HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10242006 - SD.2 p,
S - L
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '`��-��--��' Contra
FROM: MAU�y �1�1. SHIU PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR n 0.
Costa
DATE: October 24, 2006
STA C------ County
SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Regular Ordinances to collect Subregional Transportation
Mitigation Program (STMP) fees to fund the revised STMP for the West Contra Costa Transportation ..-
Advisory Committee (WCCTAC), West County area. (Districts I and II) [CDD-CP#06-13] Project
No.: 0676-6P4007
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. CONDUCT a Public Hearing to consider adoption of two ordinances (Ordinance No. 2006-61 and
Ordinance No. 2006-62), substantially in the form attached, to adopt fees to fund eleven projects (8
transit/pedestrian projects and 3 major thoroughfare projects) in the revised STM? and WAIVE reading.
2. APPROVE the October 2, 2006, Development Program Report pertaining to STMP fees for major
.thoroughfare projects.
3. ADOPT Ordinance No.2006-61 repealing Ordinance No.2006-21 and establishing STMP fees for the eight
transit/pedestrian projects in the STMP.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ❑x SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BO �d� a(r APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER
C.`DSo. 'II..�1(� �( 2rv.�. �`p.�-tea. OY�-�►��N Ge S foto/b� 2� 7e 6[o/fo'Y
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: U� 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
A
DATE SHOWN.
YES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: Brian Louis,313-2245
CL:tr
G:\TransEng\2006\BO-TE\BO-WCCTAC Conduct Hearing AdptOrd 2006-61, ATTESTED 0 C.
62.doc
J014N CULLEN CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
cc: PW Acctg.—C.Raynolds
PW Eng.Svcs.—T.Torres
PW Trans.Eng.—C.Lau
County Auditor/Controller B DEPUTY
County Treasurer/Tax Collector
SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Regular Ordinances to collect Subregional Transportation
Mitigation Program (STMP) fees to fund the revised STMP for the West Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC), West County area. (Districts I and 11) [CDD-
CP#06-13] Project No.: 0676-6P4007
DATE: October 24, 2006
PAGE: 2 of 2
4. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2006-62, establishing fees for the three major thoroughfare projects in the STMP.
5. DIRECT the Director of Public Works and the Auditor/Controller to establish a separate trust fund for the
revenues collected for the eight transit/pedestrian STMP projects(Ordinance No.2006-61)in addition to the
existing Fund#8286 RS83 which will be used for the fee revenues collected for the three major thoroughfare
STMP projects(Ordinance No. 2006-62),and the Treasurer to invest said monies with interest to accrue in
the trust fund accounts.
6. DIRECT the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development to review the fee
schedule every July 1 the STMP fees are in effect, and to adjust for the effects of inflation or deflation as
described in the attached ordinances.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of these ordinances will result in the potential collection of fees from new developments to fund
subregional transportation improvements within the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee fee
area. There will be no impact to the General Fund.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND:
On July 18,2006,the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No.2006-21,which established revised STMP fees
to fund the revised subregional transportation improvement program for the West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). Ordinance No. 2006-21 adopted fees with an effective date 60 days after
passage. The Board also adopted Ordinance No.2006-20,an urgency ordinance effective for 30 days,establishing
interim fees pending the 60-day effective date of Ordinance No. 2006-21. On August 15, 2006, the Board of
Supervisors adopted a second urgency ordinance(Ordinance No. 2006-31)extending the urgency ordinance for an
additional 30 days.
At the Board's direction, Ordinance No. 2006-61 and Ordinance No. 2006-62 have been prepared for the Board's
consideration. Ordinance No. 2006-61 repeals Ordinance No. 2006-21 and establishes fees for eight of the eleven
STMP projects(transit/pedestrian projects),pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act. Ordinance No.2006-62 establishes
fees for the three major thoroughfare STMP projects,pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and Section 66484 of the
Government Code. The total fees established by the two ordinances will be the same as the fees established by
Ordinance 2006-21.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
STMP fees will continue to be collected under Ordinance No. 2006-21.
ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REPORT
FOR THE
2005 UPDATE OF THE
SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION
PROGRAM (STMP) FOR THE WEST CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WCCTAC)
PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 913
COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE
Prepared by:
Contra Costa County
Public Works and Community Development Departments
October 2, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE......................................................................1
BACKGROUND..............................................................................................1
AREA OF BENEFIT LOCATION AND BOUNDARY MAP.......................................2
PURPOSEOF THE FEE ..................................................................................2
USE OF THE FEES..........................................................................................2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USE OF FEES AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED.....................................................3
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEED FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED..............................3
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP.....................................................................4
ROAD NETWORK CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN..........................................4
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN THE STMP AREA......................................5
ESTIMATED COST OF ROADWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS..........................5
BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT..................................................................5
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES...........................................................................6
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION AND CALCULATION OF FEES................................6
RECOMMENDED FEES....... ............................ .......... .............................9
REVIEW OF FEES..........................................................................................10
COLLECTION OF FEES...................................................................................10
IN LIEU DEDICATION......................................................................................10
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 COST SUMMARY OF BRIDGES/MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
PROJECTS.....................................................................................7
TABLE 2 COST PER TRIP ESTIMATE FOR BRIDGES/MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
PROJECTS......................................................................................7
TABLE 3. COST SUMMARY OF TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS......................8
TABLE 4 COST PER TRIP ESTIMATE FOR TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS.....8
TABLE 5 STMP FEE RATES FOR BRIDGES/MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PROJECTS
AND TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN TYPE PROJECTS. ..................................9
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 STMP BOUNDARY LOCATION........................................................11
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WCCTAC STMP BOUNDARY.......12-13
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE
2005 UPDATE OF THE SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM
(STMP) FOR THE WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (WCCTAC)
PURSUANT TO THE BRIDGE CROSSING AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARES
FEE AREA POLICY
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) is a development program designed to collect
funds to maintain and improve the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in the
west county area of Contra Costa County. This fee program applies to all new
development within the STMP boundary area. This Development Program Report is
required by the Board of Supervisors' Policy on Bridge Crossing and Major Thoroughfare
Fees (adopted July 17, 1979), which implements Division 913 of the County Ordinance
Code and applies to areas in unincorporated Contra Costa County. This Development
Program Report is also in fulfillment of Section 66484 of the State Subdivision Map Act.
One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to relate new development directly to
the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that development. In other words,
development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the
funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The STMP is a means
of providing funds to construct road improvements to serve new development. Requiring
that all new development pay a road improvement fee will help ensure that they participate
in the cost of improving the road system.
Each new development or expansion of an existing development will generate new
additional traffic. Where the existing road system is inadequate to meet future needs
based on new development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The
purpose of this program is to determine improvements ultimately required by future
development and to require developers to pay a fee to fund these improvements. Because
the fee is based on the relative impact on the road system and the costs of the necessary
improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount is roughly proportional to the
development impact.
BACKGROUND
The STMP was first adopted by WCCTAC, the Cities of EI Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole,
Richmond, and San Pablo, Contra Costa County, and the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) in 1997, by way of a Cooperative Agreement and local legislation,
including Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 97-22. Under the program, developer fees
were imposed in the amount of $700 per residential unit, $560 per multi-family residential
unit, and $.20 per square foot for commercial/industrial/office space. The fees charged
were considerably lower than what would have been allowed by the nexus analysis.
[California legislation requires, among other things, that fees on new developments bear a
reasonable relationship (nexus) to the cost of the public facilities, or portion of the public
facilities, attributable to the developments on which the fee is imposed.
1
California courts have long used the reasonableness standard, or nexus, to.evaluate the
constitutionality of exactions, including developer fees.] The three projects that were
partially funded in the 1997 program were the Highway 4 West divided highway, the EI
Cerrito BART Parking Structure, and the Richmond Intermodal Station, though fees
collected by the County were used solely to fund the Highway 4 West project.
The 2005 ,Update of the STMP was prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants for the
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and provides the
technical basis for establishing the required nexus between anticipated future development
in west Contra Costa County and the need for certain local and regional transportation
facilities. This development program report addresses the bridges/major thoroughfare
projects described in the 2005 Update of the STMP. A separate analysis of those projects
is necessary pursuant to Government Code Section 66484, Division 913 of the Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code and the above-referenced Board Policy. Government Code
section 66484 authorizes local agencies to adopt ordinances to require, as a condition of
approval of a final map or as a condition of issuing a building permit, the payment of fees to
defray the cost of construction of bridges and major thoroughfares. Section 66484 sets up
a number of specific procedures and protections, such as requiring the circulation element
of the general plan to show the major thoroughfares for which the fee will be used to
improve.
Since three of the eleven projects identified in the STMP are bridges/major thoroughfare
type projects, fees for these three projects will be collected under a separate ordinance, in
compliance with Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code and Government Code
Section 66484. This report explains and shows how the fee rates are calculated.
AREA OF BENEFIT LOCATION AND BOUNDARY MAP
The STMP boundary location is generally shown in Figure 1 and is described in Exhibit A.
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 66001 (a) OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
1) PURPOSE OF THE FEE
The purpose of the STMP is to generate monies through the adoption of a traffic mitigation
fee to ensure a roadway network consistent with current and future transportation needs.
By adoption of this fee program, the proposed road improvement system will be able to
keep pace with new growth.
2) USE OF THE FEES
The fees will be used to generate monies to pay for the road improvements described in
the 2005 STMP Update report, specifically the Interchanges on 1-80 at San Pablo Dam
Road and Central Avenue and on Highway 4 at Willow Project, the San Pablo Dam Road in
Downtown EI Sobrante Project, and the North Richmond Road Connection Project,
collectively herein as the "Road Projects." The STMP will only finance the minimum interim
roadway improvements for the Road Projects needed to meet traffic level of service and
safety demands. Amenities, which do not have a direct effect on capacity, such as general
2
lighting, extensive longitudinal storm drain systems, and sidewalks, are not included.
These improvements are considered as frontage improvements by the Board of
Supervisors and as such are the responsibility of the owners of the adjacent properties and
may be provided through development conditions of approval, or by other future means
such as additional fees or assessment districts.
3) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USE OF FEES AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED .
The Road Projects for which the fees will be used are necessary for the improvement of the
safety and capacity of the road network serving the STMP area, as determined by future
growth allowed for in the General Plan. The road network is outlined in the Circulation
Element of the General Plan.
A trip generation factor has been designated for each of the various land uses outlined in
this Development Program Report. These factors were determined utilizing the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual and results of a study using
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2003 to determine the
residential and employment growth in the West County area between 2005 and 2030. This
methodology allocates fees to the types of land use proportional to the amount of new
traffic generated by that land use. As a result, the proposed fees based on these factors
are directly related fo traffic generated by each particular land use category. The non-
residential trip generation factors have been reduced from the standard values in the ITE
manual.
4) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEED FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED
A peak trip generation rate has been associated for-each type of development outlined in
the 2005 STMP update report. These factors are industry standards obtained from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation. The proposed fee is based on
distributing the cost of the STMP road improvement program to new development in
proportion to the number of peak hour trips generated by the particular type of new
development. All new development will be required to pay a fee to fund their fair share of
the roadway improvements needed to serve new development in the STMP area.
The updated STMP program is a 25-year program. ABAG Projections 2003 provided the
growth projections in households and employment for West County. These statistics and
standard trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Handbook allowed the consultants to estimate the total increase in peak hour
trips in the morning commute period (28,571 trips). Richmond and Hercules account for
more than 75 percent of the new trips. The following shows the growth in new a.m. peak
hour trips in the next 25 years (2005 to 2030) for the West County jurisdictions:
Richmond 58.5%
Hercules 18.1%
Pinole 7.8%
El Cerrito 5.6%
3
San Pablo 5.2%
Rodeo-Crockett 4.8%
This increase in growth and subsequently the total number of new trips using the road
network within the STMP area, will create an impact on. existing road facilities requiring
safety and capacity improvements. The Road Projects are needed to mitigate the effects of
this increase in trips generated by new development projects. A list of projects needed to
accommodate future traffic was prepared by the WCCTAC Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC). Eleven projects.are currently on the list. In general the amount of STMP funding
varies from 27.5% to 50% of the project cost.
The nexus findings and relationship between the amount of fee and cost of the Road
Projects attributable to new development on which the fee is imposed is established by the
STMP report prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants.for WCCTAC.
The concept of an area of benefit is the equitable distribution of road improvement costs to
new development from which future traffic impacts will arise. Since traffic impacts from
development are directly related to the total number of new vehicles on the road network,
we are able to relate road development fees to the number of vehicle trips associated with
a particular category of development. The categories which a fee will be assessed in the
STMP fee area are: single and multi-family residential, senior housing, hotel, retail, office,
industrial, storage facility, church, hospital, and "other." The total estimated STMP share of
the project costs is divided by the number of peak hour trips generated by each category.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The basis for the STMP is consistent with the features of the County General Plan and its
amendments, and subscribes to the policies of the General Plan elements. The general
plan policies include but are not limited to improving the County roadway network to meet
existing and future traffic demands. Establishing and charging new development the STMP
fee will assist in funding the necessary Road Projects required for future growth that are
,generally shown in the General Plan.
:.The General Plan and its various elements are available for review at the Community
Development Department, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,
during office hours.
ROAD NETWORK CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The road network capacity improvement program was developed using the Circulation
Element and the development potential identified by the County General Plan. This
program rates the level of service (LOS) for all County maintained roads, so that projects
that improve the LOS for certain roads and intersections can be easier identified. The
Road Projects are identified in the road network capacity improvement program as projects
that will improve LOS. The Road Projects will be funded and constructed in conjunction
with the development of property within the STMP area. The Road Projects however, are
only partially funded by STMP fees. The rate of revenue generated in the STMP fee area
is dependent on the rate of new development. This affects the timing of the construction of
4
an STMP project as it is dependent on the total amount of fees collected less expenditures.
Other sources of funding, such as State or Federal aid, or local sources such as sales tax,
gas tax, etc., will be pursued.
The Road Projects will help to provide the capacity needed to serve the estimated potential
development and future traffic volumes in the STMP area. The STMP will finance only the
minimum interim roadway improvements for the Road Projects, needed to meet traffic level
of service and safety demands. The Road Projects proposed by the STMP will be
reviewed periodically to assess the impacts of changing travel patterns, the rate of
development, and the adequacy of the estimated project costs, to evaluate project priority
and the need to increase fees should project costs increase or exceed the rate of inflation.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN THE STMP AREA
Expected growth in households, employment, and peak hour trips within the STMP
boundary area is discussed in the 2005 STMP update report, which was prepared for the
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC).
ESTIMATED COST OF ROADWAY NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
The estimated costs for the Road Projects and the corresponding recommended STMP fee
contributions are shown in Table 1. The recommended STMP fee contributions are only a
portion of the total project cost. An additional administrative fee equal to 2% of the program
revenue will be assessed by the County. This additional fee will be used to cover staff time
for fee collection, accounting, and technical support to the community groups and traffic
advisory committees.
BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT
The basis for the fee apportionment is described in the 2005 STMP update nexus report
prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants for WCCTAC. Also described in the "Project
Classification and Calculation of Fees" section of this report, the eleven projects within the
nexus report contain two general categories of projects — bridges and major thoroughfare
projects and transit/pedestrian projects. This Development Program Report is necessary
for collection of fees for the bridges and major thoroughfare projects to comply with Section
66484 of the Government Code and Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code and
Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000 et seq.).
The concept of an area of benefit is the equitable distribution of road improvement costs to
new development from which future traffic impacts will arise. As traffic impacts are directly
related to the total number of vehicles on the road network, we are able to relate road
development fees to the number of vehicle trips associated with a particular category of
development. To. summarize, the eleven land use categories for which a fee will be
assessed in the STMP fee area, are: single and multi-family residential, senior housing,
hotel, retail, office, industrial, storage facility, church, hospital, and ."other." The total
estimated Area of Benefit share of the project costs is divided by the number of peak hour
trips generated by each category.
5
In the residential.categories, the cost is equally distributed among all dwelling units. In the
non-residential categories, the cost is distributed on the basis of each square foot of gross
floor area. For the "other" category, the fee would be based on the number of peak hour
trips generated by the particular type of development. A traffic report prepared by a
licensed engineer and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, or an
analysis completed in accordance with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual, may
be required to analyze the project's impact during the peak traffic hours. The project would
then be charged the peak hour trip rate multiplied by the number of peak hour trips
identified in the traffic report.
The Board of Supervisors' Bridge Crossing and Major Thoroughfares Fee Policy, adopted
July 17, 1979, excluded areas designated in the County General Plan as Agricultural
Preserve and Open Space. This policy has been interpreted to exclude all properties
zoned agricultural because minor subdivisions and lot splits of such properties are often not
for the purpose of new construction. Fees will be charged on these lands if and only if a
building permit for new construction is applied for.
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
Other funding sources are available to help fund County transportation projects. These
other funding sources include but are not limited to Regional Measure C Funds, Regional
Measure J Funds (beyond 2009), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Funds, and Federal Program Funds.
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION AND CALCULATION OF FEES
The updated STMP includes eleven projects. The eleven projects and the STMP funding
amount are:
1: Richmond Intermodal Station - $15,000,000.
2. Interchanges on 180 at San Pablo Dam Road and at Central; and on Highway 4 at
Willow - $14,280,000.
3. Capital Corridor Improvements (Hercules train station and track/safety
improvements) - $13,255,000.
4. Ferry Service from Richmond and/or Hercules/Rodeo - $12,650,000.
5. BART access and/or parking improvements - $25,330,000.
6. Bay Trail Gap Closure - $1,510,000.
7. San Pablo Dam Road Improvements in Downtown EI Sobrante - $1,900,000.
8. San Pablo Avenue Corridor Improvements - $1,650,000.
9. N. Richmond road connection project - $4,000,000.
10. Hercules Transit Center relocation - $1,650,000.
11. Del Norte Area Transit Oriented Development - $6,875,000
The above list contains two general categories of projects — bridges and major
thoroughfare projects and transit/pedestrian projects.
The following analysis is included to show the complete reasoning and basis for how the
fee rates are split for the two general categories of projects (i.e. bridges and major
6
thoroughfare projects, and transit/pedestrian projects). Fee rate calculation methods for
both categories are shown below.
The following tables summarize the fee rates for both the bridges/major thoroughfare
projects and transit/pedestrian projects. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the bridges/major
thoroughfare projects and the per trip fee rates associated with those projects.
Project iota/Cost Measure J Other Unfunded Exceeds Recommended
Funds Amount Nexus STMP Fees
2) Interchanges on
1-80 at San Pablo
Dam Road and at
Central and on $46,200,000 $30,000,000 $16,200,000 $1,920,000 $14,280,000
Highway 4 at
Willow Avenue.
7) San Pablo Dam
Road
improvements in $6,900,000 $6,900,000 $5,000,000 $1,900,000
downtown EI
Sobrante
9) N. Richmond
road connection $7,950,000 $7,950,000 $3,950,000 $4,000,000
project
STMP Totals $61,050,000 1 $30,000,000 $0 $31,050,000 1 $10,870,000 $20,180,000
Table 1: Cost summary of bridges/major thoroughfare projects
x
STMP Improvement STMP Portion of
Projects 2005 Costs
II Projects $ 61,050,000
Outside Funding $ 30,000,000
Unfunded Amount $31,050,000
Exceeds Nexus $10,870,000
Net Improvement Costs $ 20,180,000
Plus Administrative Costs $ 605,400
3%
Total STMP Funding $ 20,785,400
Total Peak Hour Trips
Added by New 28,810
Develo ment
STMP Cost Per Trip $ 721
Table 2: Cost per trip estimate for bridges/major thoroughfare
projects
7
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the transit/pedestrian projects and the per trip fee rates
associated with those projects.
Project Total Cost Measure J Other Unfunded Exceeds Recommended
Funds Amount Nexus STMP Fees
1) Richmond
Intermodal $36,000,000 $21,000,000 $15,000,000 $0 $15,000,000
Station
3)Capital Corridor
Improvements $48,200,000 $7,500,000 $3,000,000 $37,700,000 $24,445,000 $13,255,000
4) Ferry service
from Richmond
and/or $91,000,000 $45,000,000 $46,000,000 $33,350,000 $12,650,000
Hercules/Rodeo
5) BART access
and/or parking $92,100,000 $15,000,000 $77,100,000 $51,770,000 $25,330,000
improvements
6) Bay Trail Gap
Closure $5,490,000 $348,000 $5,142,000 $3,632,000 $1,510,000
8)San Pablo
Avenue Corridor $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,350,000 $1,650,000
Improvements
10) Hercules
Transit Center $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,350,000 $1,650,000
relocation
11) Del Norte Area $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $18,125,000 $6,875,000
TOD
STMP Totals $309,790,000 $67,500,000 $24,348,000 $217,942,000 $140,022,000 $77,920,000
Table 3: Cost summary of transit/pedestrian projects
STMP Improvement Projects STMP Portion of
2005 Costs
All Projects $309,790,000
Outside Funding $91,848,000
Unfunded Amount $217,942,000
Exceeds Nexus $140,022,000
Net Improvement Costs $ 77,920,000
Plus Administrative Costs
(3%) $2,337,600
.Total STIVIP Funding $ 80,257,600
Total Peak Hour Trips Added by
New Development 28,810
STMP Cost Per Trip $ 2,786
Table 4: Cost per trip estimate for transit/pedestrian projects
8
Table 5 shows the separate fee rates for the bridges/major thoroughfare and
transit/pedestrian projects. The right column sums the split fee rates and shows the full fee
rates stated in the 2005 Update of the STMP final report.
Fee Rates Fee Rates
Peak (partial funding) (partial Total
Hour Units of funding) STMP
Land Uses Bridges/
Trip Use** Transit/ Fee
Rates* major pedestrian Rates
thoroughfare projects
rojects
Single-family Residential 0.74 DU $534 $2,061 $2,595
Multi-family Residential 0.47 DU $339 $1,309 $1,648
Senior Housing 0.20 DU $144 $557 $701
Hotel 0.56 Room $404 $1,560 $1,964
Retail 0.52 SF $0.37 $1.45 $1.82
Office 1.00 SF $0.72 $2.79 $3.51
Industrial 0.70 SF $0.50 $1.95 $2.45
Storage facility 0.15 SF $0.11 $0.42 $0.53
Church 0.45 SF $0.32 $1.25 $1.58
Hospital 1.20 SF $0.87 $3.34 $4.21
Other 1.00 1 AM PHT $721 $2,786 $3,507
Table 5: STMP fee rates are based on $721/trip for bridges/major thoroughfare
projects and$2786/trip for transit/pedestrian type projects.
*Peak Hour Trip Rates are per dwelling unit(DU), Room, 1000 SF and AM PHT
**Peak Hour Trip Rates are applied in the following units of use to calculate the fee
rates (for example: Total Hotel fee rate = $3507 x 0.56/Room = $1964/Room; Total
Retail fee rate = $3507 x 0.5211000SF= $1.82 per SF)
_DU = Dwelling Unit; SF= Square Foot; PHT= Peak Hour Trip
RECOMMENDED FEES
Based on the foregoing analysis, the recommended fees for the Road Projects only are
shown below.
■ Single-family Residential $534 per dwelling unit
■ Multi-family Residential $339 per dwelling unit
■ Senior Housing $144 per dwelling unit
■ Hotel $404 per room
® Retail $0.37 per SF of gross floor area
■ Office $0.72 per SF of gross floor area
■ Industrial $0.50 per SF of gross floor area
■ Storage facility $0.11 per SF of gross floor area
■ Church $0.32 per SF of gross floor area
■ Hospital $0.87 per SF of gross floor area
■ Other $721 per AM Peak Hour Trip (PHT)
9
REVIEW OF FEES
Project cost estimates will be reviewed periodically while the STMP is in effect. On July 1,
2007, and-on July 1 of each year thereafter, the amount of the fees shall be increased or
decreased based on the percentage change in the Engineering News-Record Construction
Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for the 12-month period ending with the June
index of the same calendar year.
COLLECTION OF FEES
Fees shall be collected when the building permit is issued in accordance with Section 913-
4.204 of Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Fees collected
will be deposited into interest bearing trust funds established pursuant to Section 913-8.002
of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Fees, including net interest, shall be remitted
on a quarterly basis to the City of San Pablo Finance Department, to be used solely for the
Road Projects.
IN LIEU DEDICATION
A developer may receive credit against fees for the dedication of land for right-of-way
and/or construction of any portion of the Road Projects, where such right-of-way or
construction is beyond that which would otherwise be required for approval of the proposed
development. The calculation of the amount of credit against fees for such dedications or
improvements will be based on a determination by the County that such credits are, in fact,
exclusive of the dedications, setbacks, improvements, and/or traffic mitigation measures
which are required by local ordinance, standards, or other practice. In addition, the credit
will be calculated based upon the actual cost of construction of improvements or, in the
case of land dedication, on an independent appraisal approved by the County.
G:\TransEng\AOB\WCCTAC\County Development Program Reports\Major thoroughfare report DraftFinal.doc
10
y
e �t st u
L
• �i �` sxfl
t
Pi ay,smty sw ,sem t SSS 'R "F .1
WMI
now
CA
mm
� u
\J � lot
S �t •
7-
if
U
_ s _
R LL)
L;
3
WCCTAC STMP Boundary
Legal Description
EXHIBIT "A"
Real property in Contra Costa County, California described as follows:
Beginning at the most south easterly corner of the 18.04 acre parcel of land shown on the Record
of Survey filed December 22, 1931 in Book 2 of Licensed Surveyor Maps at page 5; thence from
said Point of Beginning south 66°11'00"west 125.15 feet to the northeasterly line of the Southern
Pacific Railroad right of way; thence southerly to the southwesterly line of said railroad right of way
to an 1/2" iron pipe and tags L.S. 3489 as shown on the Record of Survey filed April 10, 1990 in
Book 93 of Licensed Surveyors Maps at page 32; thence south 43026'43" west 341 feet more or
less to the westerly right of way line of Carquinez Scenic Drive (formerly Pomona Avenue); thence
along said right of way line in a general southerly direction 555 feet more or less to the easterly
boundary-of the parcel of land granted to Hook Recorded December 19, 1993 in Book 18288 of
Official Records at page 889; thence along said boundary in a general southerly and southeasterly
direction 1771 feet more or less to the southeasterly corner of said Hook parcel (18288 OR 889);
thence along the south line of said parcel.and its westerly prolongation,west 4050 feet more or less
to the easterly right of way line of McEwen Road; thence westerly 50 feet more or less to the
westerly right of way line; thence continuing westerly 4250 feet more or less to the northwest corner
of the parcel of land granted to Brenkle Enterprises recorded December 13, 1990 in Book 16298 of
Official Records at page 223; said point is on the easterly right of way line of Cummings Skyway;
thence along said easterly right of way, southerly and southeasterly 3301 feet more or less to the
northerly right of way line of the John Muir Parkway (Highway 4); thence in a general southerly
direction 1070 feet more or less to the northerly boundary of the parcel of land shown on the
Record of Survey lot line Adjustment 64-88 filed February 15, 1989 in Book 90 of Licensed
Surveyors Maps at page 16; thence along said northerly line and its northwesterly prolongation
north 78031'05"west 800 feet more or less to the southeasterly right of way line of Franklin Canyon
Road; thence along said right of way line, in a southwesterly direction 5200 feet to the westerly
cornerof-parcel "B" as shown on the Minor Subdivision MS 98-70 filed October 9, 1970 in Book 14
of Parcel.Maps at page 24, said point is on the easterly right of way line of the Atchison Topeka
and Santa Fe Railroad right of way; thence southwesterly to the westerly right of way line of said
railroad; thence along said westerly right of way line in a general southerly direction 5400 feet more
or less; thence leaving said westerly right of way line south 450east 2300 feet; thence along the
westerly boundary of the 137.40 acre and 98.59 acre parcels south 0020'20" east 2621.20 feet to
the southwest corner of the 98.59 acre parcel as shown on the Record of Survey filed May 29, 1953
in Book 15 of Licensed Surveyors Maps at page 44;thence.along the southerly boundary (15 LSM
44) line south 87050'20" east 2680.05 feet to the southeasterly corner of said 98.59 acre parcel (15
LSM 44); thence along the west boundary Part F Rancho EI Pinole south 0054" west 1837 feet as
shown on the Record of Survey filed October 20, 1937 in Book 4 of Licensed Surveyors Maps at
page 26; thence continuing southerly along said west boundary 1600 feet more or less to point PR
26 on the boundary of that parcel of land granted to Soehngen recorded February 22, 1980 in Book
9741 of Official Records at page 584; thence along said boundary easterly 600 feet to the westerly
right of way line of Ferndale Road; thence along said right of way line southeasterly 1150 feet more
or less to the northeasterly boundary of Parcel "A" of minor subdivision MS 81-78 filed July 11,
1979 in Book 78 of Parcel Maps at page 45; thence south 75058'05" west 1071.26 feet; thence
12
south 30019"west 282.28 feet; thence south 24021'06"east 1165.5 feet to the southwesterly corner
of Parcel B (78 PM 45); thence leaving Parcel B (78 PM 45) southwesterly 6687.79 feet along the
general southeasterly boundary of Parcel B to its most southerly corner as shown on minor
subdivision MS 8-87 filed June 25, 1993 in Book 162 of Parcel Maps at page 25; thence
southwesterly 1719.2 feet more or less along the northwesterly boundary of Parcel "A"to the most
westerly corner of parcel A as shown on minor subdivision MS 18-91 filed December 29, 1992 in
Book 160 of Parcel Maps at page 33; thence along the boundary of minor subdivision MS 244-77
filed September 11, 1979 in Book 80 of Parcel Maps at page 35 the following courses (1) south
1026'29" west 1058.16 feet, (2) south 87018'30" west 2133.27 feet (3) north 89021'12" west 4888
feet more or less to the southwesterly corner of Parcel "A" (80 PM 35); thence southerly,
southwesterly, southeasterly 10454 feet more or less along the boundary of Tract No. 27 as shown
on the map of the Rancho El Sobrante to the most easterly point of Tract No. 26 (Rancho EI
Sobrante); thence southwesterly along the southeasterly line of said Tract No. 26 and its
southwesterly prolongation to the northeasterly right of way line of San Pablo Dam Road; thence
southeasterly along said right of way line to the southeasterly boundary of Specific Tract D (Rancho
EI Sobrante); thence south 47050' west to the southerly corner of said Specific Tract D; thence
along the southwest boundary line of Specific Tract D north 42039' west 2253.9 feet and north
30°00'west 1511.4 feet more or less to the northerly corner of Lot 62 (Rancho EI Sobrante); thence
south 44°58'west along the northwesterly line of said Lot 62 to the Alameda/Contra Costa County
boundary line; thence along the Contra Costa County boundary line in a general westerly,
northwesterly, northerly, northeasterly and easterly direction to a point on the County boundary line
which is perpendicular to'the Point of Beginning; thence along said perpendicular line to the Point
.of Beginning.
RZ:jlg
g:\clerical\exhibits\RSLotlin.t3
April 1, 1997
13
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-61 '
(Adoption of Revised West Contra Costa Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Fees)
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
SECTION.L. SUMMARY. This ordinance repeals Ordinance No. 2006-21 in its
entirety and adopts reduced West Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fees. The
reduction in fees corresponds to a reduction in the number of projects to be funded with the fees.
The projects eliminated from the list will be funded with a separate West Contra Costa
Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee for bridge and major thoroughfare improvements,
adopted by Ordinance No. 2006-62. This ordinance is intended to operate in conjunction with
Ordinance No. 2006-62, and is enacted as part of the Subregional Transportation Mitigation
Program("STMP") approved by the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
("WCCTAC") and its member agencies (Cities of El Cerrito,Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and
San Pablo; Contra Costa County; AC Transit; and BART)pursuant to Measure C, the Contra
Costa County half-cent sales tax measure adopted in 1988.
SECTION.II. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is enacted, in part,pursuant to the
Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000 et seq.) and Article 11, Section 7 of the California
Constitution.
SECTION III. NOTICE AND.HEARING. This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the
procedure set forth in Government Code sections 54986 and 66017-18, and all required notices
have been properly given and public hearing held.
SECTION IV. REPEAL. Ordinance No. 2006-21 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION V. FEE ADOPTION AND.COLLECTION.
A. The following fees are hereby adopted to fund certain specified improvement projects
described in the 2005 Update of the Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program
("Report")prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, on file with the Clerk of the
Board, and shall be levied and collected pursuant to the above authorities:
West Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fees:
Land Use Type Fee Amount
Single family residential $2,061 per dwelling unit
Multi family residential $1,309 per dwelling unit
Senior housing $557 per dwelling unit
Ordinance No. 2006-61
• -1-
Hotel $1,560 per room
Retail/Commercial $1.45 per square foot
Office $2.79 per square foot
Industrial $1.95 per square foot
Storage facility $0.42 per square foot
Church $1.25 per square foot
Hospital $3.34 per square foot
Other* $2,786 per AM peak hour trip generated
* Fees for other uses shall be determined by the County according to information
generated by traffic studies, if required by the County, or in accordance with the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Manual.
B. No development shall be exempt from the fee;provided, that any development which, as
of the date of this Ordinance, (i)has perfected an exemption pursuant to the vesting
tentative map law or(ii) has entered into a development agreement with the County
which expressly excludes assessment of additional fees, shall not be subject to the fees
required to be imposed hereby.
C. A project that replaces an existing structure or development is subject to the fee only to
the extent that it would generate more peak hour vehicle trips than the existing
development.
D. The fees specified herein shall be made a condition of approval of all tentative and final
subdivision maps. Except as provided above in subsection B, the fees shall be collected
prior to the issuance of any building permit.
E. The fees specified herein shall be collected for all projects in the area described in Section
VI below.
F. Fees paid pursuant to this ordinance shall be remitted on a quarterly basis to the City of
San Pablo Finance Department, to be placed in a fund to be used solely for the purposes
described in this ordinance. Any interest accumulated on such funds shall also,be used
only for the purposes specified in this ordinance.
SECTION VI.. FEE REDUCTION AND.CREDIT.
A. A developer may request a reduction in fees through the County if it is determined that
the project will generate a lower number of trips than data provided by the ITE Manual
that was used as the basis for the Report. Any such fee reduction would be based on a
traffic study which determines that the traffic impacts of the proposed development
would generate fees that are less than the fees that are set forth in Section IV.A. above.
The methodology for conducting the study shall be developed and approved by
Ordinance No. 2006-61
-2-
WCCTAC. The County shall determine the appropriate fee reduction based upon the
proportionate reduction in trips demonstrated in the traffic study.
B. A developer may receive credit against fees for the dedication of land for right-of-way
and/or construction of any portion of the projects to be funded with the fees,where such
right-of-way or construction is beyond that which would otherwise be required for
approval of the proposed.development. The calculation of the amount of credit against
fees for such dedications or improvements shall be based on a determination by the
County that such credits are, in fact, exclusive of the dedications, setbacks,
improvements, and/or traffic mitigation measures which are required by local ordinance,
standards, or other practice. In addition, the credit shall be calculated based upon the
actual cost of construction of improvements or, in the case of land dedication, on an
independent appraisal approved by the County.
SECTION VII. FEE.AREA. The fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all
property within the West Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area, as
described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION.VIII. PURPOSE AND USE OF FEES,.FINDINGS.
A. The purpose of the fees described in this ordinance is to generate funds to finance certain
transportation improvements in the West Contra Costa Subregional Transportation
Mitigation Fee Area. The fees will be used to finance the following eight projects
("Projects"), as more particularly described in the Report:
1. Richmond Intermodal Station.
2. Capital Corridor capital and/or operational improvements
3. Ferry service from Richmond and/or Hercules/Rodeo
4. BART access and/or parking improvements
5. Bay Trail Gap Closure
6. San Pablo Avenue Corridor Improvements
7. Hercules Transit Center relocation
8. Del Norte Area Transit Oriented Development project(public improvements)
As discussed in more detail in said Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the
fees and the types of development projects that are subject to the fees in that the
development projects will generate additional traffic in the West County area, thus
creating a need to expand, extend or improve existing transportation facilities and a need
to construct new transportation facilities to mitigate adverse traffic and infrastructure
impacts that would otherwise result from such development projects.
Ordinance No. 2006-61
-3-
B. The fees will be used to pay for the administration,planning, environmental
documentation, design,right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Projects
described in the Report.
C. The nexus findings, in conformance with Government Code Section 66000 et seq.,
contained in the Report, are incorporated herein by reference.
D. The Board determines that the adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")pursuant to Section
21080(b)(8)of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273(a)(4)of the CEQA
Guidelines because the fees collected from this action will be used for regional
transportation infrastructure necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service within
existing service areas. The Board further finds that the adoption of the automatic change
in the STMP fees annually in accordance with changes in the Engineering News Record
Index is also statutorily exempt under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California
Environmental Quality Act because the amount of any increase is precisely determinable
based on the published change of the Index and relates solely to the increase of
construction costs for the previously identified Projects.
SECTION IX. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Public Works Director or his
designee shall make available to the public a report regarding the account or fund
established for receipt of deposits of the fees collected by the County pursuant to this
ordinance. The report_shall-be reviewed by the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting in
accordance with Government Code section 66006. The report shall contain the following
information for the fiscal year:
(1) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.
(2) The amount of the fee.
(3) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
(4) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.
(5) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and
the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
(6) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the Board determines that sufficient funds have
been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, and
the public improvement remains incomplete.
(7) A description of each interfund transfer or loan from the account or fund,
including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be
expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be
repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.
Ordinance No. 2006-61 .
-4-
(8) The amount of refunds made pursuant to Government Code section 66001(e) and
any allocations pursuant to Government Code section 66001(f).
B. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund established for receipt of
deposits of the fees collected pursuant to this ordinance, and every five years thereafter,
the Board shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund
remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted,pursuant to Government
Code section 66001:
(1) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
(2) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which
itis charged.
(3) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in
incomplete improvements identified in the Report.
(4) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in paragraph(3)
is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
SECTION X. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT. On July 1, 2007, and on July 1 of each
year thereafter, the amount of the fees set forth in Section IV.A shall be increased or decreased
based on the percentage change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the
San Francisco Bay Area for the 12-month period ending with the June index of the same calendar
year.
SECTION XI. JUDICIAL REVIEW. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the fees established by this ordinance shall be commenced
within one hundred twenty(120) days of the effective date of this ordinance. Any action to
attack an increase adopted pursuant to Section IX shall be commenced within one hundred
twenty(120) days of the effective date of the increase.
SECTION XII. SEVERABILITY. If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the
validity or enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board declares that it would
have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.
SECTION XIII. EFFECTIVE AND TERMINATION DATES. .
A: This ordinance shall take effect 60 days after passage but shall not become operative until
the Public Works Department files a statement with the Clerk of the Board certifying that
similar fees have been adopted by the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond
and San Pablo.
B. Within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the
Supervisors voting for and against it,in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County.
Ordinance No. 2006-61
-5-
C. This ordinance shall terminate on December 31, 2036, unless subsequently extended by
the Board of Supervisors.
PASSED and ADOPTED on c-� ebp-r P-`-E , 2006,by the following vote:
AYES: UILKEMA,PIEPHO DeSAULNIER,GLOVER,and GIOIA
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: JOHN CULLEN, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and County Administratoroar Chair
BCK '
D t
Publication Date:
LW/
H:1Fina1\PW\WCCTAC.Ord.2006.61.Reg.10.5.06.wpd
Ordinance No. 2006-61
-6-
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF
WEST CONTRA COSTA SUBREGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE AREA
Ordinance No. 2006-61
-7-
• f
WCCTAC Boundary
Legal Description
EXHIBIT "A"
Real property in Contra Costa County, California described as follows:
Beginning at the most south easterly comer of the 18.04 acre parcel of land shown on the Record
of Survey filed December 22, 1931 in Book 2 of Licensed Surveyor Maps at page 5; thence from
said Point of Beginning south 66111'00"west 125.15 feet to the northeasterly line of the Southem
Pacific Railroad right of way;thence southerly to the southwesterly One of said railroad right of way
to an 112"iron pipe and tags L.S. 3489 as shown on the Record of Surrey filed April 10, 1990.in
Book 93 of Licensed Surveyors Maps at page 32;thence south 43026'43"west 341 feet more or
less to the westerly right of way line of Carquinez Scenic Drive(formerly Pomona Avenue); thence
along said right of way line in a general southerly direction 555 feet more or less to the easterly
boundary of the parcel of land granted to Hook Recorded December 19, 1993 in Book 18288 of
Official Records at page 889;.thenae along said boundary in a general southerly and southeasterly
direction 1771 feet more or less to the southeasterly comer of said Hook parcel (18288 OR 889);
thence along the south line of said parcel and its westerly prolongation,west 4050 feet more or less
to the easterly right of way line of McEwen Road; thence westerly 50 feet more or less to the
westerly right of way line;thence continuing westerly 4250 feet more or less to the northwest comer
if the parcel of land granted to Brenkle Enterprises recorded December 13, 1990 in Book 16298
of Official Records at page 223; said point is on the easterly right of way line of Cummings Skyway;
thence along said easterly right of way, southerly and southeasterly 3301 feet more or less to the
northerly right of way line of the John Muir Parkway (Highway 4); thence in a general southerly
direction 1070 feet more or less to the northerly boundary of the parcel of land shown on the
Record of Survey lot line Adjustment 64-88 filed February 15, 1989 in Book. 90 of Licensed
Surveyors Maps at page 16; thence along said northerly line and its northwesterly prolongation
north.78°31'05"west 800 feet more or less to the southeasterly right of way line of Franklin Canyon
Road; thence along said right of way line in a southwesterly direction 5200 feet to the westerly
comer of parcel"8"as shown ori the Minor Subdivision MS M70 filed October 9, 1970 in Book 14
of Parcel Maps at page 24, said point is on the easterly right of way line of the Atchison Topeka
and Santa Fe Railroad right.of way;thence southwesterly to the westerly right of way line of said
railroad;thence along said.westedy right of way line in a general southerly direction 5400 feet more
or less; thence leaving said westerly right of way line south 45"east 2300 feet; thence along the
westerly boundary of the 137.40 acre and 96.59 acre parcels south 0020'20"east 2621.20 feet to
the southwest comer of the 98.59 acre parcel as shown on the Record of Survey filed May 29,
1953 in Book 15 of Licensed Surveyors Maps at page 44; thence along the southerly boundary
(15 LSM 44) line south 87'5020"east 2680.05 feet to the southeasterly comer of said 98.59 acre
parcel (15 LSM 44), thence along the west boundary Part F Rancho El Pinole south 0054" west
1837 feet as shown on the Record of Survey filed October 20, 1937 in Book 4 of Licensed
Surveyors Maps at page 26;thence continuing southedy.along said west boundary 1600 feet more
or less to point PR 26 on the boundary of that parcel of land granted to Soehngen recorded
February 22, 198D in Book 9741 of Official Records at page 584; thence along said boundary
easterly 600 feet to the westerly right of way line of Femdale Road; thence along said right of way
1
line southeasterly 1150 feet more or less to the northeasterly boundary of Parcel 'A' of minor
subdivision MS 81-78 filed July 11, 1979 in Book 78 of,Parcel Maps at page 45; thence south
75056'05"west 1071.26 feet, thence south 30"19"west 282.28 feet; thence south 24°21`06"east
1165.5 feet to the southwesterly comer of Parcel B (78 PM 45); thence leaving Parcel B (78 PM
45) southwesterly 6687.79 feet along the general southeasterly boundary of Parcel B to its most
southerly comer as shown on minor subdivision MS 8-87 filed June 25, 1993 in Book 162 of Parcel
Maps at page'25;thence southwesterly 1719.2 feet more or less along the northwesterly boundary
of Parcel'A'to the most westerly comer of parcel A as shown on minor subdivision MS 18-91 filed .
December 29, 1992 in Book 160 of Parcel Maps at page 33; thence along the boundary of minor
subdivision MS 244.77 filed September 11, 1979 in Book 80 of Parcel Maps at page 35 the
following courses (1)south 1°26'29"west 1058.16 feet, (2) south 87018'30"west 2133.27 feet (3)
north 89021'12"west 4888 feet more or less to the southwesterly comer of Parcel"A'(80 PM 35);
thence southerly,southwesterly,southeasterly 10454 feet more or less along the boundary of Tract
No. 27 as shown on the map of the Rancho El Sobrante to the most easterly point of Tract No.26
(Rancho El Sobrante); thence southwesterly along the southeasterly line of said Tract No. 26 and
Its southwesterly prolongation to the northeasterly right of way line of San Pablo Dam Road;thence
southeasterly along said right of way line.to the southeasterly boundary of Specific Tract D(Rancho
El Sobrante); thence south 47°50' west to the southerly comer of said Specific Tract D; thence
along,the southwest,boundary line of Specific Tract D north 42°39' west 2253.9 feet and north
30°00'west 1511.4 feet more or less to the northerly comer of Lot 62 (Rancho El Sobrante);thence
south 44°58'west along the northwesterly fine of said Lot 62 to the Alameda/Contra Costa County
boundary line; thence along the Contra Costa County boundary line in a general westerly,
northwesterly, northerly, northeasterly and easterly direction to a point on the County boundary line
which is perpendicular to the Point of Beginning; thence along said perpendicular line to the Point
of Beginning.
RZjlg
g:Wer1callexhibits\RSLotlin.t3
April 1, 1997
2
ORDINANCE.NO. 2006-62
(Adoption of West Contra Costa Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Fees for Bridges.and Major Thoroughfares)
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows:
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance.provides for the adoption of transportation
mitigation fees for bridges and major thoroughfare improvements within the West Contra Costa
Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit. This ordinance is intended to
operate in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2006-61 and is enacted as part of the Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Program("STMP") approved by the West Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory Committee("WCCTAC") and its member agencies (Cities of El
Cerrito,Hercules, Pinole,Richmond and San Pablo; Contra Costa County; AC Transit; and
BART)pursuant to Measure C, the Contra Costa County half-cent sales tax measure adopted in
1988.
SECTION II. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is enacted, in part,pursuant to
Government Code section 66484 and Division 913, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code.
SECTION III. . NOTICE AND HEARING..This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the
procedure set forth in Government Code sections 54986, 65091, 66017-18, 66474.2(b) and .
66484 and Division 913, Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and all required
notices have been properly given and public hearing held.
SECTION IV. FEE ADOPTION.AND.COLLECTION.
A. The following fees are hereby adopted for the West Contra Costa Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit to fund the bridge and major thoroughfare
improvement projects ("Projects") described in the October 2, 2006;Development
Program Report ("Report") on file with the Clerk of the Board, and shall be levied and
collected pursuant to the above authorities:
West Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fees:
Land Use Type Fee Amount
Single family residential $534 per dwelling unit
Multi family residential $339 per dwelling unit
Senior housing $144 per dwelling unit
Hotel $404 per room
Retail/Commercial $0.37 per square foot
Office $0.72 per square foot
Industrial $0.50 per square foot
Ordinance No. 2006-62
Page -1-
Storage facility $0.11 per square foot
Church $0.32 per square foot
Hospital $0.87 per square foot
Other* $721 per AM peak hour trip generated
* Fees for other uses shall be determined by the County according to information
generated by traffic studies, if required by the County, or in accordance with the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Manual.
B. No development shall be exempt from the fee; provided, that any development which, as
of the date of the notice published pursuant to Government Code section 66474.2(b), has
perfected an exemption pursuant to the vesting tentative map law or(ii)has entered into a
development agreement with the County which expressly excludes assessment of
additional fees, shall not be subject to the fees required to be imposed hereby.
C. A project that replaces an existing structure or development is subject to the fee only to
the extent that it would generate more peak hour vehicle trips than the existing
development.
D. The fees specified herein shall be made a condition of approval of all tentative and final
subdivision maps. Except as provided above in subsection B, the fees shall be collected
prior to the issuance of any building permit, as specified in Section 913-4.204 of the
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
E. The fees specified herein shall be collected for all projects in the area described in Section
VI below.
F. Fees paid pursuant to this ordinance shall be remitted on a quarterly basis to the City of
San Pablo Finance Department, to be placed in a fund to be used solely for the purposes
described in this ordinance. Any interest accumulated on such funds shall also be used
only for the purposes specified in this ordinance.
G. The fees payable under this ordinance shall be in addition to fees payable for the
following existing areas of benefit:
1. Hercules-Rodeo-Crockett Area of Benefit
2. Richmond-El Sobrante Area of Benefit
3. North Richmond Area of Benefit
4. West County Area of Benefit
SECTION V. FEE REDUCTION AND CREDIT.
A. A developer may request a reduction in fees through the County if it is determined that
the project will generate a lower number of trips than data provided by the ITE Manual
that was used as the basis for the Report. Any such fee reduction would be based on a
Ordinance No. 2006-62
Page -2-
traffic study which determines that the traffic impacts of the proposed development
would generate fees that are less than the fees that are set forth in Section W.A. above.
The methodology for conducting the study shall be developed and approved by
WCCTAC. The County shall determine the appropriate fee reduction based upon the
proportionate reduction in trips demonstrated in the traffic study.
B. A developer may receive credit against fees for the dedication of land for right-of-way
and/or construction of any portion of the Projects, where such right-of-way or
construction is beyond that which would otherwise be required for approval of the
proposed development. The calculation of the amount of credit against fees for such
dedications or improvements shall be based on a determination by the County that such
credits are, in fact, exclusive of the dedications, setbacks, improvements, and/or traffic
mitigation measures which are required by local ordinance, standards, or other practice.
In addition, the credit shall be calculated based upon the actual cost of construction of
improvements or, in the case of land dedication, on an independent appraisal approved by
the County.
SECTION VI. FEE AREA. The fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all
property within the West Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of
Benefit, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION.VII. PURPOSE.AND.USE.OF FEES,.FINDINGS.
A. The purpose of the fees described in this ordinance is to generate funds to finance
improvements to certain bridges and major thoroughfares in the West Contra Costa
Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit. The fees will be used to
finance the following three projects ("Projects"), as more particularly described in the
Report and in the associated 2005 Update of the Subregional Transportation Mitigation
Program prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants:
1. Interchanges on I80 at San Pablo Dam Road and at Central; and on Highway 4 at
Willow
2. San Pablo Dam Road Improvements in Downtown El Sobrante
3. N. Richmond road connection project
As discussed in more detail in said Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the
fees and the types of development projects that are subject to the fees in that the
development projects will generate additional traffic in the West County area, thus
creating a need to expand, extend or improve existing transportation facilities and a need
to construct new transportation facilities to mitigate adverse traffic and infrastructure
impacts that would otherwise result from such development projects.
Ordinance No. 2006-62
Page -3-
B. The fees will be used to pay for the administration,planning, environmental
documentation, design,right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Projects.
C. The nexus findings pertaining to the Projects, in conformance with Government Code
Section 66000 et seq., contained in the Report, are incorporated herein by reference.
D. The Board determines that the adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")pursuant to Section
21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15273(a)(4) of the CEQA
Guidelines because the fees collected from this action will be used for regional
transportation infrastructure necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service within
existing service areas. The Board further finds that the adoption of the automatic change
in the STMT fees annually in accordance with changes in the Engineering News Record
Index is also statutorily exempt under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California
.Environmental Quality Act because the amount of any increase is precisely determinable
based on the published change of the Index and relates solely to the increase of
construction costs for the previously identified Projects.
SECTION VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year,the Public Works Director or his
designee shall make available to the public a report regarding the account or fund
established for receipt of deposits of the fees collected by the County pursuant to this
ordinance. The report shall be reviewed by the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting in
accordance with Government Code section 66006. The report shall contain the following
information for the fiscal year:
(1) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund:
(2) The amount of the fee.
(3) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
(4) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.
(5) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and
the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
(6) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the Board determines that sufficient funds have
been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, and
the public improvement remains incomplete.
(7) A description of each interfund transfer or loan from the account or fund,
including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be
expended, and; in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be
repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.
(8) The amount of refunds made pursuant to Government Code section 66001(e) and
any allocations pursuant to Government Code section 66001(f).
Ordinance No. 2006-62
Page -4-
B. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund established for receipt of
deposits of the fees collected pursuant to this ordinance, and every five years thereafter,
the Board shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund
remaining unexpended,whether committed or uncommitted,pursuant to Government
Code section 66001:
(1) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
(2) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which
it is charged.
(3) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in
incomplete improvements identified in the Report.
(4) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in paragraph(3)
is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
SECTION IX. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT. On July 1, 2007, and on July 1 of each
year thereafter,the amount of the fees set forth in Section IV.A shall be increased or decreased
based on the percentage change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the
San Francisco Bay Area for the 12-month period ending with the June index of the same calendar
year.
SECTION X. JUDICIAL REVIEW. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack,
review, set aside,void, or annul the fees established by this ordinance shall be commenced
within one hundred twenty(120) days of the effective date of this ordinance. Any action to
attack an increase adopted pursuant to Section IX shall be commenced within one hundred
twenty(120) days of the effective date of the increase.
SECTION XL SEVERABILITY. If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held
invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,that holding shall not affect the
validity or enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board declares that it would
-have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.
_SECTION XII. EFFECTIVE AND.TERMINATION.DATES.
A. This ordinance shall take effect 60 days after passage but shall not become operative until
the Public Works Department files a statement with the Clerk of the Board certifying that
similar fees have been adopted by the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond
and San Pablo.
B. Within 15 days of passage,this ordinance shall be published once,with the names of the
Supervisors voting for and against it, in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County. Pursuant to Section 913-6.026 of the Contra Costa
County Ordinance Code, the Clerk of the Board shall promptly file a certified copy of this
ordinance with the County Recorder.
Ordinance No. 2006-62
Page -5-
C. This ordinance shall terminate on December 31, 2036, unless subsequently extended by
the Board of Supervisors.
PASSED and ADOPTED on n dAob9✓ ;�-4 , 2006,by the following vote:
AYES: UILKEMA,PIEPHO DeSAULNIER,GLOVER,and G101A
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: JOHN CULLEN, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and County Administratort)ard Chair
By:
Dep y
Publication Date:
LW/
H:\Final\P W\WCCTAC.Ord.2006.62.MT.10.5.06.wpd
i
Ordinance No. 2006-62
Page -6-
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF
WEST CONTRA COSTA SUBREGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE AREA
Ordinance No. 2006-62
Page -7-
t
i
WCCTAC Boundary
Legal Description
EXHIBIT "A"
Real property in Contra Costa County, California described as foilows:
Beginning at the most south easterly comer of the 18.04 acre parcel of land shown on the Record
of Survey Bled December 22, 1931 In Book 2 of Licensed Surveyor Maps at page 5; thence from
said Point of Beginning south 66'11'00"west 125.15 feet to the northeasterly [be of the Southern
Pacific Railroad right of way;thence southerly to.the southwesterly One of said railroad right of way
to an 1/2"iron pipe and tags L.S. 3489 as shown on the Record of Survey filed April 10, 1990 in
Book 93 of Licensed Surveyors Maps at page 32;thence south 43'26143"west 341 feet more or
less to the westerly right of way line of Carquinez.Scenic Drive (formerly Pomona Avenue); thence
along said right of way tine in a general southerly direction 555 feet more or less to the easterly
boundary of the parcel of land granted to Hook Recorded December 19, 1993 in Book 18288 of
Official Records at page 889,thence along said boundary in a general southerly and southeastedy
direction 1771 feet more or less to the southeasterly comer of said Hook parcel (18288 OR 889);
thence along the south line of said parcel and its westerly prolongation,west 4050 feet more or toss
to the easterly right of way line of McEwen Road; thence westerly 50 feet more or less to the
westerly right of way line,thence continuing westerly 4250 feet more or less to the northwest comer
if the parcel of land granted to Brenkle Enterprises recorded December 13, 1990 in Book 16298
of Official Records at page 223; said point is on the easterly right of way line of Cummings Skyway;
thence along said easterly right of way, southerly and southeasterly 3301 feet more or less to the
northerly right of way line of the John Muir Parkway (Highway 4); thence in a general southerly
direction-1.070 feet more or less to the northerly boundary of the parcel of land shown on the
Record of Survey lot line Adjustment 64-88 Bled February 15, 1989 in Book 90 of Licensed
Surveyors Maps at page 15; thence along said northerly line and its no prolongation
north 78031'05"west 800 feet more or less to the southeasterly right of way line of Franklin Canyon
Road; thence along said right of way tine in a southwesterly direction 5200 feet to the westerly
comer of parcel"B"as shown on the Minor Subdivision MS W70 filed October 9, 1970 in Book 14
of Parcel Maps at page 24, said point is on the easterly right of way line of the Atchison Topeka
and Santa Fe Railroad right of way;thence southwesterly to the westerly right of way tine of said
railroad;thence along said westerly right of way line in a general southerly direction 5400 feet more
or less;thence leaving said westerly right of way line south 45'east 2300 feet; thence along the
westerly boundary of the 137.40 acre and 98.59 acre parcels south 0°20'20"east 2621.20 feet to
the southwest comer of the 98.59 acre parcel as shown on the Record of Survey filed May 29,
1953 in Book 15 of Licensed Surveyors Maps at page 44; thence along the southerly boundary
(15 LSM 44) line south 87°50'20"east 2680.05 feet to the southeasterly comer of said 98.59 acre
parcel (15 LSM 44); thence along the west boundary Part F Rancho Et Pinole south 0"54" west
1837 feet as shown on the Record of Survey filed October 20, 1937 in Book 4 of Licensed
Surveyors Maps at page 26;thence continuing southerly along said west boundary'1600 feet more
or less to point PR 26 on the boundary of that parcel of land granted to Soehngen recorded
February 4 198D in Book 9741 of Official Records at page 584; thence along said boundary
easterly 6DD feet to the westerly right of way line of Ferndale Road; thence along said right of way
'l
line southeasterly 1150 feet more or less to the northeasterly boundary of Parcel 'A' of minor
subdivision MS 81-78 filed July 11, 1979 in Book 78 of.Parcel Maps at page 45; thence south
75°68'05"west 107126 feet;thence south 30°19"west 282.28 fest; thence south 24°21'06"east
1165.5 feet to the southwesterly comer of Parcel B (78 PM 45); thence leaving Parcel B (78 PM
45) southwesterly 6687.79 feet along the general southeasterly boundary of Parcel'B, to its most
southerly comer as shown on minor subdivision MS 8-87 filed June 25, 1993 in Book 162 of Parcel
Maps at page 25;thence southwesterly 1719.2 feet more or less along the.northwesterly boundary
of Parcel"A"to the most westerly corner of parcel A as shown on minor subdivision MS 18-91 filed .
December 29, 1992 in Book 160 of Parcel Maps at page 33; thence along the boundary of minor
subdivision MS 244-77 filed September 11, 1979 in Book.80 of Parcel Maps at page 35 the
following courses (1)south 1 012629"west 1058.16 feet, (2)south 87°18'30"west 2133.27 feet (3)
north 8902i'12"west 4888 feet more or less to the southwesterly comer of Parcel W(80 PM 35);
thence southerly,southwesterly,southeasterly 10454 feet more or less along the boundary of Tract
No. 27 as shown.on the map of the Rancho El Sobrante to the most easterly point of Tract No. 26
(Rancho EI Sobrante); thence southwesterly along the southeasterly line of said Tract No. 26 and
its southwesterly prolongation to the northeasterly right of way line of San Pablo Dam Road;thence
southeasterly along said right of way line.to the southeasterly boundary of Specific Tract D(Rancho
El Sobrante); thence south 47°50' west to the southerly comer of said Specific Tract D; thence
along the southwest.boundary line of Specific Tract D north 42039' west 2253.9 feet and north
30°00'west 1511.4 feet more or less to the northerly comer of Lot 62(Rancho EI Sobrante);thence
south 44°58'west along the northwesterly line of said Lot fit to the AlamedalContra Costa County
boundary line; thence along the Contra Costa County boundary line in a general westerly,
northwesterly, northerly, northeasterly and easterly direction to a point on the County boundary line
which is perpendicular to the Point of Beginning; thence along said perpendicular line to the Point
of Beginning.
RZ jlg
g:WeHcallexhibitsXRSLotlin.t3
April 1. 1997
2
"Contra Costa Times To: JPenn@cob.cccounty.us
Legals" cc:
<cctlegals@cctimes.co Subject: Ord.s 2006-61 &2006-62(WCCTAC STMP)
m>
10/27/2006 12:36 PM
Please respond to
cctlegals
THIS E-MAIL CONTAINS PERTINENT INFORMATION; PLEASE READ IT
CAREFULLY IN ITS ENTIRETY.
PLEASE NOTE.All of our offices will be closed Thanksgiving Day, Thursday,November 23,
2006.
Good Afternoon. If you have any questions regarding the legal notice confirmed below, please
reference the LEGAL NUMBER provided. Only e-mail to cctleRals(acctimes.com regarding
Contra Costa Times, Concord Transcript, or Contra Costa Sun legal notices.
** LEGAL SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION -- 1 OF 2
TYPE: In-Column Liner, Classified Section
LEGAL NUMBER: 6991
PO#: F05508 Ord 2006-61 .
Publication: CCT
Run Date(s): 11/01
Legal Acct#: 200 4197
Total Amount: $866.60
FOR YOUR INFORMATION-Revisions/Cancellations: I will need a cancellation request
referencing the LEGAL NUMBER—or all changes attached in a final draft Microsoft Word
Document—e-mailed to cctlegals(a,cctimes.com by no later than 12 PM, Mon., 10/30.
Otherwise, the wording of the legal will publish as you e-mailed. Thanks!
Anashia Lloyd
Legal Advertising Coordinator
(925) 943-8019
(925) 943-8359—fax
Contra Costa Times
ATTN: Legal Dept.
P.O. Box 4718
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
cctlegals@cctimes.com
"Contra Costa Times To: JPenn@cob.cccounty.us
' Legals" cc:
<cctlegals@cctimes.co Subject: Ord.s 2006-61 &2006-62(WCCTAC STMP)
m>
10/27/2006 12:56 PM
Please respond to
cctlegals
THIS E-MAIL CONTAINS PERTINENT INFORMATION; PLEASE READ IT
CAREFULLY IN ITS ENTIRETY.
PLEASE NOTE.All of our offices will be closed Thanksgiving Day, Thursday,November 23,
2006.
Good Afternoon. If you have any questions regarding the legal notice confirmed below, please
reference the LEGAL NUMBER provided. Only e-mail to cctlegalsna,cctimes.com regarding
Contra Costa Times, Concord Transcript, or Contra Costa Sun legal notices.
** LEGAL SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION -- 2 OF 2
TYPE: In-Column Liner, Classified Section
LEGAL NUMBER: 6992
PO#: F05508 Ord 2006-62
Publication: CCT
Run Date(s): 11/01
Legal Acct#: 200 4197
Total Amount: $879.20
FOR YOUR INFORMATION -Revisions/Cancellations: I will need a cancellation request
referencing the LEGAL NUMBER—or all changes attached in a final draft Microsoft Word
Document—e-mailed to cctlegals(acctimes.com by no later than 12 PM, Mon., 10/30.
Otherwise, the wording of the legal will publish as you e-mailed. Thanks!
Anashia Lloyd
Legal Advertising Coordinator
(925) 943-8019
(925) 943-8359—fax
Contra Costa Times
ATTN: Legal Dept.
P.O. Box 4718
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
cctlegals@cctimes.coni
Gf���oo�-Go2
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County,if Alameda
I am a citizen of the United States, I am over the age of
eighteen years, and I am not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am a foreman or principle
clerk of the printer and publisher of the Alameda Journal,
a newspaper published in the English language in
Alameda County, State of California.
I declare that the Alameda Journal is a newspaper of
general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of
California, as determined by the order of the Superior
Court of the County of Alameda, dated August 25, 1992,
in the action entitled "In the Matter of the Petition of the
Alameda Journal to Have the Standing of the Alameda
Journal as a Newspaper of General Circulation
Ascertained and Established," Case Number 702515-6.
Said order provides that: "Petitioner's prayer for an order
ascertaining and establishing The Alameda Journal as a
newspaper of general circulation...within the City of
Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, is
granted." Said order has not been revoked.
I declare that the notice, a printed copy of which is
annexed hereto, has been published in each regular and
entire issue of the Alameda Journal and not in any
supplement thereof, on the following dates to wit:
Nov 1,
all in the year of 2006
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is tTP aDd=uzct,
Exe ed at Walnut Creek, CX2O
0 is 2 da f November,
Signature
Alameda Journal
1516 Oak Street
Alameda, CA 94501-4520
(510) 748-1666
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that
published)
r
ORDINANCE NO.2006-62
(Adoption of West Contra
Costa Subregional
Transportation Mitigation
Fees for Bridges and
Major Thoroughfares)
The Board of Supervisors
of Contra Costa County -
ordains as follows:
SECTION I. SUMMARY.
This ordinance provides
for the adoption of trans-
portation mitigation fees
for bridges and major
thoroughfare improve-
ments within the West
Contra Costa Subregional
Transportation Mitigation -
Fee Area of Benefit. This
ordinance is intended to
operate in conjunction
with Ordinance No.2006-
61 and Is enacted as part
of the Subregional Trans-
groamtC STMPion "gg)aapproved
Pro-
gra "
the West Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory
Committee ("WCCTAC") . .
and its member agencies
(Cities of EI Cerrito, Her-
cules, Pinole Richmond
and San Pablo; contra
Costa County;AC Transit;
and BART) pursuant to
Measure C, the Contra
Costa County half-cent
sales tax measure adopt-
ed in 1988.
SECTION 11. AUTHORITY.
This ordinance is enact-
ed, in part, pursuant to
Government Code section
66484 and Division 913,Ti-
tie 9,of the Contra Costa
County Ordinance Code.
SECTION III. NOTICE AND
HEARING. This ordinance
was adopted pursuant to
the procedure set forth in
Government Code sec-
tions 54986 65091,66017-
. 18, 66474.2tb) and 66484
and Division 913, Title 9,
of the Contra Costa Coun-
ty Ordinance Code, and
all required notices have
been properly given and
public hearing held.
SECTION IV. FEE ADOP-
TION AND COLLECTION.
A.The following fees are
hereby adopted for the
West Contra Costa Subre-
gional Transportation
Mitigation Fee Area of
Benefit to fund the bridge
and major thoroughfare,
improvement projects
('Projects") described in
the October 2, 2006, De-
velopment Program Re-
port ('Report") on file
with the Clerk of the
Board,and shall be levied
and collected pursuant to
the above authorities:
West Contra Costa Subre-
gional Transportation
Mitigation Fees:
Land Use Type
Fee Amount
Single family residential
$534 per dwelling unit
Multi family residential
$339 per dwelling unit
Senior housing
$144 per dwelling unit
Hotel $404 per room
Retail/Commercial
$0.37 per square foot
Office
$0.72 per square foot
Industrial
$0.50 per square foot ,
Storage facility
$0.11 per square foot
Church
$0.32 per square foot
Hospital
$0.87 per square foot
Other'
$721 per AM peak
hour trip generated
'Fees for other uses shall
be determined by the
County according to in-
formation generated by
traffic studies,if required
by the County, or in ac-
cordance with the Insti-
tute of Transportation En-
gineers(ITE)Manual.
B. No development shall
be exempt from the fee;
provided,that any devel-
opment which, as of the
date of the notice pub-
lished pursuant to Gov-
ernment Code. section
66474.2(b), has perfected
an exemption pursuant to
the vesting tentative map
law or(ii)has entered in-
to a development agree-
ment with the County
which expressly excludes
assessment of additional
fees,shall not be subject
to the fees required to be
imposed hereby.
C.A project that replaces
an existing structure or
development is subject to
the fee only to the extent
that it would generate
more peak hour vehicle
trips than the existing de-
velopment.
D. The fees specified
herein shall be made a
condition of approval of
all tentative and •final
subdivision maps.Except
as provided above in sub-
section B. the fees shall
be collected prior to the
issuance of any building
permit, as specified in
Section 913.4.204 of the
Contra Costa County Or-
dinance Code.
E. The fees specified
herein shall be collected
for all projects in the area
described in Section VI
below.
F. Fees paid pursuant to
this ordinance shall be re-
mitted on a quarterly ba-
sis to the City of San
Pablo Finance Depart-
ment, to be placed in a
fund to be used solely for
the purposes described in
this ordinance. Any inter-
est accumulated on such
funds shall also be used
onlyfor the purposes
specified In this ordi-
nance.
G.The fees payable under
this ordinance shall be in
addition to fees payable
for the following existing
areas of benefit:
1. Hercules-Rodeo-Croc-
kett Area of Benefit
2. Richmond-EI Sobrante
Area of Benefit
3. North Richmond Area '
of Benefit
4. West County Area of
Benefit
SECTION V. .FEE REDUC-
TION AND CREDIT.
A. A developer may re-
ggest a reduction in fees
through the County if it is
determined that the proj-
ect will generate a lower
number of trips than data
provided by the ITE Man-
ual that was used as the -
basis for the Report. Any
such fee reduction would
be based on a traffic
study which determines
that the traffic impacts of
the proposed develop-
ment would generate
fees that are less than
the fees that are set forth
in Section W.A. above.
The methodology for con-
ducting the study shall be
developed and approved
by WCCTAC. The County
shall determine the ap-
Opriate fee reduction
based upon the propor-
tionate reduction in trips
demonstrated in the traf-
fic study.
B. A developer may re- - -
ceive credit against fees
for the dedication of land
for right-of-way and/or
construction of any por-
tion of the Projects,
where such right-of-way
or construction is beyond
that which would other-
wise be required for ap-
g= of the proposed
development. The calcu-
lation of the amount of
credit against fees for
such dedications or im-
grovements shall be
based on a determination
by the County that such
credits are,in fact,exclu-
sive of the dedications,
setbacks, improvements,
and/or traffic mitigation
measures which are re-
quired by local ordinance,
standards,or other prac-
tice. In addition, the
credit shall be calculated
based upon the actual
cost of construction of
improvements or, in the
case of land dedication,
on an independent ap-
praisal approved by the
County.
SECTION VI.FEE AREA.
The fees set forth in this
ordinance shall apply to
all property within the
West Contra Costa Subre-
gional Transportation
Mitigation Fee Area of
Benefit, as described in
Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION VII. PURPOSE
AND USE OF FEES; FIND-
INGS.
A. The purpose of the
fees described in this or-
dinance is to generate
funds to finance improve-
ments to certain bridges
and major thoroughfares
in the West Contra Costa
Subregional Transporta-
tion Mitigation Fee Area
of Benefit. The fees will
be used to finance the
following three projects
("Projects'),as more par-
ticularly described In the
Report and in the associ-
ated 2005 Update of the
SubregionalTransporta-
tion Mitigation Program
prepared by TJKM Trans-
portation Consultants:
1. Interchanges on 180 at
San Pablo Dam Road and
at Central; and on High-
way 4 at Willow
2. San Pablo Dam Road
Improvements in Down-
town EI Sobrante
3.N.Richmond road con-
nection project
As discussed in more de-
tail in said Report, there
is a reasonable relation-
ship between the fees
and the types of develop-
ment projects that are
subject to the fees in that
the development projects
will generate additional
traffic in the West County
area thus -creating a
need to expand, extend
or improve existing trans-
portation facilities and a
need to construct new
transportation facilities
to mitigate adverse traf-
fic and infrastructure im-
pacts that would other-
wise result from such de-
velopment projects.
B.The fees will be used to
pay for the administra-
tion, planning, environ-
mental documentation,
design, right-of-way ac-
quisition, and construe-
tion of the Projects.
C.The nexus findings per-
taining to the Projects,in
conformance with Gov-
ernment Code Section
66000 et seq., contained
in the Report, are incor-
porated herein by refer-
ence.
D.The Board determines
that the adoption of this
ordinance is statutorily
exempt from the require-
ments of the California
Environmental Quality
Act("CEQA')ppursuant to
Section 21080(b)(8)of the
Public Resources Code
and Section 15273(a)(4)of
the CEQA Guidelines be-
cause the fees collected
from this action will be
used for regional trans-
portation infrastructure
necessary to maintain an
acceptable level of serv-
ice within existin8 service
areas. The Board further
finds that the adoption of
the automatic change in
the STMP fees annually in
accordance with changes
in the Engineering News
Record Index Is also
statutorily exempt under
Section 15273(a)(4)of the
California Environmental
Quality Act because the
amount of any increase is
precisely determinable
based on the published
change of the Index and
relates solely to the In-
crease of construction
costs for the previously
identified Projects.
SECTION Vlll. REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
A. Within 180 days after
the last day of each fiscal
year,the Public Works Di-
rector or his designee
shall make available to
the public a report re-
garding the account or
fund established for re-
ceipt of deposits of the
fees collected by the
County pursuant to this
ordinance. The report
shall be reviewed by the
Board at a regularly
scheduled meeting in ac-
cordance with Govern-
ment Code section 66006.
The report shall contain
the following information
for the fiscal year:
(1)A brief description of
the type of fee in the ac-
count or fund.
(2)The amount of the fee.
(3) The beginning and
ending balance of the ac-
count or fund.
(4) The amount of the
J
collected and the in-
terest earned.
(5) An identification of
each public improvement
on which fees were ex-
pended and the amount
of the expenditures on
each improvement, in-
cluding the total percent-
age of the cost of the
public improvement that
was funded with fees.
(6)An identification of an
approximate date by
which the construction of
the public Improvement
will commence if the
Board determines that
sufficient funds have
been collected to com-
plete financing on an in-
complete public improve-
ment,and the public im-
provement remains in-
complete.
(7)A description of each
interfund transfer or loan
from the account or fund,
including the public im-
provement on which the
transferred or loaned
fees will be expended,
and, in the case of an
interfund loan, the date
on which the loan will be
repaid,and the rate of in-
terest that the account or
fund will receive on the
loan.
(8)The amount of refunds
made pursuant to Gov-
ernment Code section
66001(e) and any alloca-
tions pursuant to Govern-
ment Code section
66001(f).
B.For the fifth fiscal year
following the first deposit
into the fund established
for receipt of deposits of
the fees collected pur-
suant to this ordinance,
and every five years
thereafter, the Board
shall make all of the fol-
lowing findings with re-
spect to that portion of
the fund remaining unex-
pended,whether commit-
ted or uncommitted,pur-
suant to Government
Code section 66001;
(1) Identify the purpose
to which the fee is to be
put.
(2) Demonstrate a rea-
sonable relationship be-
tween the fee and the
purpose for which it is
charged.
(3) Identify all sources
and amounts of funding
anticipated to complete
financing in incomplete
improvements identified
in the Report.
(4)Designate the approx-
imate dates on which the
funding referred.to in
paragraph(3)is expected
to be deposited into the
appropriate account or
fund.
SECTION IX.ANNUAL FEE
ADJUSTMENT. On July 1 -
2007, and on July 1 of
each year thereafter,the
amount of the fees set
forth in Section IV.A shall
be increased or de-
creased based on the
percentage change in the
Engineering News-Record
Construction Cast Index
for the San Francisco Bay
Area for the 12-month pe-
riod ending with the June
index of the same calen-
dar year. -
SECTION X. JUDICIAL RE-
VIEW. Any judicial action
or proceeding to attack,
review,set aside,void,or
annul the fees establish-
ed by this ordinance shall
be commenced within
one hundred twenty(120)
days of the effective date
of this ordinance.Any ac-
tion to attack an increase
adopted pursuant t0 Sec- ..
tion IX shall be com-
menced within one hun-
dred twenty(120)days of
the effective date of the
increase.
' r
SECTION X1. SEVERABILI-
TY. If any fee or provision
of this ordinance is held
invalid or unenforceable
by court of competent
jurisdiction, that holding
shall not affect the validi-
ty or enforceability of the
remaining fees or provi-
sions, and the Board de-
cares that it would have
adopted each part of this
ordinance irrespective of
the validity of any other
part.
SECTION XII. EFFECTIVE
AND TERMINATION -
DATES.
A. This ordinance shall
take effect 60 days after
passage but shall not be-
come operative until the
Public Works Department
files a statement with the
Clerk of the Board certify-
ing that similar fees have
been adopted by the Cit-
ies of EI Cerrito,Hercules,
Pinole,Richmond and San
Pablo.
B.Within 15 days of pas-
sage,this ordinance shall
be published once, with
the names of the Supervi-
sors voting for and
against it, in the Contra
Costa Times, a newspa-
per of general circulation
published in this County.
Pursuant to Section 913-
6.026 of the Contra Costa
County Ordinance Code
the Clerk of the Board
shall promptly file a certi-
fied copy of this ordi-
nance with the County
Recorder.
C. This ordinance shall
terminate on December
31, 2036, unless subse-
quently extended by the
Board of Supervisors.
PASSED and ADOPTED on
October 24, 2006, by the
following vote:
AYES: UILKEMA, PIEPHO
DeSAULNIER,GLOVER and
GIOIA
NOES:None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN:None
EXHIBIT"A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
WEST CONTRA COSTA
SUBREGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION
MITIGATION FEE AREA
A com letecopy of Exhib-
it'"A' is on file with the
Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors,651 Pine
Street Room 106,
Martinez,CA 94553,
(925)335-1900,and is _
available for public
inspection and copying in
that office
Legal CCT 6992
Publish November 1,2006
(Ordinance for the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Fee Program) 'V
6The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on October 24,2006 at 9:30 a.m.in the Board Chambers,County
Administration Building;"651`Pine Streeti Martinez,CA.to consider Ordinance 2006.61 that will amend Ordinance
2606-21 for the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee(WCCTAC)Program Area.
Fees collected through the West Contra CostaTransportation Advisory Committee Subregional Transportation
Mitigation Program will be collected only from new development within this portion of unincorporated Contra Costa
County and will be collected upon the issuance of'a building permit.
The WCCTAC Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program(STMP)is the result of a Master Cooperative Agreement
between the Contra Costa Transportation Authority,the Cities of EI Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond,and San
Pablo,.the County of Contra Costa,and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee.The WCCTAC will
support the list of regional improvements described in the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Update.
The proposed fees for approval by the Board of Supervisors are:
Land Use Proposed Fee
Single-Family Residential $2,061 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $1,309 per dwelling unit !
Senior Housing $557 per dwelling unit
Hotel $1,560 per room
Retail/Commercial $1.45 per square foot of gross floor area
Office $2.79 per square foot of gross floor area
f Industrial $1:95 per square foot of gross floor area
Storage Facility $0.42 per square foot of gross floor area
Church $1.25 per square foot of gross floor area
Hospital $3.34 per square foot of gross floor area
Other' $2,786 per AM peak hour trip
'The fees for uses.not listed above shall be determined by the sponsor collecting the fee according to information
generated by appropriate traffic studies,or other means of determining traffic impacts as approved by WCCTAC,or in
accordance with the Institute of Traffic Engineers(ITE)Manual.
in addition,an administration fee equal to 2 percent of the Program revenue shall be assessed.
As with most fee programs, the fee revenue from the WCCTAC.program will not pay the cost of all regional .
improvements.Other funding must be generated,some of which include fees generated from Measure C and State
Transportation Improvement(STIP)Funds.
The West Contra Costa.Transportation Advisory Committee Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program
Update,which includes a description of ft proposed improvement cost estimates and funding mechanism,is available
at the Clerk of the Board. For more information,contact Brian Louis of the County Public Works Department,
Transportation Engineering Division at 313.2245.
i e
Sc
IM
t
1kci '�4a3` ^" °CM3 l:
Q K
D. k I
^ I
F F .0LU.
++
F.. V �ga�3S N
0' Sk'
7 01lL +
V
O
in
�Y
O CL
O r x s3 .e CL
V O O
f
on
( F= x r C1
O
-E c
O tT
V to ~ O C I
ti to ca I
O
E
a
0 ' j
y Le I CCT 6817;Publish October 6,13,2006
- i
I
I
I
y_fir.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; 1 am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times,
' a newspaper of general circulation; printed and published
at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek,
County of Contra Costa, 9459$.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of
October 22, 1934. Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Oct 6, 13,
all in the year of 2006
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregV' i
true and correct.
ExecuWalrtarCreek, California.
Ont day October, 2006
................................................................................
Signature
Contra Costa Times
P O Box 4147
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that
published)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published
at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek,
County of Contra Costa, 9459$.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of
October 22, 1934. Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed.copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the following dines; to-wit:
Oct 6, 13,
all in the year of 2006
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
X
g is true-ewd correct.
d at Walnut Creek, Californ' .16 d of October, 200
................................................................ ...........
Signature
Contra Costa Times
P O Box 4147
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that
published)
s CONTKA UUNIA WUXI*I
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1
255 Glacier Dnve 1
Mar inez:fCA 94553 y
NOTICE OF PU�UC HFJtRING AND AYALaBILr'�'OF DATA 1'1
r (Ordinance for the West Contra Casts Transportation Advisory Committee Fee Program) '
.The Board of Supervisors vitt holds public hearing ori.06ber 24,2006 at 9:34 a.m.In the Board Chambers,County Administration
Building,651 Pine StreetL,Martinez,CA.to consider Ordinance.2006.62 for the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
r(WCCTAC)Program Area.
Fans Collected flnmwgh the West Contra CostaTrerspw4ition Advisory Canmittea Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program will 1 t
be collected only from new development within this per tion'of unincorporated Contra Costa County and will be collected upon the
#Issuance of a building penin.. "
`21
The WCCTAC Subreglonal Transportation Mitigation Program(STMP)is the result of a Master Cooperative Agreement between the .
Contra Costa Transportation Authority,,the Cities of EI Cerrito,Hercules,Procto,Richmond,and San Pablo,.the County of Contra ' 2r
Costa,and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory.Committee.The WCCTAC will support the list of regional Improvements
described In the West ContraCostaTransportation Advisory Committee Subregionat Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Update
and the Development Program Report written by Contra Costa County. - ..
r The Proposed teas for approval by the Board of Supervisors.are: 2:
lints use Proposed Fee 21
. Single-Famlly.ResldeMial x_$534 per dwal ing unit.,
r� - Muttl-Famgy RestdenCat :¢3:49 per dwelling unit •".
Santer Mousing 3144 Per dwening Witt.
Note) $404 per ro6ni
.RetalUCommerdat Pa sijii ue foot,of gross,floor area 21
,a Office - $0.72 per square foot of gross floor area
Industrial- $O.So par square foot of gross floor area
Storage Facility $0.11 per square foot of gross floor area
Chum $0.32 per square foot of gross floor area
Hospital - $0.67 per square foot of gross floor area 21,
Other' $721 per AM peak hour trip .
"The toes for uses not listed above shall be'determined by the sponsor collecting the fee according to Information generated by
appropriate,traffic ries,or other means of detenntrdng traffic irnpacts as approved by wocuc,or in accordance with the institute
of Traffic Engineers(rTE)Manual. . 31
In addition„an administration fee equal to 2 percent ref ilia Program revenue shall"tie assessad. " 3.
As w6h most fee Programs,the tea revenue from the WCCTAC program will not pay the cost of all regional imnprovemeids.Other 31
d mut be generated,",some of which Include fees generated from Measure C and State Trarsportation'Improvemant(STIP)
Fai
3,
The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory ComnAtee.Subregionai Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Update and the
Developmara,Program Report,which includes a description of the proposed impromment cost estimates and folding melanism,is 31
available at IN Clerk of the Board For more.Information,Camlct BrianLouis of the County Public Works Department,Transportation e
? Engineering Division at 313-2245 a. _ 3l
4.
TOW
} s 4(
3 4.
�a ( q1
(
zs 5;
Co
5,
Qo *� ar. 5�
a .� c art- r �r .�
5.
V �- ,
tial V e k w�
t m
.c
v
ay.
� p
Legal CCT 6818;PubliS October 6,13,2W6
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published.
at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek,
County of Contra Costa, 94598.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of
October 22, 1934. Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Oct 6,
all in the year of 2006
I certify (or Seclare) under penalty of perjury that the
forego' is tru and correct.
Exec to at Walnut Creek, California.
On is day f October, 2006
Signature
Contra Costa Times
P O Box 4147
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that
published)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY•PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND AVAILABILITY OF DATA
j (Ordinance for the West Contra CostaTransportationAdvisory Committee Fee Program)
The Boardol Supervisors will bold a public hearing on.October 24,.2006 at 9:30.a.m.in the Board Chambers,County
Administration Building,651 Pine Street;Martinez;:CA:to consider Ordinance 200661 that.,will amend Ordinance
2006.21!q the West.Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Cornoittee(WCCTAC)Program Area
Fees collected through the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Commitee Subregional Transportation
Mitigation_Program will be collected only from new development within this portion of,ynincorporefed Contra Costa C.
County'and will be collected upon the issuance of a building permit. - Z
q
The WECTAC Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program(STMP)is the'result of a Master Cooperative Agreement Q
between;hie Contra Costa Transportation Authority,the Cities of EI Cerrito,Hercules,Pinole,Richmond,and San.
Pablo)ft County of Contra Costa,and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee.The WCCTAC will. �Rq'
support rthe list of regional improvements described in the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Il
Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Update.
The prgposed fees for approval by the Board of Supervisors are:- N
Land Use - Proposed Fee • sa.
Single-Family Residential $Z D61 perdwelling unit fgt
Multi-Family Residential $1,309 per dwelling unit . q,
Senior Housing $557:per dwelling unit °I
Hotel $1,560 per room
Retail/Commercial $1.45 per square foot, grossfloor arca o
Office $2.79 per square foot of'gross floorarea
Industrial $1.95 per square toot of.gross floor area.
Storage Facility $0.42 per square foot of gross floor'area7.
Church $1.25 per square foot of gross floor area ti
Hospital $3.34 per square foot of gross floor area
Other' $2,786 per AM peak hour trip
'The fees for uses not listed above shall'be determined by the sponsor collecting the.fee according to information I8
generated by apprepriate traffic studies,or other-means of determining traffic impacts as approved by WCCTAC,or in It
accordance with the Institute of Traffic Engineers(fTE),Manual.
In addition,an administration fee equal to 2 percent of the Program revenue shall,be assessed. .
Y
As with most fee programs, the fee revenue from the WCCTAC program will'-not pay the cost of ail regional u.
improvements.Other hording must be generated,some of which include fees generated from Measure C and State
Transportation Improvement(STIP)Funds. -
The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Subregiortaf Transportation Mitigation Fee Program
a
- Update,which includes a description of the proposed improvement cost estimates and funding mechanism,is available a
at the Clerk of the Board. For more information,contact Brion,Louis of the County Public Works Department,
Transportation Engineering Division at 313;2245. _ _ 2020
st
' qt\ 30
.224
W.
r F- fY
E 0
s
S2
}}
G l { s fi S.
i0 <.
In
O da
0 Q In
-a O
y O.0
O-LL41
Q t
F— C
Z 0
FQ
ro<o �, Q• J �'
C.
C 0-
L
(L
regal CCT 6817;Publish Qptotier 6. '2006.
`
4•:
f
sawn.►. 3HZ ;.1:
2005 Update of the
Subregional Transportation Mitigation
Program (STMP)
For the West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee (WCCTAC)
May 5, 2006
Prepared by:
TJKM Transportation Consultants r
5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100
Pleasanton CA 94588-8535
Tel: 925.463.0611
Fa)c: 925.463.3690
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page l of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY..................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................4
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2—Expected Growth Ln Households,Employment and Peak Hour Trips................................. 4
Chapter 3—Project List mrd Priorities..............................:.................................................................... 5
Chapter 4—STMP Previous Collections and Potential Yield Front 2005 Update................................... 5
Chapter 5—Program Costs and Fee Calculation................................................................................... 5
Chapter6—Ne'rrrs Firrdinrgs................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2. EXPECTED GROWTH IN HOUSEHOLDS, EMPLOMENT AND PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INTHE WCCTAC AREA............................................................................................................................7
HOUSEHOLDGROWTH .................................................................................................................................7
EMPLOYMENTGROWTH...............................................................................................................................7
TRIPGENERATION....................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 3. SELECTION AND COST OF PROJECTS........................................................................10
PROJECTDESCRIPTIONS............................................................................................................................. 1 l
1. Richmond Intermodal Station......................................................................................................... 11
2. Interchanges on I-80 at San Pablo Dan Road and Central Avenue and on Highway 4 at Willow... 11
3. Capitol Corridorr.............................................................................................................................. 12
4. Ferrol Service to Sar Francisco frau Richmond and/or Hercules/Rodeo........................................ 12
5. BART Access and/or Parking Improvements................................................................................. 13
6. Bay Trail Gap Closure..................................................................................................................... 13
7. San Pablo Dann Road Improvements in Downtown El Sobrante...................................................... 13
8. San Pablo Avernrte Corridor Improvements..................................................................................... 14
9. North Richmond Road Connection Project.................................................... ............................... 14
10. Hercules Transit Center................................................................................................................ 14
11. Del Norte Area Transit Oriented Development project(public improvements)................................ 15
CHAPTER 4. STMP PREVIOUS COLLECTIONS AND 2005 UPDATE POTENTIAL FEE
REVENUES.................................................................................................................................................16
COLLECTIONSTO DATE............................................................................................................................. 16
POTENTIAL FLT REVENUES FROM 2005 UPDATE........................................................._............................... 16
CHAPTER 5. PROGRAM COSTS AND FEE CALCULATION.............................................................18
UPDATED COST PER TRIP ESTIMATE........................................................................................................... 18
OTHERFACTORS IN STMP UPDATE...........................................................................................................20
CHAPTER6. NEXUS FINDINGS.............................................................................................................22
CHAPTER 7. STUDY PARTICIPANTS...................................................................................................24
TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PERSONNEL.................................................................................24
THEREED GROUP..................................................................:...................................................................24
PERSONS/AGENCIES CONSULTED/WCCTAC --TAC MEMBERS.................................................................24
•
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 2 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I: HOUSEHOLD GROWTH IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-2005 To 2030..........................................7
TABLE 11: EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-2005 TO 2030....................................... 8
TABLE III:NEW A.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-2005 TO 2030.............................9
TABLE IV: STMP PROJECTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING..................................:............................................... 10
TABLE V: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS RECEIVED TO DATE.................................................................................. 16
TABLE VI: 2005 COST PER TRIP ESTIMATE.............:....................................................................................... 18
TABLE VII: 2005 RECOMMENDED STMP RATES AND FEES AND FEES..............................................................20
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 3 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
a CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Ihti•oduction
This analysis provides the technical basis for establishing the required nexus between anticipated
future development in West Contra Costa County and the need for certain local and regional
transportation facilities. The specific tasks performed in preparing this analysis and their results are
sununarized below. The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Connnittee's (WCCTAC)
Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program(STMP) was established in 1997. This is the first
update of the STMP program to ensure that the various aspects of the program reflect current
conditions. For the 2005 STMP update, WCCTAC retained a team led by TJKM Transportation
Consultants to update technical aspects of the program.
The 2005 STMP update includes an updated project list with cost estimates for all improvement
projects to be potentially funded by STMP fees.
This report presents the results of the efforts of the project team to update the WCCTAC STMP. This
update effort,.involved the major tasks described below.
1. The amount of new development that will occur in the WCCTAC area between 2005 and
2030 was determined.
2. .A new estimate was prepared of the trip generation that will result from development of the
expected future land uses within the WCCTAC area. Trip generation rates from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE)publication Trip Generation were utilized.
3. Future deficiencies on the transportation network were determined based on findings of the
staff of WCCTAC,its member agencies, and the consultant team.
4. A list of projects needed to acconmlodate future traffic was determined.
5. Updated traffic improvement project cost estimates were prepared which reflect the latest
concept designs for the projects and the latest completion status of the various projects.
6. An updated cost per trip was calculated along with the corresponding updated STMP
schedule of fees.
7. A reasonable relationship between the impacts of the new growth and the fees proposed in the
STMP was ascertained. State law requires that there must be a roughly proportional benefit
from the proposed fees to the projects supplying the finds.
Sunmany
Chapter 2—Expected Growth In Households,Employment and Peak Hour Trips
According to ABAG's Projections 2003, the overall estimated growth in the WCCTAC area is
estimated at 17,910 households (a 20.3 percent increase in 25 years) and 28,810 jobs (an increase of
over 35 percent). Using standard available trip generation rates, the total increase in peak hour trips
in the a.m. period is expected to be 28,571. Richmond and Hercules account for over 75 percent of
the new trips.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 4 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
Chapter 3—Project List and Priorities
The recommended list of new transportation improvements to serve the WCCTAC area was
developed by the WCCTAC Technical Advisory Connnittee and the consultants. The WCCTAC
Board reviewed a preliminary list of projects in August 2004. The recommend list of new projects is
shown below. Costs and details of the individual projects are described in Chapter 3 of this report.
1. Richmond Intermodal Station
2. hiterchanges on I-80 at San Pablo Dam Road and at Central and on Highway 4 at Willow
Avenue
3. Capitol Corridor capital and/or operational improvements
4. Ferry service from Richmond and/or Hercules/Rodeo
5. BART access and/or parking improvements
6. Bay Trail Gap Closure
7. San Pablo Dam Road improvements in downtown El Sobrante
8. San Pablo Avenue Corridor Improvements
9. N. Richmond road connection project
10. Hercules Transit Center relocation
It. Del Norte Area Transit Oriented Development project (public improvements)
The 11 projects have a total cost of$371 nullion. Of this amount, approximately $273 rmillion is
anticipated to be finided by other sources or does-not satisfy nexus requirements, leaving$98 million
for finding by the updated 2005 STMP.
Chapter 4—STMP Previous Collections and Potential Yield From 2005 Update
The existing STMP was adopted in 1997. A total of near$2.942 million has been collected to date, or
about$39,200 per month. Most of the finds collected have been spent on the Richmond Intermodal
project and the Highway 4 West Project. The 1997 Nexus Analysis indicated that$24.5 million could
be collected for the next 13 years if the maximum fee amounts were adopted, but WCCTAC adopted
a fee that was lower by approximately 80 percent so that$5.1 million was the expected yield. The
adopted rates amount to about $440 per peak hon-trip, instead of the$2,100 indicated by the nexus
study. If these same rates were applied to the expected growth in the next 25 years, the yield would
be$12.6 million with the lower rates and$60.0 nullion with the full rates.
Chapter 5—Program Costs and Fee Calculation
In updating the cost per trip, the total costs of all proposed projects were determined and the outside
funding and non-eligible costs were subtracted to yield a total amount to be included in the program.
The program amount is $101,043,000, and when divided by the amount of peak hour trips generated
by the new development, 28,810, the 2005 STMP cost per trip is $3,507 if all projects were to be
fully fiunded. This figure is about 67 percent more than the$2,100 cost per trip determined in 1997.
A rate schedule is recommended to find this full amount. However, WCCTAC may choose to
provide only partial finding of the project list. In 1997, the final fees were set to cover about 20
percent of the recommended program.
Chapter 6—Nexus Findings
California legislation requires that charges on new developments bear a reasonable relationship to the
needs created by, and the benefits accruing to that development. California courts have long used that
reasonableness standard or nexus to test to evaluate the constitutionality of exactions, including
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 5 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
development fees. Based on the analysis included in the body of this report, it can be concluded that
• the future development and the need for their associated improvements meet or exceed the basic
requirements set forth in Government Code sections beginning with 66000 to govern development
fees.
Of the$371 million worth of needed improvements identified in this analysis, over$121 million in
outside funding sources have been identified. These outside sources primarily include Contra Costa
County Measure J, which is the extension of the one-half percent sales tax levied for transportation
improvements. Measure J, which is intended to fund improvements which will correct both existing
and future deficiencies, is a partner to the STMP extension, which by law must only fund future
transportation deficiencies associated with new development. Measure J was approved by Contra
Costa County voters in the general election on November 2, 2004. Of the total deficiencies identified
in the 11 proposed STMP projects, only about 27 percent of the finding comes from the STMP. Over
$150 million worth of costs of the 11 projects fails to satisfy the nexus requirements and was not
included in the program.
The methodology of this report ensured that only the portion of the projects included in the STMP
project list is necessitated by the growth in traffic between 2005 conditions and 2030 conditions.
Thus,there is a reasonable relationship between the proposed use of the STMP and the proposed land
use development projects on which the fee will be imposed. In the same manner there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for facilities included in the STMP and the proposed land use
development projects.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 6 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
CHAPTER 2. EXPECTED GROWTH IN HOUSEHOLDS, EMPLOMENT AND
PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN THE WCCTAC AREA
Household Growth
ABAG's Projections 2003 was used to determine the residential and employment growth in the West
County area between 2005 and 2030. The growth in households for the WCCTAC area is shown in
Table I.
The overall residential growth for the area is estimated at 17,910 households, representing a 20.3
percent increase for the 25 year period. Richmond is projected to have about 61 percent of the
residential growth, and Hercules is anticipated to have nearly 19 percent of the growth. Hercules will
be the fastest growing area, with a 50 percent increase in households in the 25-year period.
TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLD GROWTH IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY—2005 TO 2030
H o u s e h o I d s
S h a r e R a t e
2005 2030 Gr owt h of of
Gr o wt h Gr o wt h
C e rr i t o E I 1 3 1 6 0 1 3 6 5 0 4 9 0 2 7 3 7
_
Her c u I e s 6 8 6 0 1 0 2 7 0 3 4 1 0 1 9 0 4 9 7
P i n o I a 1 0 7 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 0 1 1 6 8
R chmond 43 640 54 590 10 950 61 1 25 1
Ro d e o - 4 5 2 0 4 6 8 0 1 6 0 0 9 1 3 3
Crockett
S a n 9 1 7 0 1 0 2 7 0 1 , 1 0 0 6 2 3 5
P a b I o
T o t a l s 8 8 0 5 0 1 0 5 9 6 0 1 7 , 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 . 3
Note: Forecasts are for each city's Sphere of Influence(Sol) except for the Rodeo-Crockett unincorporated area.
Kensington is included in the EI Cerrito SOI, Montalvin Manor and Tara Hills are in the Pinole SOI, N.
Richmond and EI Sobrante are in the Richmond SOI, and Rollingwood is in the San Pablo SOI.
Source: ABAG Projections 2003
Employment Growth
Employment is expected to grow more rapidly than residential development. A growth of over 35
percent is forecast by ABAG for the WCCTAC area, representing an actual job growth of nearly
29,000 positions. Richmond will account for 57 percent of the job growth, with Hercules accounting
for about 18 percent. Hercules job growth rates are nearly 150 percent, while El Cerrito, Pinole and
Richmond are expected to register growth of around 30 percent. The Crockett-Rodeo unincorporated
area is expected to grow by nearly 60 percent. Table 11 summarizes the anticipated employment
growth in the WCCTAC area.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 7 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
TABLE If: EMPLOYMENT�GROwTH IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-2005 To 2030
Employment
S h a r e Ra t o
2005 2030 G o w t h of ' 0 f
Growth Gr o wt h
E 1 g 1 7 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 3 0 7 4 2 6 1
Ce r r i t o
H e r c u l e s 3 4 3 0 8 4 9 0 5 0 6 0 1 7 6 1 4 7 5
P i n o l a 6 1 1 0 7 9 2 0 1 8 1 0 6 . 3 2 9 . 6
R chmond 52 390 68 750 16 360 56 8 31 2
R d e o - 3 5 9 0 5 7 3 0 2 1 4 0 7 4 5 9 6
Crockett
S a n 8 4 6 0 9 7 7 0 1 3 1 0 4 5 1 5 5
P a b I o
T o t a l s 8 2 1 5 0 1 1 0 , 9 6 0 2 8 8 1 0 1 0 0 . 0 3 5 1
Note: Forecasts are for each city's Sphere of Influence except for the Rodeo-Crockett unincorporated area.See
Table 1 note for details.
Source: ABAG Projections 2003
The anticipated growth in households and employment in the WCCTAC area will result in new peak
hour trips on the transportation network. These are described in the next section.
Trip Generation
In order to determine the amount of traffic that is associated with the expected new development in
the west county area,TJKM applied trip generation rates to the components of the new growth.
As in the original STMP, the 2005 update relies on the a.m. peak hour commute period as the primary
analysis period. The a.m. peak hour period is used in order to not overburden the application of the
traffic fees on retail development. While residential uses and most employment based land uses such
as offices and business parks have sinular a.ri-L and p.m. peak holo-trip rates, retail uses typically are
three to four times as heavy in the p.n1 period as the a.m. period. Use of the a.m. rates for all uses
tends to spread the fee application more uniforn-ily.
As noted above, there is expected to be a total of 17,910 new Households in the WCCTAC area over a
25-year period. Since some of these households will be in multiple family dwelling units and some
will be in single=fanuly dwelling units, TJKM assurned an average of the trip generation rates for the
two,residential land use types. The average a.m. trip rate of 0.63 trips per dwelling unlit was applied
to the total number of households to yield a total of 11,285 new residential-based trips.
For non-residential uses, a trip rate that is based on numbers of employees, and is representative of
various uses such as offices,business parks, manufacturing and retail uses in the a.m. period, was
selected. The rate selected was 0.60 trips per employee. When that number is applied to the 28,810
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 8 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
growth in employment over the 25-year period, the number of new a.m. peak hour trips generated by
these uses totals 17,286 trips.
These figures are shown in Table III. The table shows the total of the new a.m. trips from both
residential and non-residential growth, 28,571, and also shows the amount of the new trips that are
allocated to each of the WCCTAC agencies. Richmond growth is expected to generate about 59
percent of the new trips, Hercules about 18 percent and the other areas generally between about 5 and
10 percent. The contributions of other agencies are shown in the table below.
TABLE III: NEw A.M.PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY—2005'r0 2030
New Peak H o u r T r i p s S h a r e
of
From From Total Total
H o u s e h o I d sE m p ! o y me n t •Z T r i p s
E I 3 0 9 1 2 7 8 1 5 8 7 5 6
Ce r r i t o
H e r c u I e s 2 1 4 9 3 0 3 6 5 1 8 5 1 8 1
P i n o I e 1 1 3 4 1 0 8 6 2 2 2 0 7 8
R c h m o n d 6 899 9 816 16 715 58 5
Rodeo
Cr oc' ket t 101 1 , 284 1 , 385 48
S a n 6 9 3 7 8 6 1 4 7 9 5 2
P a b I o
T o t a l s 1 1 , 2 8 5 1 7 2 8 6 2 8 5 7 1 T1 0 0 . 0
S o u r c e T J K M
Growth in households froom Table 1 multiplied
by 0 . 63 t he aver age a . m. peak hour t r i p r al e
f o r
s i n g l a - f a mi I y a n d mu I t i - f a mi I y d we I I i n g u n i i s
T h e I n s t i t u t a o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E n g i v e e r s T r i p
G e n e r a t i o n , 2 0 0 3 E d i t i o n i s t h e s o u r c e o f t h i s
i n f o r ma t i o n
2 G r o w I h in employment from Table 2 multiplied
by 0 . 60 , a represent at i v a m. peak hour t r p
r a t e
f o r e mp I o y me n t u s e s
The amount of new trips is used in the calculation of the 2005 STMP update cost per a.m. peak hour
trip, as described in subsequent chapters of this report.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 9 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
CHAPTER 3. SELECTION AND COST OF PROJECTS
The recornnionded list of projects to be included in the updated STMP is shown in Table IV below.
The projects are described in greater detail in the remaining portions of this chapter.
TABLE W: STMP PROJECTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING
oject Total Cost Measure J Other Funds U n f u n d e d Re c oAmount S
hmond
oda.1 $ 36 000 , 000 $ 21 000 , 000 $ 1 5 , 000 , 000 $ 1 5 ,
n
changes
8 0 a t
a b I o Da m
a n d a t 4 6 2 0 0 0.0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 ,
a I a n d
g h w a y 4
I I o w
e .
i t a l
d o r 4 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 .7 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 ,
e n t s
0 from
and 91 000 ,000 45 000 , 000 46 000 , 000 12 ,
r
e s / R o d e
T access
r
ng 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 ,
v e men t s
T r a i 1 5 4 9 0 0 0 0 .3 4 8 0 0 0 5 1 4 2 0 0 0 1 ,
o s u r e
P a b 1 6
o a d
vement s 6 900 , 000 6 900 , 000 1 ,
w n t own
b r a n t e
P a b I o
e
d o r 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ,
vement s
R chmond
c t i o n 7 9 5 0 0 0 0 7 9 5 0 0 0 0 4 ,
C
r c u I e s
S i t 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ,
e
c i o n
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 10 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
6NDo
r t e 2 5 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ,
o f al s $ 37 0_,, 8 4 0 0 0 0 $ 9 7 , 5 0 0 0 0 0 $ 2 4 3 4 8 0 0 0 S 2 4 8 9 9 2 0 0 0 S 9 8 ,
Project Descriptions
Z. Richmond Intermodal Station
The Richmond Intermodal Station/Transit Village is located in downtown Richmond. Other public
improvements (e.g. the center platform) have already been completed using state/federal/local funds
(approximately $22,000,000). The transit village is under construction and the housing on the west
side is iriore than halfway complete. Funding is needed to complete the following public
improvements: parking garage, station building, the transit center, and public improvements on the
east side of the station.
Cost: $36,000,000
Other.Potential Funding Source(s): Private developer contributions, state/federal transportation funds
and Measure J.
Project Nexus Discussion: The total cost of this project is $36 million, of which approximately$21
million is funded by various sources. Although in the WCCTAC area only 27.5 percent of future
traffic(see Chapter 6 for a detailed finding) is based on 25-year growth, in this case the project was
previously justified(in 1997)based mainly on future deficiencies. However, only an estimated 40
percent of the project is justified by virtue of serving transportation demands of future growth. Thus,
$15 milliou of the total cost of$36 million is included in the STMP.
STMP Fumding: $15,000,000
.2. Interchanges on I-80 at San Pablo Dam Road and Central Avenue and on Highway 4 at Willow
1-80/San Pablo Dam Road—Upgrade and improve the interchange including provisions for
bicyclists and pedestrians. The project will enhance operations and vehicular,bicycle,pedestrian
safety in the vicinity of the interchange.
Cost: $16.7 million
I-80/ Central Avenue—Modify and realign the interchange and rarrip at Central Avenue.
Cost: $22.5 million
I-80/SR4 Interchange at Willow Avenue—Relocate and realign ramps at Willow Avenue to meet
current standards for improved local access and freeway movements.
Cost: $3.0 nullion to$7.0 million
Potential finding source(s): Measure J ($30 million); City of Hercules Redevelopment Agency;
private developer contributions; state/federal transportation funds.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 1 l of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
• Project Nexus Discussion: Improvements to the three interchanges have an estimated total cost of
$46,200,000. However, two of the interchanges —the I-80 interchanges with San Pablo Dam Road
and with Central Avenue—are currently deficient and only 27.5 percent (25-year traffic growth
within the WCCTAC area) of their improvement costs can be assigned to the STMP. On the other
hand, the need for the Willow Avenue interchange improvements is based in large part on future
growth in the Hercules area. In this case, 50 percent of the costs are assigned to the STMP. The
breakdown of the$14.28 million STMP assignment is S10.78 million for the two 1-80 interchanges
and$3.5 million for the Willow Avenue interchange.
STMP Funding: S14,280,000
3. Capitol Corridor
Hercules Passenger Rail Station—Hercules passenger rail station (including parking, station platform,
signage and plazas, rail improvements, etc.). Capital improvements along the corridor in West Contra
Costa (track improvements, drainage, fencing, safety improvements, etc.)
Cost: $28.2 million for Hercules passenger rail station and S20 million for capital improvements.
Potential Finding Sources: Measure J (57.5 million for the station); S3 nvllion TCRP funds (station);
state/federal transportation funds.
Project Nexus Discussion: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
conditions and deficiencies as well as needs caused by future growth. Accordingly, 25-year traffic
growth increase within the WCCTAC area, 27.5 percent, has been applied to the total project cost of
$48.2 million to result in a STMP allocation of S 13.3 million.
STMP Funding: 513,255,000
4. Ferry Service to San Francisco from Richmond and/or Hercules/Rodeo
New ferry service to San Francisco from Richmond and/or Hercules/Rodeo utilizing high-speed
vessels. Funds will be used for capital improvements such as vehicles, landside improvements,
parking lighting, transit feeder service, signage, etc. Both ferry services will be in close proximity to
existing and future residential and commercial projects on West County's shorelines.
Cost: $23 million for Richmond(vessels - $12 million; terminal - S I 1 million); S23 million for
Hercules/Rodeo (vessels - 512 million; terminal - S11 million). Total - S46 nvllion.
Other Potential Funding Sources: Measure J(S45 million for operations); S 1 bridge toll; state/federal
transportation finds; fare box.
Project Nexus Discussion: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
conditions and deficiencies as well as needs caused by future growth. It is assumed that a significant
portion of future ferry ridership will come from existing travelers. Accordingly, 25-year traffic
growth increase within the WCCTAC area, 27.5 percent, has been applied to the total project cost of
$46 million to result in a STMP allocation of$12.65 million.
STMP Funding: $12,650,000
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 12 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
• 5. BART Aecess and/or Parking Improvements
rovements
As a component of BART'S Smart Growth Program, ftnds would be used for parking, aesthetic
and/or access improvements, station capacity improvements, sidewalks, lighting/restroom
renovations, bicycle storage, expanded automatic fare collection equipment, etc. in the West County
area.(El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito Del Norte, and/or Richmond).
Cost: $92.1 million for the West County area.
Other Potential Funding Sources: Measure J($15 million); state/federal transportation fields.
Project Nexus Discussion: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
conditions and deficiencies as well as needs caused by future growth. Accordingly, 25-year traffic
growth increase within the WCCTAC area, 27.5 percent, has been applied to the total WCCTAC area
project cost of$92.1 million to result in a STMP allocation of$25.33 million.
STMP Funding: $25,330,000
6. Bay Trail Gap Closure
Close gaps in the Bay Trail in West Contra Costa County, including, but not limited to the following:
(1) the one-mile gap along the Richmond Parkway between Pennsylvania and Gertrude Avenues; (2)
the 1.8 mile gap north of Freethy to Payne Drive in Richmond; (3) the two-mile gap from Payne
Drive to Cypress Avenue in Richmond; (4) the one-mile gap from Pinole Shores to Railroad Avenue
in Pinole; and(5) the 1.8 mile gap from Railroad Avenue to Parker Avenue in Hercules.
Cost: $5.49 inillion
Other Potential Funding Sources: EBRPD sources, private developers, other(to be determined).
Project Nexus Discussion: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
conditions and deficiencies as well as needs caused by future growth. Accordingly, 25-year traffic
growth increase within the WCCTAC area, 27.5 percent, has been applied to the total WCCTAC area
project cost of$5.49 million to result in a STMP allocation of$1.51 million.
STMP Funding: $1,510,000
7. Saiz Pablo Dam Road Improvements in Downtown E1 Sobrante
Revitalization of the downtown business district in El Sobrante including traffic calming, additional
signals,pedestrian improvements, turn lanes, etc. that are identified in the Downtown El Sobrante
Transportation and.Land Use Plan(and subsequent documents).
Cost: $6.9 million
Potential funding source(s): Measure J, County finds, other state and federal transportation funds.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 13 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
Project Nexus Discussion: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
• conditions and deficiencies as well as needs caused by future growth. Accordingly, 25-year traffic
growth increase within the WCCTAC area, 27.5 percent, has been applied to the total WCCTAC area
project cost of S6.9 million to result in a STMP allocation of 51.9 million.
STMP Funding: $1,900,000
8. San Pablo Avenue Corridor Improvements
Transportation for Livable Conununities infrastructure improvements on San Pablo Avenue through
West Contra Costa County and within a half-mile walking distance of San Pablo Avenue in either
direction. Also includes improvements as part of the San Pablo Avenue SMART Corridor project
that is currently tnderway in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties on San Pablo Avenue.
Cost: $6 million
Potential ftnding source(s): Measure J, Transportation for Livable Communities, state and federal
transportation funds.
Project Nexus Discussion: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
conditions and deficiencies as well as needs caused by future growth. Accordingly, 25-year traffic
growth increase within the WCCTAC area, 27.5 percent, has been applied to the total WCCTAC area
project cost of 56,000,000 to result in a STMP allocation of$1.65 million.
• STMP Funding: $1,650,000
9. North Richmond Road Connection Project
Extend Seventh Street northward approximately 0.1 miles to connect to an eastward extension of
Pittsburg Avenue. Pittsburg Avenue would be extended eastward approximately 0.3 miles to connect
to the Seventh Street extension. The extension will facilitate truck and vehicle traffic passing through
North Richmond from the Richmond Parkway.
Cost: 57.95 million
Potential funding source(s): Measure J, state and federal transportation finds, County redevelopment
ftulds, Cotmty ftnds.
Project Nexus Discussion: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
conditions and deficiencies as well-as needs caused by future growth. However, this project mainly
aims to serve growth in truck traffic resulting from new development in the North Richmond area. It
is asstuned that at least one-half of the traffic on this project will relate to new development in the
area. The STMP assignment is 50 percent of the total cost, or$4 million.
STMP Funding: $4.0 million
10. Hercules Transit Center
Relocate and expand.the Hercules Transit Center on the east side of Highway 4 to provide improved
access to/from Highway 4 and improved local circulation.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 14 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
Cost: $6 million
Potential funding source(s): 'Private developer contributions; Hercules Redevelopment Agency funds;
state and federal transportation finds.
Project Nexus Discussion: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
conditions and deficiencies as well as heeds caused by future growth. Accordingly, 25-year traffic
growth increase within the WCCTAC area, 27.5 percent, has been applied to the total WCCTAC area
project cost of$6.0 million to result in a STMP allocation of S1.65 million.
STMP Funding: $1,650,000
11. Del Norte Area. Transit Oriented Development project(public improvements)
Planning, engineering, environmental studies, and construction of the public transportation-related
improvements at the El Cerrito Del Norte BART station's Transit Oriented Development project.
Funding will provide improvements including,but not linuted to: parking facilities; bicycle,
pedestrian, and/or bus transit access improvements; signage; lighting; improvements to station access
or station waiting areas; ADA improvements; improvements to adjacent streets, street crossings, or
signals; and/or Ohlone Greenway improvements.
Cost: $25 million
Potential finding sources: Private developer contributions; state and federal transportation funds (for
example, Transportation for Livable Connrnunities.ftnds); Measure J funds.
Project Nexus Description: This project is among those whose justification is related to existing
conditions and deficiencies as well as needs caused by future growth. Accordingly, the 25-year
traffic growth increase within the WCCTAC area, 27.5 percent, has been applied to the total project
cost of$25 million to result in a STMP allocation of 56.875 million.
STMP Funding: $6,875,000
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 15 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
• CHAPTER 4. STMP PREVIOUS COLLECTIONS AND 2005 UPDATE
POTENTIAL FEE REVENUES
Collections To Date
The STMP was approved in 1997 and the first finds were received in April of 1998. Between April
of 1998 and July of 2004 a total of$2,942,031.39 has been collected, including 597,255.90 in
interest. For this 75-month period, the average monthly receipts have been approximately 539,200.
During this period, the fiends were allocated as shown in Table V.
TABLE V: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS RI'sCEIV1:D TO DATE
P r o j e c t A l l o c a t i o n P e r c e n t P a y me n t B a I a n c e
R c h m o n d S 7 . 91 S
I n e modal 232 , 697 . 54 135 , 391 . 31 97 306 . 2
Hi g h w a y 4 Wes t $ 81 36 S
2 3 9 3 7 2 2 8 6 2 1 0 0 4 3 5 3 9 2 9 3 2 8 7 4
E I C e r r i t o $ 7 9 1 S
P I a z a B A R T 2 3 2 6 9 7 5 4 0 2 3 2 6 9 7 5
Par k ng .
WCCTAC $ 1 32 S
Administration 38 , 782 . 92 34 , 137 . 94 4 ,644 . 9
C C T A $ 1 50 S
i n i s t r a t i o n 4 4 1 3 0 . 4 7 4 3 5 7 6 . 7 0 5 5 3 7
T o t a I $ 1 0 0 0 0 S
2 , 9 4 2 , 0 3 1 3 4 2 , 3 1 3 , 5 4 1 3 4 6 2 8 4 9 0 . 0
Source : C C T A
If this monthly rate of receipts would continue for a 20-year period, the total receipts would be over
S9.4 million in current dollars, not including any interest. This is one measure of the amount of funds
that could be received over a 25 year period beginning in 2005 if the same fees would prevail and the
same rate of development were to continue.
The Nexus Analysis prepared in 1997 indicated that the fees established at that time should yield
about$5.1 million over 13 years (1997 to 2010). This calculates to an average of about 533,000 per
month, so the actual receipts of about S39,200 per month, including interest, are conservatively close
to the original estimates.
It should be noted that the 1997 Nexus Analysis showed that WCCTAC could legally establish fees
whose revenues would total 524.5 million. However, at the time it was felt that it was appropriate to
reduce the financial burden on both conunercial and residential development. Single-family
residential fees were established at 5700 per unit instead of the allowable$2,345. Multi-family
residential fees were reduced from S 1,002 to 5560. Retail, office and industrial fees were established
at$0.20 per square foot, instead of allowable rates ranging from S 1.37 to 52.88 per square foot of
development.
Potential Fee Revenues From 2005 Update
As noted above, the 1997 Nexus Analysis justified a total cost of 524.5 million in funds to be paid by
the fee. This amounts to a rate of about$2,100 per peak hour trip. However, the amount of fee
actually enacted amounted to about$440 per peak hour trip, or about 20 percent of the maximum
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 16 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
amount. As rioted in Table III, there is an estimated 28,571 a.n1 peak hour trips associated with the
• expected growth in development in the 25-year period beginning in 2005. Using the 1997 rates, this
arriount of trips would'account for$12.6 million at the reduced rate of S440 per trip over the 25-year
period or$60.0 million at the fiill rate of$2,100 per peak hour trip.
Reconullendations for the fees associated with the 2005 STMP update are described in the next
chapter.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 17 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
• CHAPTER 5. PROGRAM COSTS AND FEE CALCULATION
Updated Cost per Trip Estimate
Table VI presents a sununary of the STMP improvement project costs, required adjustments to
account for past STMP activities, the projected future trips to be added by new development, and the
resulting estimated STMP improvement cost per trip. The total cost of the STMP projects to be
included is $370,840,000. Adjustments to the fee are as follows:
• Outside Funding- $121,848,000: These are anticipated finds from outside sources that will
offset the costs of projects in the STMP. See Table IV for details.
Exceeds Nexus - $150,892,000: These are fluids that exceed the nexus test described in
Chapter 3 and 6.
These adjustments are applied to the fee calculation as shown in Table VI. The updated fee
calculation is based on trip generation estimates in-Table 3 and the cost estimates of the STMP
irnprovement projects presented in Table IV. The updated cost per trip is $3,507, using a total STMP
project cost of$101,043,000 and'a total of 28,810 new a.rri. peak hour trips. The STMP improvement
projects cost and the STMP portion of these costs as well as the calculated new STMP cost per trip
are shown in Table VI.
Table VII presents the new STMP schedule of fees. The land use categories in this fee schedule
reflect the current situation with the STMP.
TABLE VI: 2005 COST PER TRIP ESTIMATE
A c t u a l
STMP STMP STMP Change
STMP Port i on Fee Por d o f r o
I mprovement of Adopt e n of 1997
P r o j e c t s 1 9 9 7 d 2 0 0 5 S T MP
Costs In Costs
1997
AI I $ S +
P r o f e c t s 6 4 2 6 7 3 7 0 , 8 4 3 0 6 , 5 7
5,00 0 , 000 2 , 500
$ S + $
S u b t o f a 1 6 4 , 2 6 7 - - 3 7 0 , 8 4 3 0 6 , 5 7
5 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 5 0 0
Outside $ S + $
F u n d i n g 3 9 8 4 1 1 2 1 , 8 4 8 2 0 0 7
000 8 , 000 000
Exceeds $ 150 , 8 +
$ 1 5 0 , 8
N e x u s 9 2 0 0 0
9 2 0 0 0
Net $ $ $ + $
I mp.r ovement 24 , 426 , 5 1 00 , 98 , 1 00 73 , 673
Costs 500 000 000 500
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 18 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
P I u s ( I n c l u d $
• A d m i n s r a t i ed i n 2 , 943 , - -
e Co s t s t o t a 1 ) 0 0 0
3 %
T o t a l S T M P S S S + S
F u n d i n g 2 4 , 4 2 6 , 5 1 0 0 , 1 0 1 , 0 4 7 6 , 6 1 6
5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 0
T o t a l P e a k
Hour Tri p
A d d e d b y 1 1 5 8 9 1 1 5 8 9 2 8 8 1 0 +
N e w 1 7 , 2 2 3
D e v e I o p ment
S T M P Cost $ 2 , 100 S 440 S + S
P e r T r i p 3 5 0 7 1 4 0 7
•
i
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 19 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
. TABLE VII: 2005 RECONIMENDED STMP RATES AdND FEES AND FEES
Peak 2005 1997 1997
Hour U n i t Fee Fee Fee
L a n d Us e s T r i p s o f Rates ' f f e s Rat e s
(
!
Rate Use ( f u ! ( f ul ! as
f u n d i n f un di ng dopt e
s g ) ) d
S i n g I e $ 7 0 0
f a mi I y S
Re s i d e n t i a l 0 7 4 DU $ 2 5 9 5 1 5 5 4
Mu I t i S 5 6 0
f a mi I y
Residential 0 . 47 DU $ 1 , 648 $ 987
S e n i o r
H o u s i n g 0 . 21 DU $ 701
Hotel 0 . 56 R o o m $ 1 9 6 4
R e t a i 1 0 5 2 K S F 5 1 8 2 $ 0 3 4 S 0 2 0
Of f i c e S 5 0 . 2 0
1 0 0 K S F $ 3 5 1 2 7 9
I n d u s t r i a l S S 0 2 0
0 7 0 K S F 5 2 4 5 1 8 9
S t o r a g e
If
a c i I i t 0 . 1 5 K S F $ 0 . 5 3
C h u r c h 0 4 5 K S F $ 1 5 8
• H o s p i t a t 1 2 0 K S F S 4 2 1
DU= D w e I I i n g Un i t
K S F = Thousand Square Feet
Note : Based on $ 3 , 507 per peak hour trip
Other Factors In STMP Update
Trip Adjustments The peak hour trip rate for the retail category was adjusted to account for trip
lengths as described in the 1997 study. The base a.n1 rate for retail was reduced by 50 percent to
account for reduced trip lengths as compared with non-retail uses. Trip rates for the office category
were reduced froml.33 trips per thousand square feet(ksf) to 1.00 trips per ksf; industrial trip rates
were reduced from 0.90 to 0.70.
Exempt Development In the 1997 study, it was found that slightly more than 10 percent of the land
use depicted as future growth already had some level of land use entitlements and would be exempt
from the STMP payments. These exemptions were either because a) a vested tentative map had been
issued, or b) a development agreement had been completed which specifically excludes assessment of
any additional fees. It will continue to be appropriate for fees to be waived in these cases, although it
is unlikely that development agreements have been approved subsequent to 1997 that eliminate
participation in WCCTAC STMP fees.
Special Cases As was the case in 1997, it remains appropriate for developers to request a special
traffic study if it is felt that their particular land use proposal either does not fit into one of the land
use categories or if the particular development may generate less traffic than the category provides.
The methodology for conducting such a study shall be approved by the WCCTAC upon
reconunendation of the WCCTAC-TAC. The appropriate governing/pernutting agency shall be
responsible for reviewing and approving the individual traffic studies.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 20 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
Establishment of Final WCCTAC STMP Fee WCCTAC may decide, as it did in 1997,not to levy
the full fee that has been established as a part of this study. If so, the results will be reflected in an
adjustment to this study.
i
1
•
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 21 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
CHAPTER 6. NEXUS FINDINGS
Forecasts of future traffic volumes were made to provide the data needed to establish the reasonable
connection between new development's travel demand and the need for and costs of the proposed
projects within the WCCTAC area. ABAG's Projections 2003 was used to determine the amount of
growth in land use in the west county area between 2005 and 2030. Subsequently, traffic usage
related to the growth was calculated as described in Chapter 2.
Using the traffic generation results and the estimated project costs, the portion of the estimated
project costs that can reasonably be connected with the need generated by projected new development
has been calculated.
The following process was.used to established the amount of a project that can attributed to growth
and thereby be eligible for STMP finding:
Amount of h o u s e h o I ds i n 2005 88 050 ( f r om
T a b I e 1 )
8 2 , 1 5 0
A mo u n t o f e m l o y e e s i n 2 0 0 5 . ( f r o t T a b l e
2 )
H o u s e h o I d t r i p s i n 2 0 0 5 =
8 8 , 0 5 0 x 0 6 3 ' 5 5 4 7 2
Employment trips in 2005 = 49 , 290
82 , 1 50 x 0 60 '
T o t a l t r i p s i n 2 0 0 5 = 5 5 4 7 2 + 1 0 4 , 7 6 2
4 9 , 2 9 0
G r o w t h i n t r i p s b e t w e e n 2 0 0 5 2 8 , 8 1 0 ( f r o m
a n d 2 0 3 0 T a b I e 3 )
P e r c e n t o f t r a f f i c r e I a t e d t o 2 7 5
2 5 y e a r g r o w t h =
2 8 , 8 1 0 / 1 0 4 , 7 6 2
" T r i p r a t e s — s e e p a g e 5 f o r d e t a i I s
Therefore, as noted in the Project Nexus Discussion in Chapter 3 for each of the I 1 STMP projects, a
nunimum of 27.5 percent of the cost of each project was assigned to the STMP, unless a lesser
amount of fiends is necessary to frilly find the proposed project. In a few cases, a greater percentage
was utilized when conditions dictated.
It is noted that of the$371 million worth of needed improvements identified in this analysis, over
S121 million in outside funding sources have been identified. These outside sources primarily
include proposed Contra Costa County Measure J, which is the extension of the one-half percent sales
tax levied for transportation improvements. Measure J, which is intended to find improvements
which will correct both existing and future deficiencies, is a partner to the STMP extension, which by
law must only find future transportation deficiencies associated with new development. Measure J
was approved by Contra Costa County voters in the general election on November 2, 2004. In
addition, the project nexus analyses indicated that S 150,892,000 of the projects does not meet the
minimum nexus requirement. Thus, of the total deficiencies identified in the 11 proposed STMP
projects, only 27 percent of the finding comes from the STMP.
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 22 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
The methodology of this report is to ensure that only the portion of the projects included in the STMP
• project list is necessitated by the growth in traffic between 2005 conditions and 2030 conditions.
Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the proposed use of the STMP and the proposed land
use development projects on which the fee will be imposed. hi the same manner there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for facilities included in the STMP and the proposed land use
development projects.
•
•
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 23 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006
CHAPTER 7. STUDY PARTICIPANTS
TJKM Transportation Consultants Personnel
Chris D. Kinzel, P.E. . Project Engineer
Brad Thomton Project Engineer
Dan Harrison Project Planner
Evi.Pagh Word Processing/Production
The Reed Group
Robert Reed Principal
Persons/Agencies Consulted/WCCTAC -- TAC Members
Lisa Han-"ion, Managing Director WCCTAC
Brad Beck CCTA
Bruce Beyaert Trails for Richmond Action Conu►uttee(TRAC)
Aleida Chavez WestCAT
Rich Davidson City of Richmond
John Greitzer Contra Costa County Connnnnity Development Department
Deidre Heitman BART
• Adele Ho City of San Pablo
Bruce King City of El Cerrito
Nathan Landau AC Transit
Steve Lawton City of Hercules
John MacKenzie Caltrans
Brent Salmi Pinole
2005 STMP Update for WCCTAC Page 24 of 24
TJKM Transportation Consultants May 5, 2006