified i a the tax ordinance. Ae tax may be z'Unless otherwise indicated,all statutoxy sectic a references are to the Public Utilities coda. 2 03-401 .......... .............. ... .................... ................................................................................................................ 2004 `5:42 FM C, C. County Counsel N0. 075 P. 5 continued in affed,or reimposed, by tax ordinance adopted by a two-thirdh tax vote of the authority and the reimp Won of the tax 0 approved by any =019 91 applicable majority ofthe electors." it, added,) Second,section 190206 requires the preparati n ofacounty trap sportationexpenditure plait . for the period during which the tax is to be osed:- lr(a)A county transportation enditureplan Rall'bepreparedfor the expenditure of the revenues expe6ted to be derived from the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter, together wi other Weral, sem, and,local fivids expected to be available for transpatation improvements,for the period during which the 6=4r to he Lunposed. "(b)A county trwLsportationddieur plan shall notbe adopteduntil it bas received the approval of th=* oard of supervisors and of the city councilsteprwenting both a majoxit I y o 'the cities in the county and a majaity of the population residing In the inewporated amms of the county; "(d)The plan shall be adopted to the*all of the election provided for In Section 180201." (Italics added Finally,section 180207 allows an Authority t amend a county ttanqxxxtation expenditure plan under certain conditions: I "(s.)The authoritymayannually i eview andpropose Smadments to the county transportation expenditure plu adopted lours to Section 180206 to provide for the use of additional fed state,and local funds,to account for unevected revenues, or to t,ke into consideration' unforesm circumstauces. "(b) Tho authority sha.11 notify I be board of supervisors and'thb city council of each city in the county an d,provide flmn with a copy of the pxoposed amendmeAts, "(0) The proposed amendments shall become effective 45 days after nofim is given." Loolking first atthe language,of xethird statute,section 180207.,werejectae suggestion that its terns have any application I the Present circumstances. Sectionl80207 is limited to extraordinary events re�ulfing'in nexpected revenues." When, w hem, a tax 3 03-401 ....... ............ 2004 ,42FM C. C. County Counsel NO. 075 P. 6 is set to expire at the end of a 20-year period that expiration cannot be characterized as an rdctreseeni circumstance." Nor could any r'imposition of the tax for a new period be said to produce"additional . . .local funds"for th current period of the tax already covered by a county transportation expenditure plan, 1n cout€ast,the terms of section 180241 am directly applicable. When the t-x is set to expire,it"may be continued in effb6t, or rehnposed,by a tax ordnance adapted by two-thirds vote of the authority and the rei mp+r sition ofthe tax is approved by any applicable majority of the electors." (F 180201.) Two td tions are thus specified in section 180201 for reimposing the tax:(1)a two-tbirds vete fthe Authority's numbers and(2)approval by the electorate. No mention is made in the� statute concerning the need to adopt a new county transportation exp=ditum plan. If section 180201 stead alone, analysis would be at an end. However,it does not stand alone;fin*amore,more,it does.not�mpressly waive.or prohibit t the adoption of a. county transportation expenditure plan. cover A9 the proposed new period of the tax. To detemune whether a,new plan is necessary,we must tam to the language of the tbijrd statute, section 180206. The preparation of a county dansportation expenditure plan is required covering "the period during which the tax is to be imposed." (§ 180206.) It is readily apparent that a pUn that was opted fora previaus 20-year purled will not med Us statutory requirement with respect to a subseq iont period oft . Section 180206 males clear that a plan must be in cidstence for ail aditur+es "of the,revenues expected to be derived&m.the lae during the time the tax i i unposed. We do not Griew the teas of'see 'art 1.80201 as carttrofling over the terns of section 1802,06. The rule that a specific s to controls a afore genearal statute, even assuming that section 180201 is the more spec 03 ``applies only when the sperifie and the general'provxsic�a 6anuotbe�reconwee' Fre nt comp.Ins. Ca,v,Super court(1996) 44 Ca1.A.pp.44ht 8+67, 873; accmd, People v tiler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 298, In re Ricardo A (1995) 32 CalApp.4th: 1 190, 1194 1195.) It is elemental that" `every statute should he construed with refetence-t+o the who e system of law of wbicb it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect.'" (Selo t Base Materials v Board of Equal.(19 59) 51 Ca1.2dW,64 accord,Moyer v. worbnen Comp.Appeal Bd,(1973) 10 CAU d2,22, 230.) " 'Words must be construed in cont t; and statutes must be harmouized, both internally and with each other,to the extent possible.' (Woods v. Young(1991)53 Cal.3d 315,323.) 4 03-401 �Lb, �, 2004 5:UVM ' C, C. County Counsel NO. 01h P. 7 Hence, section 180206 answen the question whether a county transportation .expend ttm platy mint be prepared for an adi litional period of the tax. We apply its terms "giving the language its usual, ordinary m ing." (Hunt v. Superior- Court(1999) 21 CalAth 984, 1000; see Widcox v Bb-whistle 1999)21 Cal 4th 973, 977.) Iu so doing,we ` harem©nice and give effect to eachofthe MI of sections 180201 and 180206. N•atbing in the,former directly waives or para 'bits apPicat on of the utter. We conclude that anAuthority J UAYnotreimpose a retail transacdons and use tax for an additional Period of time withoul first adopting a new county transportation expenditure plan.. $ 03-401 FEB-04-2004 10:14 COMM.WErLLNESSWREV. 925 313 W40 P.02 WILLiAMs. Duaca. M. a. HEALTH Sr�ces D« Ecroa ATTACHMENT 6 �,ONT2A L.OSTA WENDEL BRUN`NCR. M.D. PUBLic HEALTH Push ancFr« t «�erraa COMMUNITY WELLNESS CONTRA COSTA PREVENTION FROGMM X7 2tet Avenue, Suite 15HIALT " SERYICE � Martinez. California 94553 Ph {925) 393-6808 Febsaaar2,'2oCa4 Fax(925) 313-6840 To: Steve,Goetz Staff to BCS Subcommittee on Transportation,Water,and Idiutructure Fm. Tracey Rattray,Director Community Vellness &Prevent on Program, Re: Comments on Measure C I am writing mi response to your request for staff input regarding the proposal for the reauthorization of Measure(7,vkich is now open for public comment.Please feel freeto include these comments in the report you are providing to the subcommittee, Though it may be unusual for a health professional to comment on a transportation plan,the health impacts of"rhe built environment" are becoming more widelyknown and discussed in public health circles loth lOrally and nationally. The October,2003 issue of the Nation's Health,the official publication of the American Public Healrh Association,says it well: "The way communides ase designed and buk can dire* ffect residents'healt ,influencing everything from exercise frequencyand bicycle safetyto air cleanliness amd drialdng water purity..." `Throughout the county,Contra Costa Ir 3'eabrli Services conducts programs to prevent obesity, asthma,and unintentional injuMs.Lary of these problems is related in part to extensive use of the auromobik because autontvbrles impact air q=l ty;cause uqunes to motorists,pedestrians,and bicyclists;and inflmnce the design of neighborhood environments -which frequently favor automobiles over pedestrians and bicyclists. In turn,several of the proposed Measure C elements could mitigate against the dominance of automobiles and begin to create cleaner,'safer,more exerciseef iendlycomter n t3r environments,We, and fixture genteretiDns will live vhth the impact of Measure C for several decades;certa rdy now is the time to begin creating a healthier,less automobile oriented Gantra Costa C-ounty 7herefore,I support M=ure C alternatives wfl cit • Provide alternatives to automobiles • Improve air quality • Promote s ety,particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists • Promote physical activity In Measure C rerms,this means increased expenditures for 1) The CGTLC program to promote walbble/hilraeable neighborhood projects;2) Safe Transportation for Children.projects;e.g. • Contra Costu Communtty Substance Abuse Services . Contra Costa Emergency Medical Semces • Contra Costa Envtronmerstat Health . Corntra Costa Health Pian * Crntm CoSta Mazardous Materials Programs •Contra Costa Mental Health • Cnntra Cosh M11C Health COM Costa Rtgional Medical Center. «.--Costta Costa Heaitki:enters ........................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... .................................................................. .................... sidewakgV closure on routes to school;3) the Pedestrian,Bikes,and Trails prograrx4) Neighborhood traffic calming in the local streets and roads category;and List but not least,5) Improve is in transit,including BART,Express BusSerflice,Trip Reduction,and Ferries. hfm�- rs of my staff wM be amendirgpublic meetings to make these points in person, and I will be sharing these comments with our Public Health Director,Dr.Wendel Bnmmr,who may also wish to sham his perspective with the Contra Costa Transportvdon Authority. lhx&you for rhe opportunity to provide input on this vexy=pormnt ballot measure.Please feel free to contact me at 925-313-6835 or viae-mail-Tra=,y @ hsdcoxontm-costaxaus if you VmUld Igo fiuther information or have any questions. Cc: We=W Brunner,MD. D4=yBaer I=Pardimi Kim Cox TOTAL H.&j .................................. I'll..,......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................. ATTACHMENT 7 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N.Wing-4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 335-1290 Fax: (925) 335-1299 TO: Steven L. Goetz,Deputy Director- Transportation Planning FROM: John Cunningham, Transportation Planning Divisiolq(7 DATE: February 4, 2004 SUBJECT: Issues for Consideration re: Selected Measure C-88 Programs Below are my comments on outstanding or issues of relevance regarding selected progranisfirom.the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Expenditure Plan Alternatives document for your consideration. Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities (Paratransit) Due to the aging of the baby boomer demographic, itis widely accepted that the demand for this type of service will increase substantially in the time frame of a reauthorized Measure C-88. CCTA ackriowledges,this situation in the DtIR for the 2004 CTP Update&Measure C Extension, "A reduced level of funding such as in the first two alternatives (A-Project Focus [3%], B-Local Focus [5%]) inay not allow continuation and expansion of current Transportation Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities service to the horizon year." Aware of the issues above, the Board of Supervisors advocated for the conduct of the Contra Costa Par atransit linprovenient Study(CCPIS) that is currently underway. The intent of this study is, among other things, to develop recommendations and an action plan to improve efficiency and effectiveness of public paratransit service. The study is to develop,an element for inclusion in the renewal of Measure C. Given the fact that the study is not yet complete the following items may be worth consideration: • Given the magnitude of the increase in demand for paratransit service, even.a substantial increase infunding from Measure C is not likely to be sufficient to meet demand. ADA paratranisit does not necessarily address all the mobility needs of the elderly&disabled. ;y law, ADA paratransit is only available in similar areas and similar times as fixed route transit(bus & rail) service. The availability of ADA paratransit service is subject to existence of fixed route transit set-vice. Thus, if fixed route transit is not available(or is reduced) ADA paratransit will become unavailable. Given this, paratransit availability is not only a result of the paratransit funding levels but the funding levels (an resulting availability) of fixed route transit. 0 A coordinated, comprehensive approach to addressing the growing demand for paratransit will be needed to adequately respond to the growing demand. State and federal agencies have acknowledged this and have commissioned reports that have suggested changes in funding requirements (eligibility, client mixing, etc), operational requirements and other policies. Anticipating changes in the regulatory frarnework, some flexibility in what providers and activities are eligible for this funding stream may be warranted. One option is to have disbursements being reviewed in a similar fashion to Alameda County by a paratransit advisory planning committee. A preliminary .............................................................. ............................................................................................. ...,.....I.................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................. . .. . .. . ........................ recommendation by the CCPIS is the fon-nation of an Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation. This committee may be suited to this role. Pedestrians, Bicycle& Trails Additional comment that would bolster this program and the Boards previously stated intent would be to have established, as a part of the reauthorization,the establishment of a Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Advisory Committee to guide the implementation of the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle &Pedestrian Plan which the Expenditure Plan Alternatives indicates is the foundation for this program. Related Concept: Active Living By Design A rapidly growing movement in the public health field with implications for transportation activities and programs is the concept of"active living by design". This is a strategy to incorporate physical activity into daily routines (walking to the train, bus or coffee shop rather than driving) as a method of improving people's health. There is some overlap with this concept's goals and strategies with the following programs under consideration by the Authority: Pedestrian, Bicycle &Trail, Safe Transportation for Children, and the CC-TLC Program. These programs have the potential to coordinate with and benefit the County's public health activities. Staff Contact: John Cunningham 925-335-1243,FAX 925-335-1300 jeuluiGrcd.m.contra-costaxams .................................. ............. ................................................ ATTACHMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY [SATE: February 18, 2004 TO: Steve Goetz, Deputy Director, Community Development FROM: r Stephen Kowalewski Assistant Public Works Director,Transportation Enginee;fig p SUBJECT: Measure C Reauthorization —Local Streets and Roads Allocation I am providing this memo to include in the report to the Board of Supervisors on the Measure C reauthorization. It provides information on the how Measure C allocations have been used by the County to help maintain or improve streets and roads in the unincorporated area. The County has constructed a state of the art local road network. Our roads provide us connections to our Domes,jobs, grocery stores, family, recreational areas, schools,commercial areas, and much more. We need to protect our enormous financial investment in this system by properly maintaining our local streets and roads. A major portion of the funding needed to maintain our local streets and roads comes from the current Measure C Sales Tax program. Eighteen percent(18%)of the revenues collected through the Measure C Sales Tax program are returned to the local jurisdictions to be used on local streets and roads. For unincorporated Contra Costa County,the Measure C funds are approximatelyl 3%-20%of the County's entire road budget. These funds are used for a variety of activities on County Roads. These activities include: • Pavement maintenance (overlays, reconstruction, slurry seals, chip seals, preparatory work) • Construction of new traffic signals and upgrading old signals Road safety improvements (guardrails, curve realignments, signing, striping, etc.) • Curb Ramp Program • Traffic Calming Improvements Congestion Relief • Bicycle Facilities + Pedestrian Facilities Over the life of the program, the County has constructed $24,000,000 worth of projects funded through the current Measure C Sales Tax Program. These projects include numerous overlay and reconstruction projects,such as the Kirker Pass Road Overlay,Armstrong Road Reconstruction, Pleasant Hill Road Overlay, Byron Highway Overlay, Kensington Reconstruction, Clark Street Reconstruction;safety projects,such as Cypress/Sellers Intersection Improvements,Marsh Creek Road Curve Realignment; pedestrian projects, such as Olympic Boulevard Pedestrian Path, Wharf Drive Pedestrian Path, Pomona Street Bikes Lanes and Sidewalk,and Pacheco Sidewalks at Las Juntas; bicycle projects, such as 1-80 Bikeway. and El Portal Bike Lanes; curb ramp 11.11.1......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... projects, such as the North Richmond Curb Ramp Project-, and several other critical projects. A complete listing of the County's Measure C projects is attached for your reference (Appendix A). The Measure C Sales Tax revenue provides critical funding to protect our existing infrastructure and provide for improvements to the system. Our gas tax revenue falls short of providing adequate funding to maintain our existing system. Measure C helps provide some relief in this respect. Our current backlog of maintenance projects continues to grow. With the influx of the Trans portation-Congestion Relief Funding,the County was able to being the Pavement Condition Index up to 83 (out of 100), making the County roads the fourth best in the Bay Area. Unfortunately, with the suspension of Proposition 42 by the State Legislature, the backlog will continue to increase. If voters do not approve the reauthorization of Measure C,this Will reduce our Road Budget by 13%-20%and have a negative impact on the maintenance and improvement of our road network. Additional information regarding the funding shortfall for all Bay Area jurisdictions is summarized the MTC's Pothole Report (Appendix B). Another important feature of the Measure C Sales Tax is that it is a local tax and therefore, the funds remain within the County. We have been able to rely on this,funding source to program important County projects, as opposed to State funding, such as Proposition 42, which was eliminated by the State Legislature. Projects that were programmed using Proposition 42 funds were cancelled or delayed until another funding source can be identified. Measure C funds are also used as leverage for obtaining federal and state grants. For example, the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation program requires a 20%local match. Two hundred thousand dollars of Measure C funds can be used to obtain eight hundred thousand dollars of federal funds for a one million dollar bridge replacement project. This is a great return on our Measure C funds. As you can see,the 18% of Measure C Sales Tax that is returned to local jurisdictions to help in their local streets and roads program is critical for maintaining a safe, efficient, and well- maintained road network. Without this revenue source,we would not have been able to construct $24,000,000 worth of improvements to our system. Loss of this revenue source would further strain the insufficient gas tax revenue for maintaining our system. SK:SK GAGrpData\TransEng\skowWeasure C ReauthorizationWS Measure C Workshop.doc c: M Shlu,Director J.Bueren,Deputy ..............................................- ............................................................................. ........... ............................... Appendix A Measure C Project List Signal and intersection Level of Service Evaluation West County Pavement Repairs Kirker Pass Road Open Grade Overlay Marsh Road/Center Avenue Overlay SR4/Sellers Intersection Improvements Bike Racks & Lockers Countywide Armstrong Road Reconstruction South County Overlay West County Overlay North County Overlay Palmer Road Reconstruction Taylor Boulevard Overlay Cambridge AvenueReconstruction Yale Avenue Reconstruction Marsh Creek Road Curve Realignment North Richmond Curb Ramps 1-50 Bikeway Center Avenue/Solano Way Bikeway El Portal Overlay and Bike Lanes Pleasant Hill Road Overlay Delta Road Bike Lanes Cummings Skyway Truck Climbing Lane Ceres Street Reconstruction 5t'Avenue Reconstruction Olympic Boulevard Pedestrian Path North Byron Highway Overlay Loring Avenue and Winslow Microsurface Concord Ave/John Glenn Reconstruction Bridgehead Overlay and Reconstruction Baldwin/Gartiey Reconstruction Z"d Avenue Reconstruction East County Overlays Central County {Overlays Tara Hills Chive Overlay 5'' & Chesley Overlay L Street Overlay Byron Highway Overlay Stone Valley Road Overlay Cypress/Sellers Signal California Street Reconstruction John Glenn Drive Overlay Appian t@ Manor Signal Rodeo Overlay and Reconstruct Livorna React Overlay Pittsburg Avenue Extension (North Richmond) Appendix A(donVd) Kensignton Reconstruction Taylor and Pleasant Hill Road Overlay Pomona Street Reconstruction Willow Pass Road Overlay Willow Avenue Widening Stone Valley Road Storm Drain Ciearland Drive Median Islands San Pablo Avenue Overlay La Colina Reconstruction Stone Valley Road Overlay Buchanan Road Overlay Amend Rod Overlay Wharf Drive Pedestrian Path Port Chicago Highway Overlay 2003 Over aylReconstruct/El Sobrante Pomona Street Bike Lanes and Sidewalk Coggins Drive/Las Juntas Overlay San Pablo Dam Road Overlay 2003 Microsurface and Overlay Loring Avenue Reconstruction West Street Reconstruction Valley View Road Reconstruction Kister Circle Reconstruction/Overlay Hilltop Drive/La Paloma Road Traffic Signal Thompson Lane Reconstruction Bay Street Reconstruction Pacheco Sidewalk at Las Juntas Clark Street Reconstruction Sa a# s�r Y F p^. + .k 2s �3 ai i 3 E 9 ^p ^y,.. 1' ? Ey �? dy '%Xt k� a•�c s '1ax.. Mrs i fig#w N • r�'``"s � "� r .S e �"� �`"'S �'.F ,�a .sEs� �� � �' a `� ?3�.L VSs g ;y � Y � K' 1 0. 4 ........................................................................ Cover photo by George Draper ..................................................... ...................... ... ............................. The Pothole Report An Update on Bay Area Pavement Conditions Published by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bridge and Highway Operations Section Joseph P.Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street,Oakland,CA 94607 Tel:510.464.7700 Fax:510.464.7848 TTY/TTD: 51.0.464.7769 E-mail:info@mtc.ca.gov Web site:www.mtc.ca.gov T METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Pothole Report:An Update on Bay Area F avement Conditions was produced by MTC's Bridge and Highway Operations Section. Section Manager Rod McMillan Design Ethan Michaels PM Manager Wes Wells Production Ethan Michaels,Michael Pram Project Management Hishatn Noeirni Printing Zeller and Sorts,Oakland Editing Wka Goode The Pothole Report is a condensed version of MTC's October 1998 Pavement Management-- Local Streets&Roads Condition. For a copy of the longer report or more copies of The Pothole Report, contact the MTC/ABAG Library by e-mail:library@mtc.ca.gov,fax:510.464.7852 or telephoner 510.464.7836. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Roster James'i:Beall Jr.,Chair Dorene M.Giacopini Jon Rubin Santa Clara County U.S.Department of Transportation San Francisco Mayor's Appointee Sharon J.Brown,Vice Chair Mary Griffin Angelo J.Siracusa Cities oContra Costa County San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation Ralph J.Appezzato Mary V.King and Development Commission Cities of Alameda County Alameda County James P.Sperrng Keith.Axtell Steve Kinsey Solano County and Cities U.S.Department of Housing Marin County and Cities Kathryn Winter and Urban Development Sue Lernpert Napa County and Cities Sue Bierman Cities of San Mateo County Sharon Wright City and County of San Francisco John MCLemore Sonoma County and Cities Mark DeSaulnier Cities of Santa Clara County Harry Yahata Contra Costa County Charlotte B.Powers State Business,Transportation Association of BayArea and Housing Agency Povernments MTC Management Staff Executive Director Deputy Executive Director General Counsel Lawrence D.Dahms Steve Heminger Francis E Chin .. .. .. ................................. ................. .............. .. ... ................................. ..................................... ....... Contents Executive Summary Introduction The Costs of Neglect 1 The Pavement Picture Today 2 How Did This Situation Come About? 2 Prevention and Repair Rx for Roads 3 Early Intervention Is Key 4 The Anatomy of a Pothole 4 Numbers Tell the Story 5 Local Jurisdictions Own Most Roads 5 The Funding Picture Investing in Local Streets and Roads 6 What We're Spending NOW 7 Paying for Pavement 7 The Gaping Hole in Pavement Wintenance Funding 7 Filling the Funding Gap a Potential Sources of Help 9 MTC Program Tackles the Pavement Problem Activist Approach Reaps Greatest Rewards 10 Benefits of a Pavement Management System 11 MTC Offers Another Helping Hand 11 PMS Success Stories 12 More Resources 13 ............. ........... < b rxecutive Summary IN I981,THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION WAYS TO CUT THE SHORTFALL DOWN TO SIZE Commission (MTC) — the transportation; Increase funding: planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area— County sales tax initiatives conducted a study that estimated that the MTC is supporting a constitutional amend- region's local streets and roads had a deferred ment that would allow a simple majority maintenance price tag of$400 million—or the approval of local transportation taxes.Such equivalent of approximately $750 million in taxes could help fund pavement mainte- 1999 dollars.Today,the deferred maintenance nance. bill is a staggering$1.6 billion. Regional gas tax The 1981 study revealed that many jurisdic- State legislation successfully sponsored by tions were responding to a funding crunch by MTC in 1997 authorizes MTC to seek voter postponing pavement maintenance and repair, approval on up to a 10-cent-per-gallon tax thereby allowing their roadway systems to dete- on gasoline sold in Bay Area counties to riorate at an alarming rate. This update con- fund a series of transportation improve- firms that despite considerable efforts by ments, including streets and roads. A MTC and many cities and counties described "Pennies for Potholes" campaign could later in this report the deferred maintenance help make a difference. crisis has more than doubled in size since 1981. Commitment of existing funds THE MIAGN1TUDE OF THE PROBLEM MTC has pledged to direct over 80 percent of transportation funds toward'Bay Area • If funding remains at current levels, the maintenance projects over the next 20 price tag for pavement maintenance and years,both for roads and for public transit. repair can be expected to rise to more than $1.8 billion by fiscal year 2002.03. State efforts MTC supported state gas tax increases in • Projected over the next 20 years,the short- .1982 and 1989 that began to address the fall in funding for the Bay Area's local problem.The 1999-2000 session of the state streets and roads will fatal$5.6 billion,with Legislature is considering bonds, general $2.3 billion of this amount directly attrib- fund contributions and other mechanismsutable to pavement upkeep and repair. to increase investment in the transporta- • Cities and counties—which are responsi- tion infrastructure. MTC is urging the ble for 91 percent of all road mileage in the Legislature to consider the needs of local Bay Area-----are able to spend an average of jurisdictions when putting together any only $13,000 per mile annually on pave- such program: Long-term, predictable meat maintenance,far less than the nearly funding is a must if cities and counties are $20,000 per mile necessary to keep roads in to make serious strides toward a pothole- good condition. free future. Executive Summary improve cost-effectiveness: coordinate such excavation with street MTC s Pavement Management System(PM5) paving schedules, thus minimizing the In response to the 1981 study, MTC damage to roadways and lengthening the launched its pavement management system life of pavements. -•- a computer-assisted decision-making process designed to help cities and counties CONCLUSION prevent pavement problems through judi- Numerous studies have shown that if streets and cious maintenance, and to diagnose and roads are properly maintained,the total cost for repair those that exist in a timely, cost- maintenance is roughly 24 percent of the expen- effective manner. diture that would be required if the pavement MTC's PMS helps local governments were allowed to fail before repairing.A timely make the best use of available funds by giv- infusion of funding would ensure that the huge ing them a tool for rating their streets'pave- investment already made in the region's road- went condition,establishing a maintenance way network would not go to waste but would and repair schedule, and estimating how be protected and enhanced. much money should be spent to upgrade their road network. Today, 94 cities and counties in the Bay Area and nearly 200 nationwide are using MTC's program. MTC's Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program(P-TAP) For smaller jurisdictions with limited resources,MTC recently established a tech- nical assistance program that provides the services of pre-qualified consultants to help cities and counties establish and maintain.a pavement management system. P-TAP also allows MTC to gather more reliable pavement maintenance data,thus ensuring better estimates of regional needs and funding shortfalls.This will translate into more equitable distribution of existing funds and better informed advocacy for new revenues for the upkeep of local streets and roads. MTCs Guide to the Legal Aspects of Trench Cuts This 28-page guide is intended to help cities and counties regulate pavement excavation by utilities placing cables and pipes, and 1 Introduction "Qf U S. roads, 59 percent are in boor to fair condition, whereas one third of its bridges tyre deficient or obsolete. The deterioration and overuse erre costing Americans nearly 24 billion ($132 per motorist) annually in extra vehicle reptairs, wastedfuel, rind wasted time,, not to mention the increased vehicle emissions spurred by congested traf c. Moreover, road conditions are a factor in an estimated .30percent of traf l rc f atal ities." "A{Hall to Pay the U.S.Iniiast,ra(Jure price"rag,"Edward G.Rendell, Public Warts Ma"agr ent and Pofie�;vol.3,no.2,pp9'9,-103,October I99& YOCRE DRIVING ALONG A CITY STREET OR responding to a funding crunch by post- county read when, without warning, poning pavement maintenance and re- your vehicle hits a slew of potholes with a pair,thereby allowing their roadway sys- jolt that loosens the fillings in your teeth terns to deteriorate at an alarming rate. and an ominous clang that signals seri- ous damage to your car. This scenario is all all-too-common one in the Say Area,and one not likely to �. vanish any time soon. The reasons for +` this situation are many,but the solutions can be boiled down to two-an infusion of dollars and an application of"sense,"i.e., a systematic approach to prevention and repair of road damage. THE COSTS OF NEGLECT In 1981, Ivi:'TC conducted a study that estimated that the region's 17,000 miles of local streets and roads had a deferred maintenance price tag of$4€I0 million— or the equivalent of approximately $750 million in 1999 dollars. The study traced the problem to ris- ing costs and declining revenues, and revealed that many jurisdictions were ''I'll.--,.....I............................................................................................................. . ........................... 2 Pothole Report THE PAVEMENT PICTORE TODAY Almost two decades later, where do Contributing to this problem is the things stand?While local street and road typical approach to pavement mainte- mileage has increased by 2,000 miles (or nance and repair taken by cities and about 11 percent), the cost of deferred counties: maintenance has more than doubled Fix the worst since 1981 —it's now a whopping $1.6 first"is the usual—and billion (in 1997 dollars). Moreover, if least effective—strategy employed. funding remains at current levels, the * Pavement repair is not considered a price tag for the deferred pavement "front burner"policy item by most juris- maintenance backlog can be expected to diction,and as a result,is often deferred. rise to more than $1.8 billion by fiscal - Many jurisdictions lack a consistent year 2002-03 (see figure below). Ob- viously,the region's pavements are in dire limited funds available for pavement need of help. maintenance. HOW DID THIS SITUATION COME ABOUT? Although,over the years,the dollars ded- icated to local street and road repair have increased,they have not kept pace with the accelerated pavement deterioration resulting from increases in the region's traffic volumes and especially heavy rainy seasons. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION FUNDING SHORTFALL $2.5 $2A $2.3 billion 0 $1.187 b�!Ilion $1.5 $1.6 billion X — $1.0 � C .2 $0.5 billion 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ..................................................-..... ................................. 3 Prevention calimid it RX FOR ROADS In response to the 1981 study, MTC the Commission last October devotes 82 launched its Pavement Management percent of all available transportation System {FMS} --- a computer-assisted funding over the next 20 years to main- decision-making process designed to taining and operating — rather than help cities and counties prevent pave- expanding — the Bay Area's freeways, ment'problems through judicious main- local streets, and public transit system tenance,and to diagnose and repair those (see figure below). Despite this hefty that exist in a timely,cost-effective man- commitment,however,the R'I'P projects ner. MTC also advocated for additional that a$5.6 billion shortfall in funding for funding for local road repair, and sup- ported state gas tax increases in 1982 and 1989 that began to address the"dollar" side of the problem. County sales taxes,which play a criti- cal role in transportation finance in PROJECTED EXPENDITURES California, could be another source of pavement funds. In fact, between 1984 3% 1% and 2012,some$18.5 billion in revenues =w4.,.=W will have been generated by the sales tax 17% measures now in effect, $6.2 billion of which is committed to roadway expan- Sion and repair projects. Depending on such taxes,however,can be problematic, $ since most of these taxes are temporary, and future salestaxesmust be approved27 53% g by a two-thirds"supermajority,"making their}passage extremely difficult.MTC is supporting a constitutional amendment that would provide for a simple majority %of approval of local and regional trans- Billio"s total portation taxes. MTC's support for roadway repairs ° Expansiontimpmvements 14.8 17 also is reflected in its transportation planning agenda, which takes a "fix it Bridge Seismic Retrofit 16a Other 0.4 ¢1 first" approach. The 1998 Regional Total $88.4 100 Transportation Plan(RTP) adopted by ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Pothole Report local streets and roads projects will THE ANATOMY OF A POTHOLE remain,with$2.3 billion of this amount Streets and roads take quite a beating directly attributable to pavement upkeep under the weight of traffic and the vag- and repair, aries of weather. In time, cracks appear on the pavement surface. As the pave- EARLY INTERVENTION IS KEY ment's subbase is weakened by water A critical concept in street and road leaking through the crack, the aging maintenance is that, while pavements pavement is further damaged.At a cer- deteriorate only 40 percent in quality in tain critical point, the pavement begins the first 75 percent of their life,this dete- to lose its ability to resist water and carry rioration subsequently accelerates rapid- weight,and seems suddenly to fall apart. ly,resulting in another 40 percent drop in Just like a car whose owner does not quality in the next 12 percent of life. A routinely change the oil and check the pavement management system can iden- transmission fluid, a crack in the road tify pavements that are headed toward not taken care of in a timely fashion gets such a precipitous decline, so that pre- worse and results in a bigger problem ventive maintenance can be applied in a that is more expensive to repair. timely fashion.These fixes cost,on aver- age,about 20 percent of the expenditure that is required once a pavement has deteriorated in quality by 80 percent(see figure below). PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE Excellent Good 40%drop in quality 0 z Fair 0 $1 for renovation here Poor 40%drop LU in quality Very Poor Will cost$5 here Failed I 0 5 10 15 20 YEARS Time varies depending on traffic, climate,pavement design, etc .......... .............................. .................................... ............. Prevention and Repair 5 NUMBERS TELL THE STORY Pavement condition is measured by an BAY AREA ROAD MILEAGE index(PCI) ranging from 0 for roadways BY JURISDICTION-- 1997 in the poorest condition, to 100 for the best maintained networks. Using this State Hwy Other yardstick,the benefits of applying a pave- 7% 2% ment management system can easily be Counties 25% documented; for example, the average PCI of Bay Area jurisdictions that are active MTC PMS users improved from 58 in 1995 to 62 in 1997. Furthermore,the number of active MTC PMS users with good pavement condition (PCI 55 or higher) increased from 61 percent in 1995 to 81 percent in 1997. (For more Cities detailed information about the pavement 66°l0 management system,seepage 10.) LOCAL JURISDICTIONS OWN MOST ROADS The state's 1997 Assembly of Statistical Reports indicates that 19,026 miles* of roadways fall under the maintenance jurisdiction of Bay Area cities and coun- ties, comprising 91 percent of all road mileage in the region. Of the remaining roads, the Cal- ifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans)maintains 1,436 miles of state highways, while another 500 miles fall under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. National Park Service, and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transport- ation District(see figure,right). *All mileage references are centerline miles rather than lame miles. .................................................................... ..............�............................................... ............................... .........................................I.......I........................................................................................................... 6 The Funding Plocture INVESTING IN LOCAL STREETS sive strategy than replacement.However, AND ROADS local expenditures have not kept pace The 13,900 miles of roads currently with pavement needs, resulting in a maintained by cities and the 5,126 miles major backlog of deferred maintenance: for which counties are responsible repre- Averaged over the last 15 years, annual sent roughly a$35 billion investment in expenditures by Bay Area cities and public funds—the amount it would cost counties for pavement upkeep and repair (in 1997 dollars) to reconstruct this road amounted to approximately$13,000 per network. mile,far less than the nearly$20,000 esti- It is clear that preserving this invest- mated by MTC analysts to be necessary ment by applying judicious preventive to keep roads in good condition. maintenance and repair is a less expen- PAVEMENT CONDITION vs. ANNUAL PAVEMENT EXPENDITURE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA too ExeeNtnt 71 7 T 77 85 X ul Very good 70 0 5� 55 T z 0 Fair ti 40 "7 I i- ;qz gm�'iz�;R LU u"M -, 25 Very poor 10 0 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 ANNUAL PAVEMENT EXPENDITURE PER CENTERLINE MILE** - Trend in impact of expenditure on pavement condition The blue dots on the graph above denote cities and counties that are active MTC PMS users (see chart onfacing page).As jurisdictions spend more on streets and roads maintenance, their pavement condition index goes up. Source:MTC PMS users'data submitted in 1996-97 **Source:"Streets and Roads Annual Report"for FY 1980-81 through fY 1994-95,published by California state controller's office ....................................................... .................... . .................... The Funding Picture 7 This gap in. expenditures can be Counties depend largely on state traced to historic trends. In the 1970s, sources—derived primarily from gas tax county roads and city streets were hit receipts—to pay for pavement mainte- with the double blow of rapidly rising nance and repair (see figure, following costs—primarily for asphalt—and the page). declining purchasing power of revenues due to double-digit inflation.The 1980s THE GAPING HOLE IN PAVEMENT and 1990s saw both road repair costs and MAINTENANCE FUNDING inflation stabilize,but more traffic and MTC estimates that,in the next six years, heavier trucks, coupled with several the pavement maintenance and rehabili extremely heavy rainy seasons,drastic- tation funding shortfall for the Bay Area ally accelerated the rate of pavement will exceed$1.8 billion.The figure on the deterioration. WHAT WE'RE SPENDING NOW PAVEMENT EXPENDITURE vs. Data collected on active MTC PMS users PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX in the Bay Area between FY 1980-81 and FY 1994-95 show that there is a strong Averagepe Mile Expenditure per:Mile 1996-97 correlation between pavement mainte- Jurisdiction Fir 1981-95 PCI nance expenditures and current pave- Foster City $24,932 77 mentcondition:Jurisdictions that spent Mountain View 22,338 78Fremont 20,376 74 an average of$19,000 per mile per year in Benicia 16,945 71 the past 15 years on pavement mainte- Santa Clara 16,581 79 nance and rehabilitation now have a Pleasanton 14,921 70 Alameda County 14,869 73 pavement condition index of 70 or high- Liver-more 14,416 75 er, indicating roadways in "very good" 5unnyvate 14 8?2 75 condition (see figure, left, and chart, Nerule 14,150 71 right). Danvrllei 13,076 72 Mill:Valley 1 ,9" �. 65 Belmont 12,923 66 PAYING FOR PAVEMENT Campbell 1it72 60 The Bay Area's local streets and roads Santa Clara County 10;266 65 1. revenues are generated from a combina- Sausalito 10,079 62 Richmond 9,758 67 tion of federal, state, and local sources. Menlo Park 9,597 .53 Local funds, which make up the lion's Orinda 9,331 55 share of revenues for cities in the region, Contra Costa County 8,778 64 come from bond sales, traffic nines and Napa 8,315 66Los Gatos 8,209 60 forfeitures,road taxes,sales taxes,street Sonoma County 6,950 46 assessment levies,and general funds.All Calistoga 6,157 44 except one of these local revenues are Berkeley 61,059 61 El Cerrito 5,802 55 dedicated funding sources:General funds Marin County, 5,678 45 are discretionary,giving cities a choice on Los Altos Hills 5,361 '58 whether to use this pot of money for East Palo Alto 5,316 58 pavement purposes or for other,compet- Petaluma 5,181 40 Solano County 4,931 51 ing needs. 8 Pothole Report BAY AREA.LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REVENUE SOURCES Cities Counties Aw� St wb Mg� is S ffibr "5 ,4l it a ' w�x , ORP .,. Source:"Streets and Roads Annual Report"for FY 1980-81 through FY 1994-95,published by California State Controller's offiee facing page provides a summary of the Area,57 percent (or about$124 million) Bay Area funding shortfall by county. of the new funds that have been commit- MTC also estimates that, projected ted to specific projects so far will go to over the next 20 years, the shortfall in local street and road projects, with funding for local streets and roads will approximately one third of this amount total$5.6 billion,with$2.3 billion of this directed to rehabilitation projects. The amount directly attributable to pavement CTC also has streamlined procedures for upkeep and repair. the STIP process to expedite local road rehabilitation. FILLING THE FUNDING GAP MTC has adopted a plan to allocate Congressional passage of the Transpor- funds from the major federal programs tation Equity Act for the 21st Century under its discretion — the Surface (TEA 21) in the spring of 1998 was good Transportation Program (STP) and the news for streets and roads. The bill Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality authorized an increase of 40 percent in Improvement Program (CMAQ)—pri- federal transportation spending over the rnarily to benefit"fix-it"projects. It will six-year life of the bill. The California designate 75 percent of these funds for Transportation Commission (CTC) has transportation system rehabilitation and taken advantage of what amounts to a replacement---a total of approximately $:1.7 billion statewide windfall by incor- $247 million over the next six years for porating these new funds into the 1998 public transit,pavement and other road- State "Transportation Improvement related projects. Of this amount, up to Program (STIP), and directing some of $150 million will likely be programmed the new dollars toward the repair of for pavement rehabilitation.The remain- damaged streets and roads. In the Bay ing 25 percent of the STP and CMAQ ......................................................................... The Funding Picture 9 moneys will go for projects that improve could go before the electorate as early as the management and safety of the November 2000. Its passage,however,is regional transportation network. by no means assured,since two-thirds of the voters must approve the initiative. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF HELP The 1999-2000 session of the state County sales tax initiatives and a regional Legislature is considering bonds,general gas tax could provide a needed infusion fund contributions, and other mecha- of funds. Several counties are poised to nisms to increase investment in the renew their transportation sales taxes or transportation infrastructure. MTC is submit new measures to the voters.State urging the Legislature to consider the legislation successfully sponsored by needs of local jurisdictions when putting MTC in 1997 authorizes MTC to seek to'gether any such program: Long-term, voter approval on up to a 10-cent-per- predictable funding for local road reha- gallon tax on gasoline sold in Bay Area bilitation is a must if cities and counties counties to fund a series of transportation are to make serious strides toward a pot- improvements. This regional measure hole-free future. SAY AREA PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SIX-YEAR SHORTFALL SUMMARY(1998-2003) (by county, in millions of 1997 dollars) $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solana Sonoma Needs CW Revenues .............. ......... ............................................................................. ........................ ...............I................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ... .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 MTC Program Tackles the Pavement Problem MTC's PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ongoing training and hotline help, and (PMS)got its start in 1984 as a pilot pro- championing the cause of sustaining this gram in,six Bay Area communities.The valuable public investment to local offi- full program got under way in 1986 — cials and state legislators.Last year,two of one of the first in the country to be tai- the PMS users—Marion County,Ore., lored specifically for cities and counties, and the Association of Oregon Counties rather than just for state highways. —joined MTC's partnership to further As described earlier,MTC's PMS is a improve the program. computer-assisted program designed to help local governments take care of their ACTIVIST APPROACH REAPS GREATEST streets in the most cost-effective way pos- REWARDS sible.It gives jurisdictions a tool for rat- Although there is no standard formula ing their streets' pavement condition, for successfully implementing a pave- establishing a maintenance and repair ment management system, interviews with selected Bay Area jurisdictions have The advant-tkge qfhaving a.PMS is that it revealed several key factors. givt,s you a cleai-picture ofyour long--terns • Agencies must develop effective corn- management strategand cai i help.justify munications with their city council or y additionalfundingfroin the city counciV county board of supervisors. Councils —CityofSausaflto engineer and boards must weigh pavement needs against many other urgent local funding schedule, and estimating how much priorities, and information on deferred money should be spent to upgrade their maintenance and iexpected changes in street and road network. pavement condition can be convincing Today, 94 cities and counties in the arguments for increased budgets. Bay Area and nearly 200 nationwide are * Jurisdictions must dedicate staff time using MTC's program. The partnership to learning the PMS software in the ini- effort that launched MTC's PMS has tial implementation stages.Later,agency exp'anded to such an extent that many of personnel must keep current with the the local jurisdictions now use private- program and continuously update their sector consultants to help implement the PMS database. program.MTC continues to support the * Cities and counties must commit to program by sponsoring user meetings periodically re-inspecting their local road three times a year, as well as providing .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .. ................................................................................. MTC Tackles the Pavement Problem 11 BENEFITS OF A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM * A pavement management system offers local governments a systematic way of gauging pavement conditions, and provides a set of steps for using the information to identify and schedule the most appropriate treatment. • It helps local jurisdictions make more efficient use of public funds. In the absence of a pavement management system, available moneys generally are poured into costly reconstruction of a few roadways that are already badly deteriorated,while healthy roadways in need of relatively inexpen- sive preventive maintenance treatments are ignored. - PMS allows local governments to predict what conditions would be like at different levels of fund- ing,quantifying the consequences of underfunded road maintenance.it can thus serve as a highly effective advocacy tool for public works directors to secure the budget necessary to keep their pave- ments in good condition or to bring them up to higher standards. * On a regional level,as more and more jurisdictions complete their pavement needs analyses using MTC's PMS, MTC is able to document the Bay Area's needs and shortfalls and use the data to build support in the state Legislature for increased funding. * Jurisdictions that have a PMS program in place will be ready to put any available new moneys to their most cost-effective use immediately. * Jurisdictions'overall maintenance spending will be reduced once the pavement management sys- tem's goal is reached:getting all pavement segments to the condition where preventive mainte- nance is the primary strategy being applied. network. As with any computer-based VMS has heightened our aWareness of program,the results are only as good as "i most economically advantageous way to the input data are reliable. unprove the overall condition of our streets... MTC OFFERS ANOTHER HELPING HAND [antis has provided ine with information. to In late 1998,MTC launched its Pavement sell Management Technical Assistance my argument to the city council." Program(P-TAP) to provide the services Los Altos 1-1 ills director of publicworks of pre-qualified consultants to help cities and counties establish and maintain a their traffic systems, most notably their pavement management system, traffic signal network. Geared toward smaller jurisdictions As with the jurisdictions TETAP is with limited resources, the program is designed'to help,many cities and coun- similar to MTC's Traffic Engineering ties in the Bay Area have been unable to Technical Assistance Program (TETAP), implement a pavement management sys- which was established in 1993 to offer tem because of the initial cost and staff consultant expertise for local govern- time required to start up the program. ments that do not have the in-house staff Others have had problems maintaining needed to properly operate and maintain their systems because of staff turnover ' ^ 12 Pothole Report ouddbcrcaubinA|acknfexperieoccdpcz- PMS SUCCESS STORIES snonu. Funded by federal Surface Trans- Below are some of the accomplish' ` men�sof|oca|K8T[PK8�users'� portuhon Program moneys,, 8�TCa P'TAP has already allocated funding to * In 1985, the Berkeley City Council 27 Buy Area jurisdictions in the first devoted all of its $1 million-plus nxoco b fthe program,and will focus on K8easuregsales tax funds toimprov- improving maintenance strategies for ingtheir street network. one third mfthe nearly l9,80O-coilclocal ° In 1986. the San Leandro City street network. Besides upgrading the Council relied on PMS data todedi- catethedty'sannua| half-cent sales puvozocotcondition ofBay'�reustreets tax revenues (approximately $6 mil- and roadsp-��� ill oDow &{�� to` lion) topavement maintenance and gather more reliable pavement cuuintc- rehabilitation. "Prior to PUS,we had no reliable way In 1988. the Vallejo City Council tracking the condition |noeasedthe pavement maintenance nFomr�mr�nm��� and rehabilitation budget from PMS has helped W9tAprioritize our needs. $9mlOOUto$1.4million.8yfiscal year ,, 1991 Va!lejo'mbudgethad |ncreased �t�� u� ' ��� Ja�����. -- � '- -^-- ---�-'�-- '----- tm$2million. —City ofM,«muwoPMS manager " |n 7990' PMS data convinced the uauce data. This will coaurc better esti- Benicia City Council turaise its pave- mates of regional needs and shortfalls, ment maintenance budget from which, in turn, will translate' into more $200"000 to $700'000 for fiscal year equitable distribution ofexisting funds 1891. and intvzzocd advocacy for new local ° h 1993' the Los Altos Hills Town road revenues. Council doubled its pavement mainte- M1[Calso recently published uGuide nance budget to $400 increased the budgeagain the and thefol- to the Legal Aspects o/Trench Cuts, to help lowing year. cities and counties better manage and ° |n1997 afterap�sentationonPK8S regulate puvorurotcuts nuudcbyutilibcm ' data, the Danville Town Council in- and others for placing telephone,power creased the town's pavement mainte' uodcublclincu,uodvvutcr,gas and sewer nancebudget by $100,0Ooayear to pipes. Bycoordinating such excavation $7E0,000. with u1rcct yuvio0 schedules, 'orimdic- ° In response toanexisting funding tions can minimize the damage toroad- shortfall for pavement maintenance in ways and lengthen the life of pavements. the city ofFremont,the city council in 1991 committed to increasing the city's pavement maintenance budget by 3 percent per year. By 1997' the overall pavement network condition inFremont was"very good`^ ' .................................... ....................................................................................................................................... r. MTC Tackles the Pavement Problem 13 MORE RESOURCES For a copy of MTC's Guide to the Legal Aspects of Trench Cuts, contact the MTC-ABAG Library by e-mail:library@mtc.ca.gov,fax:510.464.7852,or telephone:510.464.8736. For more information about MTC's Pavement Management System (PMS) or its Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program(P-TAP),contact: Michael Hawthorne North Say PMS coordinator 510.817.3203 Henry Hwang West&South Bay PMS coordinator 510.817.3204 Hisharn Noeimi P-TAP project manager&East Bay PMS coordinator 510.817.3208 or check out the MTC PMS Web site at<www.mtcpms.org>. .......... .................................. ............ ....................................................................................................................................................... . .. ........... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................... imotes ................. ................................. ..................... Printed on recycled paper ................................................................................................................................................................................. ........ ................................ PA c T METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Joseph P.Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street,Oakland,CA 94607 Tel:510.464.7700 Fax: 510.464.7848 TTY/TTD:510.464.7769 E-mail:info@mtc.ca.gov Web site:www.mtc.ca.gov ........................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ..............................................................................................-.....-.......... PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PEH HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD Co-Chairs Nick Rodriquez Marjorie Leids 3351 q 13 Members February 20, 2004 R.Marshall Burgarny Ha Yong Choi Doris Copperman Ruth Daniels Art Hatchett Mary Lou Laubscher Bessanderson McNeil Supervisor Federal Glover, District 5 Dolores Merrida Chair, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Jeffrey Ritterman 651 Pine Street, 16'Floor Mary H.Roche Jean Sid Martinez, CA 94553 Margaret Stauffer Lucil4e Swancer Clyde J.Trombettas Re: Measure C Expenditure Plan Bonita Woodson Dear Supervisor Glover: Executive Assistant Andrea DuBrow The Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB)requests the adoption of a Measure C Expenditure Plan that will best protect and promote the public's health and the health of our environment. In reviewing the proposed transportation investments in Measure C, we particularly favor the opportunities to improve the lives of low-income and vulnerable populations in Contra Costa County. One of our primary concerns is that residents of Contra Costa's most disadvantaged neighborhoods do not have adequate transportation access to public and community-based health clinics. Too many patients have spent several hours taking buses and making transfers on buses, or, they have spent an inordinate amount of money on taxi service to get to medical appointments. This problem occurs in all areas of the County, ranging from Brentwood to the Monument Corridor to Richmond, as residents access health care through our public health safety net. This problem is compounded when patients must make difficult decisions to miss work, bring children with them (often on strollers that are difficult to maneuver on public transit), and/or arrange for childcare or eldercare. Improved bus service through additional program funds for bus operations and express bus service will increase access to health care for those who do not drive or own cars. We are also gravely concerned about the inadequate level of funding for current transportation programs for seniors and the disabled population. We recognize Contra Costa Health Services that the current paratransit system is not capable of adequately serving the rapidly 597 Center Avenue,Suite 115 growing senior population. Therefore,we recommend that the expenditure plan Martinez,CA 94553-4669 925-313-6836 for Measure C support additional funds for paratransit service and infrastructure. 925-313-6864 (fax) ''I'll.-....................................................................................................................... ................................................ From a public health perspective, PEHAB is also concerned about injury prevention, child safety, and the role of exercise in promoting health. We favor safe transportation options forchildren between home, school, and activities, including free youth bus passes, school buses, and child-care shuttles. In addition,we support safety and access for pedestrians and bicyclists whenever possible,as walking and cycling are the healthiest and most environmentally- friendly modes of transportation, whenever possible. With regard to PEHABs environmental health concerns, we recommend programs that reduce diesel exhaust from trucks, public buses, and school buses. We support smart growth strategies, affordable housing, and a countywide web of express buses in an effort to reduce commuting and traffic congestion that contributes to vehicle emissions. We also support adequate mitigation funds to reverse the impact of transportation projects on our air, water, and land. In summary, PEHAB recommends directing expenditures to increase funding for programs such as bus operations, express bus service,transportation for seniors and people with disabilities, pedestrians and bicyclists, and the CC-TLC Incentive program. We hope that you will create an expenditure plan that adequately reflects the needs of the most vulnerable Contra Costans and our environment by directing sufficient resources to these critical areas. Thank you for your consideration of this>matter. Sincerely, Le� X04;w Marjorie Leeds Ruth Daniels Co-Chair, PEHAB and Chair, PEHAB Access to Chair, Environmental Health Committee Health Care Committee CC William Walker, MD, Director, Contra Costa Health Services Wendel Brunner, MD, Director of Public Health Steve Goetz, Chief, Transportation Planning, Contra Costa Community Development Department Martin Engelman, Deputy Director of Planning, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Rick Fernandez, General Manager,AC Transit Joe Wallace, President, Board of Directors,AC Transit .v . . > . .. . . . . �a � j 1 } IA N t�C vy Ln c N t- ul Q ` iQ3 -J tA I i7Y _ LL �r3� /jam �.y ,►w� a �'o M✓.. C'� Ca C7 V V %0 Ln N �Fr� y �F ;3 x p919Ava1s.InOH apiggA .jnOH >lEad p b LO p Ln i 3 € tv 43 ts AP vi LA�d"g1 y LLn P V ■'l �..-1 1 L14 . .hz X palaAejl saf!W al:)iyaA inOH Np 'd r spm` t �� u � 4 ; y� t ,g 4�S {mob 1 4� k `- Lar Q 4 C) tv V a � � afar� *fit ].� �� •a Q us ! FZmo EL �h�o 4 Y, ti ak � qc �� R V, ! ��}v � 3s a a ;z 1 62m. i. r ~ CL 41k 6% 0 rim" 4 0 ,Y Y L ttitvt t . T 4-J y � r x .. l s ex . r � s raw � s' rw« t � SWAM to 1„- 40 O 2 k 3 � F, c > ; M c Pf i a� x. � iIt q t/t btu � G J . I W L X G' a ayyyM� c C> tU .� L. M16 :.. z w �xG Z � Y ..................................................................... ............................................................................. i 1 3t F Y � I R it s< • • ru I y. on rte, t orm �L .� ' F LZ avow 0 VON* �� �, +(.�.� ,�..., � I.err •� 04. PX r�r -LL- • P 1 � f n h .. 'ems � #�� � • qqq �Y fi f �v. d r� tw i 1• 4.0 rfo NAb� Ma V. k � s k3 �' r 4r , y 3 e r t� E � k Y5 ti f y.fie �e t C � yt 9 }L C� F M e.� room � �.. u on NII 4p Ln£^ • now IV r � a ; ..................................................................... .......................................................................... :.i.:...:..; F ;•{:rpt',•• : h}{•.•Fry SL: {•. � sit f •.. sr. <; .k� .. #! f t, J,rr ::Lv <:> > { . £ { x' � "* Lr.... .. } a ` :k t�• fi x ' s L: '�' '•,t: 'rF t flt F fi M $f4ff.•...'. ter r#,t. FFs. {y f`f x{t '{'{ F ..� {• {w £{ t• w 4t } nvr. } v is/,.�{•F,v.,, Fx i ...: ..: .. ... .... w i <y .. $w. 3rr. ice. .�': : f :. .73 # ...► { tF AFF s�fr .;.,; to F 63 {•{ {•ii" .f•ry}, . :k :h. r l s i .�!. ,r `y +{,} . .. l�j�} O py s tie .r ` • wry :.. >::> € h. f }. } } • V i{r � +' VI + i� f h w IL r` {+�� { } t K� i Fk ;: d > hi {f • '•? f f£ '• . r}ii' Cf. IA 4) v fix ... { 4W LL .t v �Y '•••{`h + ` t' } / G / S {�J � y y {. l { !'{:•( ��?'''$ f::Z."-: Q'' . r+ {{ 111 {.i . :•t• _ #t ,`r ? •/ 0 ::it >. ? $� n xxl f1. vfi10 �pp� 4 }K Sx {oy f i1. t..w d g H 40 iY y 4i ® aha 3`�u kms. 1. .. '+ :5�J A 1. � J. L .� .•$"`` <Y,1.(,So.rPY . f-, }L.._..m.._. .uLJ/ .,___....._....._..�:.....�......: . . , � ' :t: . w w£ ._ 11.� I v, .�+ $ � .: AK:$ � Q t .. . f. ,. V. .1,. { vr ? �. .. ,.�4 l J� W rY Sp k, / m f.-w. w�wi .� :1.1 Iff k{ �. " gg H �t fit{ {, Y .J�~t. r y�yy 1. w` � ' W V �l Jam: 'y \ �.. i �. tJ �+ S:?•S: 0. �� '1. ?, 2 YX J1 t , 8 '` W xr . l.._ 1-1 kn ?• 1. t+ � t }.. :. '. p W :: k: c •' ". ft s +4+w a ...�, ., Q� tr:•: fJ .......: .S: $; :; 1. a ::.....••n {.h 3 11.1 :. ;;t: G J . 1.1. y1. % Q _� � � /. J £k 4b f..: % w t '. { d c It. 1 :} { f ¢ y :::•}:•: ,. s � A ?•S}:: O •� x f :... f n{,.. 1 r' { € f t tL :' t r S:`': I ti j f. J .r{S { m s • :::. 1. ...:: .11 I # �, g . ..".I.. J.I I I I 1.I .. , '_'.._;k_. V:::':::_ , ,,,, I I '.." . '' I .���;:,/ �c 11 , •S:.;ti:. f : ::$ k1. .• -/ 1 <_ 1. <; i�i�:ii��;**�.il" ?.�'- ., . ..'' / ei . .' . .�'v '._71% %_.'. , � ---,. ..,. 1. } { :. :.......v•:.f.. 1. {{ f }::#{•, $ 4. ' yv$$$:tij:$;�}tiiG: $.' iii:::ii:>{ �{ ...,:.y.,: 4 , F j Y..11 r.; ::{ !:: { � iiiKF F . iii : : F _ @ r 2 i t Y a 4 S i : '� F a r. •r gg _ cwt .. ' 1. rs ? t c�a'��.zy� Y s ..... vk,, ,�:: .4 �. %x;+vi: . 2 ?• 'i y9a" .cr.+F4Mwc' 'z' A __ ------------ crit S4 i pp w / jM. s �` ��1 . I . (' { s a •: :.: 4 �a� °?v.¢-mss1:1. > f t i�iiKl.�'?' � .... . i A �r---- --: I..�1, s #$ �. 1. A. iC•x• .i ar ' C ✓' 4;;' k $ � 41 a , . t. : ii�• :.' 1.a "Gf :. as :¢' ::.:: < :,: �, k u X" • 9Q g: � 1 1�r z <' :': O W ^+ { ♦ U ,r 1. c{ :U C F X. ` { t 1: F +, l iGi: r I. :.{ a +:�s .."., 1, .1 1".'.:':�]���:�....i��� I I n . . %f t.c { f fi •: J; �. y!� ' !� _ 1 �-. i>:.;.:iiiis.; :ii:G'f.: � '11 ,. 35I 11x .�'' _ 41. :. ,.::v1. :.. :.: ;:J:•;tri iiiiiik-,tt s > s: z �:, � x, ! sk �t' x x K11 .11 I ^X� f 2 F ln. _ t'J.-� f g f J { F { < 1 y�' o _ p,: z # s 1 # x. r w< +.::,.F+.. 1 1 s• {' # ! -\s :# .:,: r as1. ::::. L {.sts:. ::::••v' ; Y3 :J:Gi{:' :Z 4:: —ii.... it q is � F + `ys: {::+tiir: -hw F� ;/;:::•::#ate:' ,: : {.. dC`r M y { : : y {"v { f f. .fv`r A"f `'¢ r /r:. •{ Ki' fA a 1. x�$ 11 a. �„► ' ' ii� :c;` °°'1. r yf reit # a� z jY ili9:r .r f Ls ,t� v < g .3 gja.. I. w"' �o-x• f .f4a kLx ■5 fFy^'` 4i 1i` �S.9 a . , g r{ € f z ay, �1! •� • f r . {{ . ::r La-- ,# , r 1 u f , .. r s.+ r n ' `L ... - 5 ,. O , ': E r< .y ,. 15 tri .. \. 4 �� .. -" r ' < �r v :. ......: r ... :. �'" S x: Q �► off, U I #: iii: . 1.flil v 1. ' 1. t. j� < ::. r- �i��i yA I .k j F �f W fi11 Ixu 1. "� J 1. vxilI I x k /f >: I . 11 k. .r. ar 7x� . lb g y " O C11 f h X/�:�::.:��--` Q C4.7 r £ y } s iiii.. 3. :t.;:.>:: r�. . .. ....... 1. f. ., y#� K .'�,' i}%.ii 1 .�• r'"" !'. 451}• f ' I 1. II. .. ..r.{{ .. r —11 i42 $ ` r� a x r" w t `d:' •y.. < - t, firs w E .: i ft. .. .. x: i. ;;,�< :a i /: h yy a .. .vi i +r f-• iiiii*y :%:*%:�:: ...'.. . ..''''.'....'',-I-11 I , - .-I t ,-.:'v:.::,..:::, � 69f �f -I.,.-X.! �' . 0 C< ff{## :{•::• iR .ir f f.: _. ....._....— _ __.--------..._._... ........... ....._._......_....... ......._ _ ........ ......... ......... ......... .........._..........'' ............................................. . r F ``� y�► �► *tow t 441 et r `�yt coo �'v C> co s.JEIIo( }o SUOIII! W d� W"RQ w b � � 0.7 k 'k 4r F r1s� y I onn Pow a. Mai y, m cc w T � m to s-jelloO ;o suoirf ! w i1 a v� � . f Z e F � 3 f � th o Y E t fix•. �: 4 r_ . m "Poo « � c' 1 siB1 !o(3 jo suolll ! W `% 'M .................................................................... z M 4 { We- tc �row 0 {{p u9L o Ln Ln IT €� i ` F C+f rd N rr r �� a SiElloa 3o suo!ll!W 3 a 4 06 v cq j I CLAD� LU E k t u k tj 4 o a o a a c> c Ln c 4-A LA �e s-JLI10<3 ;o su011l!W t ice. d < s �r F � A t � h fa 40 V,two $ m tN m O a�rY t i a SJRIJOf3 }o SUOIIIIW u :s w � a ; 40 7r f 40 uj IA U • 'I 3 a R : 1 16 IV too CL Ar a, ,Eto,41 Do 40 ii x<0 4 4 3 4.E 5� � SFA 9 bF y 4� 1 3 W� * 1131 ggy f3 43 £ � a ISS` �► NA "WIR -0111-111 WAI �,l go N RNIONk t Sai�t.gi�. MH -,H00, s 5 'Ell S; A 2 s F,F R ger n 1 F t SFa J K E 0. r et1 6 <4 Cy ' f ... :::... ...... ....................... .................. .................................................................. . .................................................................................................. Yd 9 �^ N 1 7 1 s S� '4 07 ijo R-1 1t � � WF l lel � ----------- MEN rx > HImoo Crv$ £c ......................................................................................................... ..................................................... t S,Aft lw A01 A Z.. ` at • P.al � . ilk ,. .. UAW. v. 460 JL CTS h ............................. ... ......... . ....... ......... ......... ......... ........... ......... ... .. ........ .................................................................................