The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06132000 - D4 Tot BOARD OF SUPERVISORS "' Cor�tra FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE ;. Costa COMMITTEE County DATE: June 5, 2000 SUBJECT: Draft 2000 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter transmitting comments to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on their Draft 2000 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the related Draft Environmental Impact Report. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On May 1, 2000, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) released the Draft 2000 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Plan). This document, which represents the first major update to the 1995 Plan, refines the Authority's vision, goals and strategies for managing the impacts of growth and improving mobility on our streets, highways, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOI S ERVISOR G LE B. UILKEMA ACTION OF 66ARD ON __ June 13 , 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED Y,& OTHERIX IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that staffs recommendation is APPROVED; DIRECTED that on Attachment B, Page 1, under the heading "West County Action Plan Update", at Bullet No. 1, add "... and the San Joaquin line...".; and DIRECTED that Supervisor Gerber's comments regarding the County's vision, goals and strategies be included. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE xx UNANIMOUS (ABSENT-a) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE Contact: Steven Goetz, 335=1240) SHOWN. cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED_--rune 13 , 9.o ren Public Works Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS a:+adv-traMCommittae Board order Shell.dac AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY Draft 2000 Update of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan June 5, 2000 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued) Can May 16, 2000, the Board of Supervisors referred the Plan to the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee. On June 5, 2000, the Committee met to address the Plan, but sufficient time was not available to provide specific comments to the Board. The Committee requested that the staff report be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item for their June 13 meeting, and requested that Authority staff make a brief presentation on the Plan to the Board. This would allow the Board's comments to be received by the Authority before the closing date for comments, which is June 14, 2000. The Board should determine if the comment letter should include the issues discussed in the staff report to the Committee (see Exhibit A), the editorial comments of County staff (see Exhibit B), as well as other comments raised by Board members. Staff of the Authority has indicated that all Board members have received a copy of the Plan and its related environmental document. Included in this Board Order are executive summaries of the draft Plan (see Exhibit C), and the Draft EIR (see Exhibit D). Exhibits Exhibit A: June 2,2000 staff report to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Exhibit E: Editorial Comments of County Staff on the Draft 2000 Update of the CCTP Exhibit C: Executive Summary of the Draft 2000 Update to the CCTP Exhibit D: Executive Summary of the Draft EIR of the CCTP i CIO Phil Batchelor 1 he} Board of SiupeivisoPS Contra Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building ��`►�+�+� County administrator Costa 651 mine Street, room 106 Gt (925)sss-1soo Martinez, California 94553-129CounT\/ John Gioia, 111 District JUN 2 6 2000 Gayle B. Uiikema,2"a District Donna Gerber, 31° District Dark De5autnier, 41' District Joe Canciamilia, Th District %ieuwo% J Ms. Millie Greenberg, Chairs June 13, 2000 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creep, CA 94596 Dear Ms. Greenberg On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Chair to transmit comments on the Draft 2000 Update of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan(Plan)and its related environmental impact report. Previously, the Board submitted comments to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(Authority)on related activities. This comment letter is based on these earlier actions and is organized by the relevant chapter in the Plan. Chapter 3: Vision, Goals and Strategies The Plan's vision is to strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy. This vision includes principles and assumptions to provide a framework for the goals of the Plan and the strategies for achieving them On February 15, 2000,the Board of Supervisors adopted principles for making future transportation investments in the County. The Board submitted these principles to the Authority and the Regional Transportation Planning Committees(RTPCs)to help guide the selection of projects and programs to include in a proposal to extend the transportation sales tax. The Authority may wish to use the Board's principles to modify the Vision, Goals and Strategies so that it is a more integrated approach to preserve and enhance our quality of life. For example, important quality-of-life outcomes that are articulated in the Board's principles but which are not referenced in Chapter 3 include: - Providing commuters with convenient alternatives to driving alone; - Achieving the safe and efficient movement ofpeople and goods; - Supporting the development of more affordable housing; - Producing measurable reductions in air pollution from motor vehicles; - Providing a comprehensive and countywide public transit system that meets the mobility needs of low- income, elderly, disabled, and school-age residents. These quality-of-life outcomes should be included in the core values of county transportation policy and, therefore, mentioned in the Plan's vision. Ms. Greenberg June 13, 2000 Page 2 of 6 Efforts to integrate transportation policy with other quality-of-life issues should start with the "Principles and Assumptions" for the Plan's vision. These principles and assumptions should acknowledge that significant changes in land use decisions are needed to promote traffic relief, affordable housing, and compact development, and that allocation of transportation revenue can be an important tool to encourage improved land use decisions. Chapter 4• The Tranoortation System Chapter 4 describes each part of the county's transportation system which includes roadways, transit systems, bikeways, and high-occupancy vehicle, pedestrian and goods movement facilities. The purpose of Chapter 4 is to describe the Plan's strategies for ensuring that each part functions optimally, and is operated and maintained as one system. Comments for the Authority's consideration address issues that involve roadways, public transit, bikeways, and goods movement facilities. Page 25 of the Plan describes the strategy to expand the highway and arterial systems in a manner that is consistent with a countywide plan to influence the location and nature r�,f anticipatedgrowth. The text.on this page goes on to describe an Authority proposal to look at transportation improvement programs to ensure that these programs support an efficient land use pattern and prevent sprawl. The Plan does not indicate how this will be done and when. A countywide plan to influence the location and nature of anticipated growth will be a valuable tool for integrating the strategy to expand the highway and arterial systems with the goal to expand travel choices beyond the single-occupant automobile. Some highway expansion projects may be counterproductive to strategies that reduce our reliance on automobiles and promote compact development. The countywide plan will help guide the Authority as it evaluates transportation improvement programs to ensure that these programs support an efficient land use pattern and prevent sprawl. The 2000 Update needs to provide additional detail on the process that will be used to develop the countywide plan and the Authority's evaluation procedures, and the related tasks, responsibilities and implementation schedule. Page 26 describes issues related to providing transit service to choice riders and the transit dependent. In 1999, with the assistance of the Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the County completed its Contra Costa Welfare to Work Transportation Action Plan. A major finding of that plan is the preference of low-income residents for using bus transit due to its low cost and flexible service. Another major finding is that most low-income residents reside in west county and east county, while most of the job opportunities for low-income residents were located in central county. A high priority, but unfunded project of that plan is to improve bus transit links between west county and central county, and between east county and central county. The Authority's Plan should include a commitment to investigate opportunities to reduce the cost and the time involved in taking transit from east county and east county to central county. On page 34, the Authority states that a detailed set of bikeway facilities, and a program for expanding them would be developed in a countywide bikeway plan. The Authority, however, does not propose to begin preparing this bikeway plan until three years from now. There are a number of funding opportunities available to local agencies annually for construction of bicycle transportation facilities. Preparation of bikeway plan in FY 2000/01 would enable local agencies to compete more effectively for these funds two years sooner than the ..d Ms. Greenberg June 13, 2000 Page 3 of 6 schedule proposed by the Authority. The Plan should propose to fund and schedule preparation of a bikeway plan in FY 2000/2001. This comment is consistent with the Board's comments made on the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance on March 7, 2000, and with the Board's comments made on the initial Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan in 1995. Can page 38, the map describing designated goods movement facilities(Figure 22) does not include Kirker Pass Road, which is designated as a truck route by the County. The Authority should evaluate how that route affects truck routes in Concord and Walnut Creek. There are other gaps in goods movement facilities that should be highlighted on this map. There is no designated truck route connecting several major industrial facilities in Richmond to the Richmond Parkway. Currently, trucks from these facilities use local streets in North Richmond to access the Parkway. The West County Action Plan refers to the North Richmond Truck Access Study which will identify transportation improvements to accommodate truck traffic between these industrial facilities and the Parkway. This study will recommend transportation improvements to goods movement facilities in the area and should be referenced on Figure 22. This issue and the need to pursue a study should also be referenced on page 75 as one of the significant issues facing the I-80 Corridor. The East County Action Plan refers to the proposed State Route 239 Interregional Corridor Study, which is intended to develop recommendations for improving transportation routes between Contra Costa and the Central Valley. A major issue to be evaluated by this study is truck access. Truckers travel this corridor via the Byron Highway. This study will make recommendations for transportation improvements to goods movement facilities and should be referenced on Figure 22. ChApter 5: Growth Mana eg ment Chapter 5 outlines strategies, both adopted and proposed,to define a growth management program(GMP)that would go 20 years beyond the existing Measure C-88 program. On May 9, 2000, the Board of Supervisors provided comments to the Authority on options for changes to the existing GMF'. Since this plan was released on May 1, the Authority has not had an opportunity to respond to these comments. The Plan proposes a number of options and alternatives for defining a future GMP. - Working with RTPCs and local jurisdictions to analyze alternatives for future development; - Work with other groups(public or private) to carry out cooperative planning for land use and future development within Contra Costa and the region. - Once local jurisdictions agree to an urban limit line or other growth management approaches, the Authority will use transportation investments to support these approaches; - When assessing whether to implement or fund a project, consider its affects on the adjoining land uses and the general community; - Require local jurisdictions, as part of the GMP, to demonstrate compliance with policies and standards that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new development. low 1 Ms. Greenberg June 13, 2000 Page 4 of 6 These proposals could potentially support the Board's previous comments, which call for the focus of the future GMP to change from the present one. However,the Plan does not have an implementation schedule to evaluate the options and alternatives and to reach consensus on the definition of future GNP. The Plan should include such a process and schedule. Consistent with our comments on the Plan's vision, it is the Board's desire that the process and schedule for the future GMP should include development of performance standards for measuring traffic relief, increases in affordable housing, and compact development. The Plan should specify completion of this work by a specified date. This would help clarify to the public the Authority's intent to adopt changes to the GMP, independent of any action to extend the transportation sales tax. Chapter 6: Action Plans On March 7, 2000, the Board of Supervisors commented on the Draft Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. These comments were submitted to each RTPC and the Authority. This Chapter was prepared before the RTPCs had an opportunity to respond to the Board's comments. Chapter 7: Travel Corridors Chapter 7 describes the unique set of issues and the Plan's varied strategies for improving mobility in each of six travel corridors serving Contra Costa. For the I-80 Corridor,the Plan should include a description of the goods movement issue in North Richmond and the strategy to proceed with the North Richmond Truck Access Study. The County has submitted an application to the Federal Highway Administration for a grant to fund this study. Highlighting this issue in the Plan can assist cooperative efforts by the County, the Authority, WCCTAC, San Pablo, and Richmond to develop a contingent strategy if the County's grant request is not funded. It can also assist in completing such studies and incorporating their recommendations into fixture updates to this Plan. The I-80 Corridor description should also include a description of the emerging transit access issue in West County. Access to BART stations, the Capitols, the San Joaquins and other transit centers and services is becoming a more significant problem as this corridor relies more heavily on transit to maintain mobility. For the I-680 Corridor,the Plan should include a description of the need to improve transit service along the corridor and at its connections with East County and West County in order to serve transit-dependent residents. The Plan should include a strategy to investigate opportunities to reduce the cost and the time involved in taking transit from East County and West County to Central County. For the 1-580/Tri Valley Corridor,the.Authority should explore the unique opportunity to cooperate with the Interregional Partnership,which is an association of the five counties (Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Joaquin and Stanislaus)that rely on this corridor for access to jobs and housing. The Interregional Partnership is concerned with traffic congestion and sprawl, and is examining a set of strategies that can achieve traffic relief, more affordable housing and compact development. Ms. Greenberg June 13, 2000 Page 5 of 6 Chanter 8: Implementation Chapter 8 describes the activities and schedule for achieving the Plan's vision. Previous comments in this report have identified revisions for this chapter. One additional comment to raise is the potential need for more direct involvement of the transit operators,the cities and the County in achieving the Plan's vision. The Authority has highlighted the RTPCs,MTC, the Association of Bay Area governments and the Air District as the different bodies it will seek participation from to put the strategies of the Plan into effect. A countywide forum or forums that allow all transit operators and all local jurisdictions to participate together will aid some of these strategies. Draft Environmental Impact Report ,(EIR) The Draft EIR focuses on the impacts of the proposed Plan as a whole. Impacts are evaluated relative to existing conditions(Baseline), the No Project alternative(implementation of the 1995 Plan), a Highway/HGV/Express Bus alternative(Alternative 1), a Fixed Guideway/Transit alternative(Alternative 2), and a Maintenance/Operations Only alternative(Alternative 3). Alternative 3 has the least environmental impacts, however, it does not achieve the Plan's vision to strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy. Twelve significant adverse environmental impacts will remain significant, even if the proposed mitigation measures are adopted. These impacts include: - Transportation and circulation(1 impact); - Air quality(2 impacts); - Noise(i impact); - Land use and population(2 impacts); - Biological resources(1 impact), - geology and seismicity (2 impacts); - Water resources/hydrology(2 impacts); and - Energy(1 impact). If all proposed mitigation measures are adopted, there may be a need to incorporate them into the Plan, including adding appropriate activities and schedules to the implementation section of the Plan. Some of the proposed mitigation measures that are not specifically mentioned in the Plan include: - To address increased congestion levels, the Draft EIR proposes that the RTPCs review the Circulation Draft Action Plans to ensure that all feasible actions are incorporated to improve the operation of deficient segments, provide alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, and reduce travel demand; - To address increased air pollution and energy use, the Draft EIR proposes that the Authority will work with local, regional and State agencies to implement transportation control measures(TCMs) effectively as a way to reduce the number and length of trips made in the county and the region. Ms. Greenberg Tune 13, 2000 Page 6 of 6 - To address impacts of growth that differ from planned growth in the county, the Draft E1R proposes that the Authority will participate in a regional cooperative land use planning process with agencies,both within and outside Contra Costa. - To address destruction of habitat,the Draft EI.proposes that the Authority will work with other agencies to investigate whether the development of a courr"ide Habitat Conservation Plan could provide an effective way to achieve local goals for preserving habitat and maintaining environmental quality while balancing other development goals. Given the potential for finding significant,unavoidable adverse impacts with adoption of the Plan,the Authority may wish to consider a more rigorous evaluation of an alternative plan that could achieve further reductions in air pollution, energy use, and land use impacts compared to the proposal for adoption. itorial_Correctiong/Revisions There are a number of detailed, non substantive comments to the text, figures, and project list in the Plan identified by County staff. These corrections and revisions are included in this comment letter as Attachment 1. The Board of Supervisors appreciates the outreach effort of the Authority and its staff to obtain comments on the Draft.2000 Update. Please let me know if I or County staff can assist the Authority in developing responses to the comments received on the Draft 2000 Update. Sin ly, Donna Ger r, hair Contra Costa oar of Supervisors Fi le:gpulctpp.l tr.floc Attachment Cc: Members,Board of Supervisors Regional Committees(via CDD) D.Barry,CDD Director S. Goetz,CDD Attachment I Editorial Corrections to the Draft 2000 Update 10 the Coun id Com r h n ive Transportatign Plan Page xi: Add a notation to the San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo Corridor for the HOV Facility Needs Study. Page xviii: Add the Center Avenue/Marsh Drive/Solano Way Bikeway. It is proposed Class IM facility that provides important east/west access south of SR 4 and under I- 680. Page xviii: The TSO for San Pablo Dam Road is a delay index of Z.O. Page xvix: The TSO for Bailey Rd is LOS E in the Pittsburg/Bay Point area. Page xxii: Revise the description of the projects on San Pablo Dam Road and the State Route 4 Bypass to be consistent with the project description in the Appendix. .Page xxiii: Clarify that the"studies" may occur in the Track I time frame. Add the widening on State Route 4 from Oakley to Discovery Bay as listed in the appendix. Add the widening to Byron Highway consistent with the revisions to the Appendix. Page 26: Another important route to include in the description of the bus operators' service Route 950, connecting El Sobrante and the Orinda BART station. Page 30: Add the San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo Corridor HOV Needs Facility study to Figure 20. Page 34: The Plan's strategy for closing gaps in the existing highway and arterial system can play a significant role in development of countywide bikeway system if the Authority would promote including bikelanes, sidewalks, and bikeway signs where appropriate. This action should be mentioned under this strategy. Page 53: Figure 23 should show the segment of Vasco Road between Walnut Boulevard and Camino Diablo as a completed facility. Page 54: To be consistent with the Action Plan, the proposed actions along the Interstate 80 should be summarized to include: "initiation of ramp metering and bridge toll studies, construction of HOV lanes, funding to extend the Richmond BART line, and an outreach campaign for ferry services, station improvements in Richmond and Hercules, and expansion of Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin rail service." 1. Page 56: Table 6-Ishould reference 1)the proposed actions on Richmond Parkway to include the North Richmond Truck Access Study and 2) the proposed actions on San Pablo Dam Road to include"funding for regional route HAV facility needs study," Page 57: The updated Central County Action Plan revised the TSA's to recommend that the Delay Index be applied to the entire regional route,rather than be applied to various segments of these routes. Page 63: An Table 6-3,the comparison of Action 9 to the Plan's goals should be the same of Action 9 on Table 6-4. Page 76: To maintain consistency with the Nest County Action Plan, the last sentence on this page should be revised to read: "As part of this longer-term strategy, the visions includes new rail service, including BART to Hilltop Mall or beyond, increased Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin rail service, and possibly light rail along San Pablo Avenue." Page 78: The description of Expanded Transit Service on San Pablo Ilam Road should include more direct as well as more frequent bus service along the corridor. The existing service involves a transfer between AC and County Connection buses. Page 78: Studies such as the HAV Facility Needs Study for the Camino Pablo/San Pablo Ilam Read Corridor, and the forth Richmond Truck Access Study should be included on this page. Page 80: Add the Bay Trail gap closures to the list of programmed and planned projects. Page 84: The description of Additional Arterial Improvements should be revised to include widening,of Camino Tassajara(south of Windemere Parkway), Arthur Road, Geary Road, and Fallon Road,realignment of Pacheco Boulevard and Camino Tassajara(north of Windemere Parkway).... This more precise language is important since projects on certain portions of Camino Tassajara can be controversial. Page 89: The first full paragraph should be revised to read as follows: These improvements to State Route 4 and the Bypass will, however, primarily serve the commute to the west. Many commuters, especially those to jobs in the Tri-Valley or from homes in the Central Valley, would prefer a more direct route to the south or southeast,along the proposed State Route 239 Corridor and along the route for the proposed commuter rail service to the ACE station in Livermore. In addition, truckers looking for more direct or less congested routes into Contra Costa are using Byron Highway and Sate Roue 4 more frequently. Except for the portion of Vasco Road north of the County tine, current routes to the south or southeast are limited to Vasco Road and the Byron Highway, both of which are 2 two-lane roadways developed to rural highway standards and were not designed as commute routes. Also, Caltrans does not plan to widen SR 4 east from Byron to the San Joaquin county line. Page 90: The Vasco Road safety improvement is south of the county line, not.north of the county line. Page 94: 1-580 Altamont Pass Interregional Corridor Study is a more precise title that what is used on this page. Page 95: The Wilbur Avenue bridge is completed. Page 103: Supporting agencies for the Comprehensive 1-680 Corridor Study should include T.RANSPAC and the TVTC. Page 103: Supporting agencies for Coordination with RTPCs should include the TVTC. Page B-2: The description of Project 18 should be revised to read: Build ultimate truck climbing lane.... This language will distinguish the project from the interim climbing lane that was recently completed by the County. Page B-2: Project 93 should be revised as follows: San Pablo Dam Road Access Impproygm nts Description: Provide circulation and access improvements for local traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists to be determined through the Downtown Revitalization Study. Project Limits: Bl Portal Drive to Appian Way Cost: TBD Completion Date: TBD This road is on the Metropolitan Transportation System. Page B-7: The listing of studies should include the following: San Pah1n ppm Road Implementation Program Project Limits: Appian Way to Tri Lane Description: Includes a roadway alignment study, consistent roadway standards, and a capital improvement program for improvements such as widening, turn channelization, median construction, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Project Sponsors: County(lead agency), Richmond Cost: $100,000. County/city funds Completion Date: 2001 North Richmond Truck Access Study Project Limits: North Richmond and adjacent areas of Richmond and San Pablo Description: Develop a truck route linking the North Richmond and Richmond industrial areas with Richmond Parkway and other highways. 3 0 Sponsors: County(lead agency), Richmond, and San Pablo. Cast: $2.1 million Completion Date: 2002 HC}y Facility 1*TS (see West County Action Plan for details, Action #7.8.g.) San Pablo Dam Road Transit Acc ss and Facilities Study (see Nest County Action Plan for details, Action#7.8i. and j.) Page B-8: Project 170 is completed. Page B-9: Add the following projects: Center Ave-Marsh give-Solano Way Bikeway Project Limits: Midden Lakes Drive to Arnold Industrial Way Description: Class IVIR bikeway for alternate east-west access along State Route 4, a Regional Route, CMP Route and MTS Route, south of the freeway. Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County Cost: 170,300 Revenue: FY 00/01 TFCA County Program Manager Grant and County funds. Completion rate: June 2002 Bgy Trail QgpClotiure Project Limits: Port Costa to Ozol Description: Construct 8' Class I bikeway Project Sponsors: County(lead),East Say Regional Park District) Cost: TBD Completion Date: TBD Page B-14: Revise Project 14 as a shoulder widening, various locations, at$684,000, south of State Route 4 to south of Camino Diablo. Add new project as follows: Byron Highly shoulder widening Description: widen shoulders and add turn lanes. Project limits.' South of Camino Diablo to County line. Sponsor: County Cost: TBD Completion Date: TBD These above projects should be described on.Figures VI and VII. Page B-14: Limits of Project 135b are south of county line to Livermore. Alameda County is the sponsor. Page B-14: Projects 67 and 192 should be on Figures VI and VII. 4 Page B-16: Cost estimate for Project 204 is low. Page B-17: Revise Project 46a description to specify the expressway as"two-lanes", and add a new project that would expand Project 46a to a four-lane configuration at$12 million. Page B-17: The limits of Project 46b are Lone Tree Way to Balfour. Page B-17: Cost estimate for Project 46c is$25 million. Page B-17: The limits of Project 169d are Loveridge to State Route 4 Bypass. Page B-23: The major arterial improvements serving Dougherty Valley should be listed here and included on Figure VI. Page B-23: Project 57 should be revised as follows: Description: realign and widen for bike lanes. Project Limits: east ofBlackhawk Dr to county line. Page B-23: Contra Costa County is not a sponsor for Projects 153a and 153b. Please clarify this in the table. Circulation Drafts of ft Action Plan Updates The West County Action Plan includes actions for San Pablo Dam Road. In addition, the Corridor Action Plan for San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo is included. There should be some attempt to better integrate these documents to avoid duplicate descriptions of actions related for the same corridor. This will lead to confusion regarding which document to use for Measure C- 88 compliance purposes. 5 3 ATTACHMENT A /J( TO: Board of Supervisors .•' Conte FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP = � Costa Community Development Directorr County DATE: February 15, 2000 SUBJECT: Fallow-up Report from Workshop on Future Transportation Investments In Contra Costa SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the following principles for establishing transportation priorities for the renewal of Measure C-88 and for MTC4s Transportation Blueprint for the 21* Century: • Transportation investments for capacity expansion should focus on providing commuters with reliable and convenient alternatives to driving alone, and the safe and efficient movement of people and goods; • Transportation investments should support a countywide policy for compact development and redevelopment that achieves long-term protection of open space, appropriate infill of developed areas, reductions in our reliance on automobiles, economic revitalization, and more affordable housing, • Transportation investments should promote good health by producing measurable reductions in air pollution from motor vehicles; • Transportation investments should dedicate a percentage of revenue that will significantly address the unmet need to adequately maintain and operate our existing road system; • Transportation investments should dedicate a percentage of revenue sufficient for the development and maintenance of a comprehensive countywide public transit system that meets the mobility needs of low income, elderly, disabled and school- age residents, CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE i ACTION OF BOARD ON. February 15 , 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER XX SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN:, SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: (Steven Goetz, 925/335-1240) ATTESTED__yew a� 15 , 2000 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE Public Works Department BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND R. Ramacier, County Connection COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR D. Kimsey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission G. Binger, Association of Say Area Governments J. Roggenkamp, Bay Area Air Quality Management District A. Ho, CCEAC (via CDD) BY , DEPUTY Keoarttfrom Workshop on,J;uture Transportation Investments,'"r Contra Costa February 15, 2000 1.5 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) • Transportation investments for transit operators should be linked to achieving measurable results in coordinating end consolidating their operations; and • Transportation investments for cities and the County should be linked to a growth management program that requires measurable results for traffic relief; affordable housing, and compact development; 2. Authorize the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign a letter that refers the adopted principles to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) and the regional transportation planning committees, requests that these principles be used as the criteria for developing projects and programs to include in the Expenditure Plan for the renewal of Measure C-88, and includes comments of the Board regarding other matters Important to the renewal of Measure C-88. A courtesy copy of this letter should go to the Chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On February 8, 2000, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the results of their workshop on potential transportation investments for Contra Costa. The Board has been requested by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) to comment on the priorities for projects and programs to include in the Expenditure Plan for an extension of Measure C-88, which could be submitted to the voters as early as November 2000. These priorities could also be submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is developing the Transportation Blueprint for the 21 st Century that identifies major transportation projects and programs that could benefit from increases in tolls, gas taxes or sales taxes dedicated to transportation. At that meeting, staff recommended that the Board consider adopting principles for selecting transportation projects and programs to include in the Expenditure Plan, and that these principles be forwarded to the Authority and the county's regional transportation planning committees for their use in selecting these transportation projects and programs. After receiving comments from the public, the Board directed staff to make certain revisions to the principles for consideration at their February 15, 2000 meeting. The Board also agreed to consider comments to the Authority regarding how transportation investments should be linked with a local jurisdiction's compliance with growth management requirements The revisions to the principles are highlighted in the redline/strikeout format described below. • Transportation investments for capacity expansion should focus on providing commuters with reliable and convenient altematives to driving alone, and the safe a and efficient movement of people and goods, ` . needs Qlf Report from Workshop on Future Transportation Investments for Contra Costa February 15, 2000 Page 3 BACKGROUNDlREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) The mobility needs of residents who do not have access to a car were included in a separate principle. • Transportation investments should support a countywide policy for compact development and redevelopment that to-achieves long-term protection of open space, agproiiate infill of developed areas, a reductions in our reliance on automobiles, economic revitalization. and more ffordable housing. The revisions define the quality of life outcomes for compact development. While goals and quality of life can vary by jurisdictions, these above outcomes should be held as core values countywide. Transportation investments should promote good hep1th-byproLucing measurable reductions in air pollution from motor vehicles. This new principle establishes a priority for investing in transportation projects and programs the benefit public health. Transportation investments must acknowledge the Sign& should dedicate a yercentaae of revenue that wilf sicnillcantly address the unmet need to adequately maintain and operate our existing road system. Measure C-88 returns 18% of the revenue it generates to cities and the County for local street maintenance and improvements, contingent on a jurisdiction's annual compliance with the Measure C-88 growth management program. This year the County is eligible to receive $1.6 million. The Board agreed to include in the principles a reference to the percentage of revenue allocated for local street maintenance and improvements, but did not specify a percentage. Exhibit A identifies the impact of continuing existing programs if Measure C-88 were extended for another 20 years. The column "Local Roads" lists the revenue dedicated for local street maintenance and improvements based on 18% of the revenue generated from the sales tax. The Board may wish to determine whether the current percentage significantly addresses the unmet need to adequately maintain our existing road system. TRANSPAC and TRANSPL.AN recently met and are proposing 18-20% be dedicated for local roads. • Trans op rtation investments should dedicate-a oercentane of revenue sufficient for the development and maintenance of a com rehensiv count ide public transits stem that meets the mobility-needs of low income eiderfv, disabled and school-a-ge residents. This new principle responds to the Board's desire to establish a priority for developing a public transit system that meets the mobility needs of low income residents that are transitioning from welfare to work, the elderly and disabled, and school-age residents that need to get to and from school. The earlier principle simply acknowledged the need to expand the capacity of the transportation system to meet the mobility needs to residents who do not have access to a car. Measure C-88 dedicates 7.8% of the revenue it generates for bus transit and paratransit purposes. The Board agreed to include in the principles a reference to the percentage of revenue allocated for public transit, but did not specify an Report from Workshop on Future Transportation Investments for Contra Costa February 15, 2040 Page 4 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS continued amount. In Exhibit A, the columns "Transit" and "Paratransit" list the revenue dedicated for these programs, which is 4.9% and 2.9%, respectively, of the total sales tax collected. At the January 18th workshop, the Bus Transit Coordinating Council proposed that 30% of the revenue are dedicated for the purpose of express bus service, neighborhood shuttles, extended evening and Weekend service, youth transportation (including school buses), and expanded paratransit. The Board may wish to determine whether these current percentages are sufficient to develop and maintain a comprehensive countywide public transit system. TRANSPAC and the TRANSPLAN Committee are proposing 14% and 10.5%, respectively, be dedicated for the combined purposes of bus transit and paratransit. • Transportation investments for transit operators should be linked to achievin measurable results in coordinating and consolidating their o erations. This new principle establishes a priority for allocating transportation revenue in a manner that will require BART and the four bus operators In Contra Costa to establish a seamless transit system for county residents. • Transportation irivestmentsshoWdbe used as inGenWe for cities and the County to#Oy arAieve the Felated gea4 e should be linked to a growth management orocram that reouires measurable results for traffic relief, . affordable housing and compact development. This principle was revised in response to the Board's intent to provide comments to the Authority on how transportation investments should be linked with a local jurisdiction's compliance with growth management. This revision focuses the growth management program on the decisions of cities and the County that affect traffic relief, affordable housing and compact development. Compliance could be based on performance measures such as 1) the door-to-door travel time for residents during commute hours, 2) increases in the availability of affordable housing, and 3) increases in a jurisdiction's development densities within the urban limit line. Measure C-88 currently uses the local road program as the incentive for local jurisdictions to comply with growth management requirements. The Board should consider if the present provisions can adequately influence future land use decisions, or if future land use decisions should be linked to other transportation projects and programs funded in the new Measure C-88. The Board's position can be included in its comments to the Authority. At your February 8, 2000 meeting, some Board members expressed concern about how the principles would be considered by the Authority. Please be aware that the Authority has already established a draft Vision, Goals and Strategies statement to consider as part of the 2000 Update of the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the Expenditure Plan for the renewal of Measure C-88 (See Exhibit B). The Authority has not finalized this Vision, Goals and Strategies. The Board should review the Vision, Goals and Strategies to determine if it is consistent with the Board's principles. The Board should keep in mind that the Authority is a single-purpose government agency, unlike the Board, which has countywide general-purpose jurisdiction. However, the Board could suggest that Report from Workshop on Future Transportation Investments for Contra Costa February 15, 2000 Page 5 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS continued the Authority consider modifying its Vision, Goals and Strategies, if necessary, to better integrate transportation policy with other polices important to the quality of life in Contra Costa. As you are aware, concepts regarding jurisdictional coordination for protecting our quality of life has been raised in other forums. These forums include the City/County Relations Committee of the Mayor's Conference, the Public Managers' Quality of Life Committee, and the Say Area Alliance for Sustainable Development. Based on the principles recommended by County staff, revisions to the Vision, Goals and Strategies could address the following areas: • The "Principles and Assumptions" should acknowledge that significant changes is land use decisions are needed to promote traffic relief, affordable housing and compact development, and that allocation of transportation revenues can be a important tool to encourage improved land use decisions. • Integrate the goal to alleviate congestion on highways and arterials with the goal to expand travel choices beyond the single-occupant automobile. Some of the highway expansion strategies may be counterproductive to strategies that reduce our reliance on automobiles and promote compact development. • Add an implementation program that will require the development of performance standards for measuring traffic relief, increases in affordable housing, and compact development. This implementation program should be completed by a specified date. Exhibits Exhibit A: SCA 3 Revenue Forecasts and Impact of continuing Existing Programs Exhibit B: Draft vision, Goals and Strategies of the 2000 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Pian Exhibits are not included in the staff report to the Transportation, hater & Infrastructure Committee. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 3 February 15, 2000 Agenda On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the requests they made during the Transportation Workshops held on January 18, 2000, and February 8, 2000 (See the attached Board Order). Steven Goetz, Transportation Planning Chief, Community Development Department and Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director were present. Mr. Goetz presented the staff report and recommendations. The Board discussed the issues. Supervisor Gerber noted that on Page 2 of the draft "Vision, Goals and Strategies" (as attached to the Board order), under the heading, Principles and Assumptions, the statement in Item No. 4, "Achieving this vision..." is fundamentally flawed as an assumption. She stated that longterm sustainability of a viable economy requires the preservation and enhancement of the environment and doesn't see these as competing objectives. The public hearing was opened, and the following people offered comments: Jamie Levin, A.C. Transit and Miriam Hawley, A.C. Transit, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland. No one else desiring to speak, the Board continued their discussion. Supervisor Uilkema moved approval of the staffs recommendations. Supervisor Gioia seconded. Mr. Goetz inquired if the motion included the comments from Supervisor Gerber. Supervisor Uilkema stated that it did, and Supervisor Gioia concurred. The question was called, and the Board voted unanimously for the motion. �- Phil The Board of Superv� yrs Contra Clerk fthe Soa®d Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 551 Pine Street, Room 105 ts25)3ss-�so4 Martinez, California 94553-1293 ounlY John Gioia, I,'District "J Cayce B. Uilkema,2'"District Donna Gerber, 3r6 District Mark DeSaulnier, 4"` District Joe Canclamilla, 51" District ?' Mr. Charlie Abrams, Chair "- ,„`` February 15, 2000 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Mr. Abrams: Can February 15, 2004, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Chair to transmit the enclosed principles to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the regional transportation planning committees with a request that these principles be used as the criteria for selecting projects and programs to include in the Expenditure Plan for the renewal of Measure C-88 (see enclosure). These principles are offered in-lieu of list of projects and programs, which the Authority requested from the Board and the regional committees on December 16, 1999. The Board of Supervisors adopted these principles after holding discussion during several meetings, hearing from local experts on transportation, land use and air quality, and receiving comments from interested agencies and organizations and the public. This discussion reinforced the perspective that our transportation investments not only affect traffic congestion, but also other factors important to the quality of life that we enjoy in Contra Costa County. The principles adopted by the Board of Supervisors are intended to ensure that these other factors are considered in the renewal of Measure C-88. The Board is aware of the draft Vision, Goals and Strategies prepared by the Authority to help shape the Update of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the renewal of Measure C-88. The Authority may wish to use the Board's principles to modify the Vision, Goals and Strategies so that it is integrated with other policies that protect and enhance our quality of life. For example, the Vision's assumption that efforts to sustain a strong,viable economy sometimes compete with preservation and enhancement of the environment, is incorrect. A basic assumption in the Board's principles is that a strong viable economy cannot be sustained without preserving and enhancing the environment. It should be understood that the Board's principles do not endorse the existing percentages of Measure C-88 revenues dedicated to its transportation programs. Those percentages deserve thorough discussion by the Authority and the regional committees, and the Board members look forward to participating in those discussions. The Board of Supervisors appreciates receiving the Authority's invitation to comment. We hope the Board's principles will be used as a reference in discussing and making decisions on the renewal of Measure C-88. Sin ely, Donna Gerb , hair Contra Costa aunty Board of Supervisors Encl. Cc: Regional Tramportation Planning Committees Chair,Metropolitan,Transportation Commission TO: Board of Supervisors ATTACHMENT B Costa FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure County Committee DATE: March 7, 2000 SUBJECT: Updated Transportation Action Plans for Contra Costa Count SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Consider draft updated Action Plans for transportation Improvements, developed by the County's regional transportation planning committees, and provide Comments to these committees as described in Exhibit B. FISCAL IMPACT None directly. However, adoption of the updated Action Plans by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority will establish requirements that cities and the County must meet in order to receive their Measure C-88 return-to-source funds. On February 8, 2000, the Board of Supervisors referred the Action Plan Updates to the Transportation, Water and infrastructure Committee. On February 14, 2000, the Committee reviewed the matter and is recommending this report to the Board. The recommendations in this report will help ensure that the County can meet the Action Plan requirements and continue to receive Measure C-88 return- to-source funds. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -A-YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE SIGNATURES : ohn Gula Chair 4yle Ullkema ACTION OF BOARD ON March 7, 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the comments in Exhibit B are to be TRANSMITTED bj 'thd Regional Transportation Planning Committees and that the comments reflect the General Policy of the Board of Supervisors (Exhibit C attached) and that the Board of Supervisors is not specifically;:endorsing the action plans. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Greitzer (925/335-1201) ATTESTED March 7, 2000 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CL C NTY A INISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY Updated Transportation Action Plans for Contra Costa County March 7, 2000 Page 2 BACKGROUNDlREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The draft Action Plan Updates are available for review and comment through March 31, 2000. County staff participates on the technical advisory committees that helped develop the plans. The draft plans have been forwarded by the regional transportation planning committees to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, which will use them in updating the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Following the close of the review period, the regional transportation planning committees will adopt final versions of the plans and forward them to the Authority for inclusion in the Authority's final Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Pian. The Board of Supervisors is asked to consider whether the plans adequately reflect county interests. Generally, two elements of the plans were updated: the traffic service objectives, which serve as performance standards for the regional transportation systems, and the actions called for in the plans. Exhibit A provides a summary of the Action Plan Updates. Exhibit B provides comments and suggested additions to the plans, as approved by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on February 14. The comments and suggestions pertaining to rail transportation reflect recommendations made by the Contra Costa County Ad floc Intercity Rail Advisory Committee (AiRAC). The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee approved these comments on February 14 as part of its review of the Action Plan Updates. The Action Plan Updates were developed by TRANSPLAN (for East County), TRANSPAC (for Central County), WCCTAC (West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee), SWAT (Southwest Area Transportation), and TVTC (Tri-Valley Transportation Council). Exhibit A, Summary of the Action Flan updates, and Exhibit C, Transportation Investment Principles, are not included in "Attachment B 6 ` 3 EXHIBIT A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ' 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: 335-1290 Fax. 335-1299 TO: Transportation, 'Water and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Steven L. Goetz, Transportation Planning Division5�t DATE: June 2, 2000 SUBJECT: Draft 2000 Update of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan This staff report is provided to assist the Committee's review of the subject document and it's accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Previously, the Board submitted comments to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(Authority) on related activities. These include priorities for the renewal of Measure C-88 (Attachment A), the draft updates to the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Attachment B), and potential revisions to the Authority's Growth Management Program(Attachment Q. This staff report is based upon these earlier actions of your Board. Chapter 3; Vision. Goals and Strategies The Plan's vision is to strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy. This vision includes principles and assumptions to provide a framework for the goals of the Plan and the strategies for achieving them. Can February 15, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted principles for making future transportation investments in the County. The Board submitted these principles to the Authority and the RTPCs to help guide the selection of projects and programs to include in a proposal to extend the transportation sales tax. The Authority may wish to use the Board's principles to modify the'Vision, Goals and Strategies so that it is a more integrated approach to preserve and enhance our quality of life. For example, important quality-of-life outcomes that are articulated in the Board's principles but which are not referenced in Chapter 3 include: - Providing commuters with convenient alternatives to driving alone; - Achieving the safe and efficient movement of people and goods; - Supporting the development of more affordable housing; - Producing measurable reductions in air pollution from motor vehicles, .. Providing a comprehensive and countywide public transit system that meets the mobility needs of low-income, elderly, disabled, and school-age residents. These quality-of-life outcomes should be included in the core values of county transportation policy .t, and, therefore, mentioned in the Plan's vision. Chapter 4: The Transportation System Chapter 4 describes each part of the county's transportation system which includes roadways, transit systems, bikeways, and high-occupancy vehicle, pedestrian and goods movement facilities. The purpose of Chapter 4 is to describe the Plan's strategies for ensuring that each part functions r el optimally, and is operated and maintained as one system. Comments for the Committee's consideration address issues that involve roadways, public transit, bikeways, and goods movement facilities. Page 25 of the Plan describes the strategy to expand the highway and arterial systems in a manner that is consistent with a counrywide plan to influence the location and nature of anticipated growth. It is not clear if this entire document represents the countywide plan, or if a separate countywide plan will be prepared for that purpose. The Authority proposes to look at transportation improvement programs to ensure that these programs support an efficient land use pattern and prevent sprawl. How this will be done and when is not mentioned. This question can be directed to the Authority's representative at the meeting. Page 26 describes issues related to providing transit service to choice riders and the transit dependent. In 1999, with the assistance of the Authority and the MTC, the County completed its Contra Costa Welfare to Work Transportation Action Plan. A major finding of that plan is the preference of low- income residents for using bus transit due to its low cost and flexible service. Another major finding is that most low-income residents reside in West County and East County, while most of the job opportunities for low-income residents were located in Central County. A high priority, but unfunded project of that plan is to improve bus transit links between West County and Central County, and between East County and Central County. The Authority's Plan should include a commitment to investigate opportunities to reduce the cost and the time involved in taking transit from East County and Nest County to Central County. On page 34, the Authority states that a detailed set of bikeway facilities, and a program for expanding them would be developed in a countywide bikeway plan. The Authority, however, does not propose to begin preparing this bikeway plan until three years from now. There are a number of funding opportunities available to local agencies annually for construction bicycle transportation facilities. Preparation of a bikeway plan in FY 2000/01 would enable local agencies to compete more effectively for these funds two years sooner than the schedule proposed by the Authority. The Plan should propose to fund and schedule preparation of a bikeway plan in FY 2000/2041. This comment is consistent with the Board's comments made on the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance on March 7, 2000, and with the.Board's comments made on the initial Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan in 1995. On page 38, the map describing designated goods movement facilities(Figure 22) does not include Kirker Pass Road, which is designated as a truck route by the County. The Authority should evaluate how that route affects truck routes in Concord and Walnut Creek. There are other gaps in goods movement facilities that should be highlighted on this map. There is no designated truck route connecting several major industrial facilities in Richmond to the Richmond Parkway. Currently, trucks from these facilities use local streets in North Richmond to access the Parkway. The West County Action Plan refers to the North Richmond Truck Access Study which will identify transportation improvements to accommodate truck traffic between these industrial facilities and the Parkway. This study will recommend transportation improvements to goods movement facilities in the area and should be referenced on Figure 22. This issue and the need to pursue a study should also be referenced on page 75 as one of the significant issues facing the I-80 Corridor. The East County Action Plan refers to the proposed State Route 239 Interregional Corridor Study, which is intended to develop recommendations for improving transportation routes between Contra Costa and the Central Valley. A major issue to be evaluated by this study is truck access. Truckers travel this corridor via Byron Highway. This study will make recommendations for transportation improvements to goods movement facilities and should be referenced on Figure 22. Chapter 5 Growth Manement Chapter 5 outlines strategies, both adopted and proposed, to define a growth management program (CMP)that would go 20 years beyond the existing Measure C-88 program. On May 9, 2000, the Board of Supervisors provided comments to the Authority on options for changes to the existing GMP. Since this plan was released on May 1, the Authority has not has an opportunity to respond to these comments. The Plan proposes a number of options and alternatives for defining a future GMP. - Working with RTPCs and local jurisdictions to analyze alternatives for future development; - Work with other groups(public or private)to carry out cooperative planning for land use and future development within Contra Costa and the region. - Once local jurisdictions agree to an urban limit line or other growth management approaches, the Authority will use transportation investments to support these approaches; - When assessing whether to implement or fund a project, consider its affects on the adjoining land uses and the general community; Require local jurisdictions, as part of the GMP, to demonstrate compliance with policies and standards that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new development. These proposals could potentially support the Board's previous comments, which call for the focus of the future CMP to change from the present one. However, the Plan does not have an implementation schedule to evaluate the options and alternatives and to reach consensus on the definition of a future GMP. The Plan should include such a process and schedule. Chapt r 6: Action Plans On March 7, 2000, the Board of Supervisors commented on the Draft Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. These comments were submitted to each RTPC and the Authority. This Chapter was prepared before the RTPCs had an opportunity to respond to the Board's comments. Chapter 7: Travel Corridors Chapter 7 describes the unique set of issues and the Plan's varied strategies for improving mobility in each of six travel corridors serving Contra Costa. For the 1-80 Corridor, the Plan should include a description of the goods movement issue in North Richmond and the strategy to proceed with the North Richmond Truck Access Study. The County has submitted an application to the Federal Highway Administration for a grant to fund this study. Highlighting this issue in the Plan can assist cooperative efforts by the County, the Authority, WCCTAC, San Pablo, and Richmond to develop a contingent strategy if the County's grant request is not funded. It can also assist in completing such studies and incorporating their recommendations into future updates to this Plan. The I-80 Corridor description should also include a description of the emerging transit access issue in West County. Access to BART stations, the Capitols, and other transit centers is becoming a more significant problem as this corridor relies more heavily on transit to maintain mobility. For the I-680 Corridor, the Plan should include a description of the need to improve transit service along the corridor and at its connections with East County and West County in order to serve transit- dependent residents. The Plan should include a strategy to investigate opportunities to reduce the cost and the time involved in taking transit from East County and West County to Central County. For the I-580/Tri Valley Corridor, the Authority should explore the unique opportunity to cooperate with the Interregional Partnership, which is an association of the five counties(Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Joaquin and Stanislaus)that rely on this corridor for access to jobs and housing. The Interregional Partnership is concemed with traffic congestion and sprawl, and is examining a set of strategies that can achieve traffic relief, more affordable housing and compact development. Chapter 8• Im_pl?mentation Chapter 8 describes the activities and schedule for achieving the Plan's vision. Previous comments in this report have identified revisions for this chapter. Gine additional comment to raise is the potential need for more direct involvement of the transit operators, the cities and the County in achieving the Plan's vision. The Authority has highlighted the RTPCs, MTC, ABAG and the Air District as the different bodies it will seek participation from to put the strategies of the Plan into effect. A countywide forum or forums that allow all transit operators to participate together and all local jurisdictions to participate together may also aid some of these strategies. Draft EIR The Draft EIR focuses on the impacts of the proposed Plan as a whole. Impacts are evaluated relative to existing conditions (Baseline), the No Project alternative(implementation of the 1995 Plan), a Highway/HOV/Express Bus alternative (Alternative 1), a Fixed Guideway/Transit alternative (Alternative 2), and a Maintenance/Operations Only alternative(Alternative 3). Alternative 3 has the least environmental impacts, however, it does not achieve the Plan's vision to strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy. Twelve significant adverse environmental impacts will remain significant, even if the proposed mitigation measures are adopted. These impacts include: - Transportation and circulation(1 impact); - Air quality(2 impacts); - Noise (1 impact); - Land use and population(2 impacts); - Biological resources (1 impact); - Geology and seismicity(2 impacts),- Water mpacts);Water resources/hydrology(2 impacts); and - Energy(1 impact). If all proposed mitigation measures are adopted, there may be a need to incorporate them into the Plan, including adding appropriate activities and schedules to the implementation section of the Plan. Some of the proposed mitigation measures that are not specifically included in the Plan include: - To address increased congestion levels, the Draft EIR proposes that the RTPCs review the Circulation Draft Action Plans to ensure that all feasible actions are incorporated to improve the operation of deficient segments, provide alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, and reduce travel demand; - To address increased air pollution and energy use, the Draft Elm.proposes that the Authority will work with local, regional and State agencies to implement TCMs effectively as a way to reduce the number and length of trips made in the county and the region. - To address impacts of growth that differ from planned growth in the county, the Draft EIR proposes that the Authority will participate in a regional cooperative land use planning process with agencies, both within and outside Contra Costa. - To address destruction of habitat, the Draft Elft.proposes that the Authority will work with other agencies to investigate whether the development of a countywide Habitat Conservation Plan could provide an effective way to achieve local goals for preserving habitat and maintaining environmental quality while balancing other development goals. Given the potential for finding significant, unavoidable adverse impacts with adoption of the Plan, the Authority may wish to consider a more rigorous evaluation of alternative plans that could achieve reductions in air pollution, energy use, and land use impacts compared to the proposal for adoption. Next Stens There are a number of detailed, non-substantive comments to the text, figures, and project list in the Plan. County staff is has not completed finalizing these non-substantive comments. These can be included in the Committee's recommendation to the Board, which must be scheduled for the Board's consideration no later than their June 13`h meeting. FiieAtwicicctp.memo.doc Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C De ATTACHMENT B Recommendations to the Regional 'transportation Planning Committees on Draft Action Plan Updates East County Action Plan Update Recommendation: Suggest the following revisions to TRANSPLAN: • Add a map of existing and proposed bikeways for the East County area and recommend to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority that this map be included as part of a countywide pedestrian and bikeway element of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation:Plan. • Add an action supporting the funding of alternative-fueled vehicles for transit operators, to improve air quality. • Encourage the use of alternative commute modes by supporting more active promotion of RIDES ridesharing service and commute incentives. • Add an action for increased coordination of bus services between transit operators(both intra-county and inter-county). • Supporting the plan's proposal to explore commuter rail transit for East County on existing tracks, emphasize the need to use existing rails instead of constructing new rail lines. • Encourage TRANSPLAN and participating agencies to proceed with development of more specifics for the rail recommendations in the plan(rail service from East County to other parts of the county and connecting rail service to the ACE trains bound for Silicon Valley). • Add a recommendation to have new East County rail service connect with the North Concord BART station,using existing rail rights of way that parallel the Port Chicago Highway near the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Continue to emphasize the role of the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station as the primary intermodal transfer point for bus-to-BART connections. West County Action Plan Update Recommendations: Suggest the following revisions to the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: • Regarding rail service expansion,urge WCCTAC to focus on adding commute runs to the Capitol Corridor line rather than a BART extension. This was the recommendation of the recent Interstate 80 Major Investment Study, due to the high cost of BART extensions compared to the use of conventional trains on existing tracks(i.e. the Capitol Corridor line). • Ask that WCCTAC add a new action in the list of actions pertaining to the Richmond Parkway, as follows: "Create truck access routes to the Richmond Parkway that minimize truck traffz''c through residential areas. Specific projects should include extension o,f 1 discontinuous struts in North Richmond such as Pittsburg Avenue and 2,4 Street or Soto Streets with final improvements to be determined through the County's North Richmond Community Enhancement and Circulation Project." (Improved circulation within North Richmond would create a route for trucks to get to the.Richmond.Parkway with less impact on homes and the Verde School. The County has applied for a federal planning grant relating to the road extensions and a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing of railroad tracks between North Richmond and San Pablo.) • Urge WCCTAC to press forward with its proposed exploration of transit service reorganization along the San Pablo Darn Road and Camino Pablo corridors, to improve service in the area; and its proposal to improve bus service linking the West County cities. In particular,recommend that the actions included expanded bus service between Pinole, Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett. • The Corridor Action Plan for San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo—which is incorporated in the draft updated West County Action Plan—should revise the action for a proposed High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities Needs Study by establishing a schedule for the study to be initiated jointly by SWAT and WCCTAC within two years. • Add a map of existing and planned bikeways for the'West County area and recommend to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority that this map be included as part of a countywide pedestrian and bikeway element of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. • Add an action supporting the funding of alternative-fueled vehicles for transit operators,to improve air quality. • Encourage the use of alternative commute modes by supporting more active promotion of RIDES ridesharing service and commute incentives. • Add an action supporting increased coordination of bus services between transit operators (both intra-county and inter-county). • Urge WCCTAC to add a reference to the need for transit-oriented development around rail stations in West County. This type of development will not only make it easier for people to use transit,but will address some people's fears about security at rail stations by bringing more people to the rail station areas,making them less"deserted"and safer. Latnorinda Action Plan Recommendations: Suggest the following revisions to Lamorinda: • Add a map of existing and proposed walkways/bikeways for the Lamorinda area and recommend to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority that this map be included as part of a countywide pedestrian and bikeway element of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 2 • The Corridor Action Plan for San Pablo Dain Road& Camino Pablo should revise its action for a proposed High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities Needs Study by establishing a schedule to the study to be initiated jointly by SWAT and WCCTAC within two years. • Add an action supporting the funding of alternative-fueled vehicles for transit operators,to improve air quality. • Encourage the use of alternative commute modes by supporting more active promotion of RIDES ridesharing service and commute incentives. • Add an action supporting increased coordination of bus services between transit operators (both intra-county and inter-county). Central County Action Plan Recommendations: Suggest the following revisions to TRANSPAC. • Add an action supporting the funding of alternative-fueled vehicles for transit operators,to improve air quality. • Encourage the use of alternative commute modes by supporting more active promotion of RIDES ridesharing service and commute incentives. • Add an action supporting increased coordination of bus services between transit operators (both intra-county and inter-county). • Support the plan's intercity rail recommendations,which call for increased service on existing routes(the Capitol Corridor,the San Joaquins, and Amtrak services) and completion and expansion of service using the new Intermodal Facility in Martinez. • Add a recommendation to have new East County rail service connect with the North.Concord BART station,using existing rail rights of way that parallel the Port Chicago Highway near the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Continue to emphasize the role of the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station as the primary transfer point for bus-to-BART connections. • Recommend that TRANSPAC add a reference to the need for transit-oriented development around rail stations, to make it easier for people to use rail service. The presence of rail stations, and policies for transit-oriented development, can attract major development proposals that work well with rail transit. • Recommend that TRANSPAC support rail connections to the ACE commuter express, similar to the ACE connections called for in the,East County Action Plan referenced earlier. 3 e /S-/S / Tri-Valley Action Plan Recommendations: Suggest the following revisions to the Tri-galley Transportation Council: + Add an action supporting the funding of alternative-fueled vehicles for transit operators,to improve air quality. • Encourage the use of alternative commute modes by supporting more active promotion of RIDES ridesharing.service and commute incentives. Add an action supporting increased coordination of bus services between transit operators (both intra-county and inter-county). • Support the plan's recommendation that the ACE train be permanently continued after its demonstration-project status expires, and that the service be expanded. • Regarding the plan's recommendation for an eastward BART extension to Greenville in Livermore, with a connection to the ACE train, comment that BART extensions are very expensive and there may be more cost-effective ways to get more Tri-'galley commuters to the ACE train. 4 ATTACHMENT C 6 TO.' ` BOARD OF SUP "kVISORS i FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ••• ''� Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: APRIL 18, 2000 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO THE DISSCUSSION PAPER, OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVE the transmittal of the following recommendations to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) in response their discussion paper, Options for the growth Management Program (Exhibit A), published by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority: 1. Develop a general agreement on the purpose and goals of the Growth Management Program (GMP) focusing on the following topic areas: • Providing commuters with reliable and convenient alternatives to driving alone; Supporting a countywide policy for compact development and redevelopment that achieves long-term protection of open space, appropriate infill of developed areas, reductions in our reliance on automobiles, economic revitalization, and more affordable housing; and • Development of an implementation program that will require measurable results for traffic relief, increases in affordable housing, and compact development. 2. Develop a single system of GMP requirements that are applicable for all jurisdictions. 3. Develop procedures that encourage jurisdictions to comply with GMP standards, and develop sanctions for noncompliant jurisdictions without negatively affecting other jurisdictions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: V YES SIGNATURE , RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR , RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO MITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD ON April 18, 2000 OTHER IT I5 BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the ratter listed above is CONTINUED to May 9, 2000. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT NONE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:- NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Daniel J. Pulon, AICP (9251335-1241) ATTESTED April 18-2000 cc. Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works Department (PWD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY DJP/:mk s:4dv4mn\Dan-the-manlmagorietGMPCCTA.doe RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO THE DISSCUSSION PAPER,OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM April 18,2000 Pape 2 RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUE 4. Research the establishment of joint a urban limit line with all the cities and the County relative to the existing constraints of Measure C — 1590. 5. Research the establishment of GMP requirements that consider factors involved in the construction of affordable housing, such as Housing Elements, residential development market forces, and affordable housing construction opportunities. FISCAL IMPACT No impact to the general fund. Changing aspects of the Measure C Checklist could, however, affect the " return-to-source" revenue the County receives each fiscal year. The County has previously received $1.9 million and $1.7, respectively, for FY 1995/1599 and FY 159711998. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS During the 1999/2000 legislative session, State Senator Burton introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 (SCA 3) to allow transportation sales tax measures for transportation projects and programs in each county with the one time passage of a majority vote, rather than the existing requirement of 213 votes. For Contra Costa County jurisdictions, the passage of SCA 3 could have provided the voters in the county an opportunity to extend our existing Measure C sales tax for countywide transportation projects and programs another twenty(20) years. SCA 3, however, is no longer viable since it lacked strong legislative and gubernatorial support. On February 15, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted principles (Exhibit B) for the renewal of Measure C which addressed revisions to the Growth Management Program and how sales tax revenue could be used to promote improved coordination between land use and transportation planning. These principles are centered on promoting transit, compact development, affordable housing, improved air quality, and open space preservation. These principles suggest that a jurisdiction's eligibility for receiving sales tax revenues generated by the renewal of Measure C be linked to compliance with the Growth Management Program. While SCA 3 was still viable, Authority staff examined the Growth Management Program component of our existing Measure C requirements to receive funds for local street improvements, known as "return-to-source"funds. Their examination yielded the attached discussion paper: Options thr the Growth Management Program (Exhibit A). The Authority is circulating the discussion paper to Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and Board of Supervisors for comments by April 21, 2000 for OCTA Board consideration at its May 2000 meeting. Now with the demise of SCA 3, the Authority will discuss these comments to develop the basis for " mid-course corrections" of some aspects of the existing Growth Management Program and Measure C Checklist. County staff discussions yielded technical comments, annotated in Exhibit A, and the following five (5) recommendations for consideration as the Board's comments to forward to the Transportation Authority: 1. Develop a general agreement on the purpose and goals of the Growth Management Program (GMP)focusing on the following topic areas: • Providing commuters with reliable and convenient alternatives to driving alone; • Supporting a countywide policy for compact development and redevelopment that achieves long-term protection of open space, appropriate Infill of developed areas, reductions In our reliance on automobiles, economic revitalization, and more affordable housing; and RECOMMENDATIONS To THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO THE DISSCUSSION PAPER, OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM April 18, 2000 Paige 4 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED 6, Research the establishment of GMP requirements that consider factors involved in the construction of affordable housing, such as Housing Elements, residential development market forces, and affordable housing construction opportunities. As a GMP requirement for addressing affordable housing needs, the CCTA suggested that jurisdictions must meet their housing objectives identified in their housing elements in order to receive their return-to-source funds. A Housing Element has housing targets for various income groups within a jurisdiction; however, achieving the Housing Element objectives is beyond the control of local jurisdictions. Using the Housing Element as guide, the actual construction of affordable housing units is contingent upon residential development market forces, (e.g. housing supply/demand) and affordable housing opportunities (e.g. housing grants, CDBG, etc.) GMP requirements should be developed that consider all the factors involved in the construction of affordable housing, such as Housing Elements, residential development market forces, and affordable housing construction opportunities. Please tie aware that some jurisdictions have informed the CCTA that they will be submitting comments after the April 21, 2040 due date. After reviewing the above recommendations and the attached documents (Exhibits A and B), the Board of Supervisors may desire to re-schedule this item to deliberate on this matter further or refer it to a Board of Supervisors Committee. Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this Board Order are not included. RECOMMENDATIONS To THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO THE DISSCUSSION PAPER,OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM April 18,2000 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED • Development of an Implementation program that will require measurable results for traffic relief Increases In affordable housing, and compact development. There is general consensus among observers that the passage of Measure C(1988)was aided by the Grp Management Program (GMP) component. As defined by the CCTA in 1988, and implemented through the Checklist, the GMP was a success because it encouraged jurisdictions to plan cooperatively, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the development of performance standards. In the year 2000, the CCTA should re-consider the purpose and goals of the GMP for the future, before modifying the existing Checklist. The discussion paper raises our awareness about the need for a general agreement of the purpose and goals of the future Growth Management Program. On February 15, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted seven (7) principles for developing the Expenditure Plan and GMP for the renewal of Measure C— 1988 (Exhibit B). The principles suggest certain outcomes for the GMP and the need to use the Checklist to measure those outcomes. Although the Board of Supervisors developed these principles for the Expenditure Plan in preparation of SCA 3, the principles have applicability to the discussion paper in developing the basis for" mid-course corrections" of some aspects of the existing GMP and Checklist. The principles could be the framework for developing the general agreement on the purpose and goals of the GMP. 2. Develop a single system of GMP requirements that are applicable for all jurisdictions. The CCTA proposed as an option to reward those jurisdictions that exceed minimum GMP requirements. However, having the minimum program requirements and requirements beyond the minimum would create a dual standard or tiered system. Conceivably, with twenty (20) local jurisdictions taking different approaches to the GMP requirements, this type of requirement system could be complicated and confusing to administer. 3. Develop procedures that encourage jurisdictions to comply with GMP requirements, and develop sanctions for non-compliant jurisdictions without negatively affecting other jurisdictions. As an option, the CCTA suggested withholding a jurisdiction's share of"return-to-source" funds when a jurisdiction fails to comply with the GMP requirements and removing regional projects from the Strategic Plan and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)serving the non- compliant community's growth. However, removing a regional project from the Strategic Plan or STIP is impractical because such projects may benefit other jurisdictions having complied with the GMP requirements. The CCTA should ensure that any transportation funds withheld from a non-compliant jurisdiction does not adversely impact other jurisdictions. 4. Research the establishment of a joint urban limit line with all the cities and the County relative to the existing constraints of Measure C_ 1990. As an option to consider, the CCTA suggested a GMP requirement to establish a joint urban limit line of RTPC member jurisdictions. This boundary should reflect the location of critical resource lands, including wetlands, habitat and agricultural reserves, and adequately accommodate forecast growth. The County is currently constrained by Measure C — 1990 and the interrelationship with 65/35 Land Preservation Standard in how it can modify the Urban Limit Line based on one (1) or more of seven (7) specific findings. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standards was a fundamental component of Measure C-- 1990. Developing a joint Urban Limit Line and Compliance Program with all the cities and the County would involve the 65135 Land Preservation Standard, the Authority should research this option further, relative to the existing constraints of Measure C - 1990. -Is-rte 35 EXHIBIT B Editorial Corrections to the Draft 2000 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Page xi: Add a notation to the San Pablo Darn Road/Camino Pablo Corridor for the HOV Facility Needs Study. Page xviii: Add the Center Avenue/Marsh Drive/Solana Way Bikeway. It is proposed Class IUIII facility that provides important east/west access south of SR 4 and under I- 650. Page xviii: The TSO for San Pablo Dam Road is a delay index of 2.0. Page xvix: The TSO for Bailey Rd is LOS E in the Pittsburg/Bay Point area. Page xxii: Revise the description of the projects on San Pablo Dam Road and the State Route 4 Bypass to be consistent with the project description in the Appendix. Page xxiii: Clarify that the"studies" may occur in the Track 1 time frame. Add the widening on State Route 4 from Oakley to Discovery Bay as listed in the appendix. Add the widening to Byron Highway consistent with the revisions to the Appendix. Page 26: Another important route to include in the description of the bus operators' service Route 950, connecting El Sobrante and the Orinda BART station. Page 30: Add the San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo Corridor HOV Needs Facility study to Figure 20. Page 34: The Plan's strategy for closing gaps in the existing highway and arterial system can play a significant role in development of a countywide bikeway system if the Authority would promote including bikelanes, sidewalks, and bikeway signs where appropriate. This action should be mentioned under this strategy. Page 53: Figure 23 should show the segment of Vasco Road between Walnut Boulevard and Camino Diablo as a completed facility. Page 56: Table 6-1 should reference 1)the proposed actions on Richmond Parkway to include the North Richmond Truck Access Study and 2)the proposed actions on San Pablo Dam Road to include"funding for regional route HOV facility needs study," 7 Page 57: The updated Central County Action Plan revised the TSO's to recommend that the Delay Index be applied to the entire regional route, rather than be applied to various segments of these routes. 1 yll� Page 63: On Table 6-3,the comparison of Action 9 to the Plan's goals should be the same of Action 9 on Table 6-4. Page 78: The description of Expanded Transit Service on San Pablo Dam Road should include more direct as well as more frequent bus service along the corridor. The existing service involves a transfer between AC and County Connection buses. Page 78: Studies such as the H©V Facility Needs Study for the Camino Pablo/San Pablo Dam Road Corridor, and the North Richmond Truck Access Study should be included on this page. Page 80: Add the Bay Trail gap closures to the list of programmed and planned projects. Page 84: The description of Additional Arterial improvements should be revised to include widening of Camino Tassajara (south of Windemere.parkway), Arthur Road, Geary Road, and Fallon Road, realignment of Pacheco Boulevard and Camino Tassajara (north of Windemere Parkway).... This more precise language is important since projects on certain portions of Camino Tassajara can be controversial. Page 89: The first full paragraph should be revised to read as follows: These improvements to State Route 4 and the Bypass will, however, primarily serve the commute to the west. Many commuters, especially those to jobs in the Tri-Valley or from homes in the Central Valley, would prefer a more direct route to the south or southeast, along the proposed State Route 239 Corridor and along the route for the proposed commuter rail service to the ACE station in Livermore. In addition, truckers looking for more direct or less congested routes into Contra Costa are using Byron Highway and Sate Roue 4 more frequently. Except for the portion of Vasco Road north of the County line, current routes to the south or southeast are limited to Vasco Road and the Byron Highway, both of which are two-lane roadways developed to rural highway standards and were not designed as commute routes. Also, Caltrans does not plan to widen SR 4 east from Byron to the San Joaquin county line. Page 90: The Vasco Road safety improvement is south of the county line, not north of the county line. Page 94: 1-580 Altamont Pass Interregional Corridor Study is a more precise title that what is used on this page. Page 95: The Wilbur Avenue bridge is completed. Page 103: Supporting agencies for the Comprehensive I-680 Corridor Study should include TR.ANSPAC and the TVTC. Page 103: Supporting agencies for Coordination with RTPCs should include the TVTC. 7 & Page B-2: The description of Project 18 should be revised to read: wild ultimate truck climbing lane.... This language will distinguish the project from the interim climbing lane that was recently completed by the County. Page B-2: Project 93 should be revised as follows: San Pablo Dam Road Access Improvement Description: Provide circulation and access improvements for local traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists to be determined through the Downtown Revitalization Study. Project Limits: Bl Portal Drive to Appian Way Cost: TBD Completion Date: TBD This road is on the Metropolitan Transportation System, Page B-7: The listing of studies should include the following: San Pablo Dam Road Implementation Program Project Limits: Appian Way to Tri Lane Description: Includes a roadway alignment study, consistent roadway standards, and a capital improvement program for improvements such as widening, turn channelization, median construction, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Project Sponsors: County(lead agency), Richmond Cost: $100,000. County/city funds Completion Date: 2001 North Rich. mind Truck Access tudv Project Limits: North Richmond and adjacent areas of Richmond and San Pablo Description: Develop a truck route linking the North Richmond and Richmond industrial areas with Richmond Parkway and other highways. Sponsors: County(lead agency), Richmond, and San Pablo. Cost: $2.1 million Completion Date: 2002 HOV FaciIiily Nee #7.8.g.) ds Study{see West County Action Plan for details, Action San Paulo Dam Road Transit Access and Facilities Study (see West County Action Plan for details, Action#7.8i. and j.) Page B-8: Project 170 is completed. Page B-9: Add the following projects: Center Ave-Marsh Drive-Solano Way Bikeway Project Limits: Hidden Lakes Drive to Arnold Industrial Way Description: Class IMII bikeway for alternate east-west access along State Route 4, a Regional Route, CMP Route and MTS Route, south of the freeway. Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County Cost: 170,304 Revenue: FY 00/01 TFCA County Program Manager Grant and County funds. Completion Date: June 2002 Bay Trail Clap Closure Project Limits: Port Costa to Ozol Description: Construct 8' Class I bikeway Project Sponsors: County(lead), East Bay Regional Park District) Cost: TBD Completion Date: TBD .Page B-14: Revise Project 14 as a shoulder widening, various locations, at$684,040, south of State Route 4 to south of Camino Diablo. Add new project as follows: Byron Highway shoulder widening Description: widen shoulders and add turn lanes. Project limits: South of Camino Diablo to County line. Sponsor: County Cost: TBD Completion Date: TBD These above projects should be described on Figures VI and VII. Page B-14: Limits of Project 135b are south of county line to Livermore. Alameda County is the sponsor. Page B-14: Projects 67 and 192 should be on Figures VI and VII. Page B-16: Cost estimate for Project 204 is law. Page B-17: Revise Project 46a description to specify the expressway as "two-lanes", and add a new project that would expand Project 46a to a four-lane configuration at $12 million. Page B-17: The limits of Project 46b are Lone Tree Way to Balfour. Page B-17: Cost estimate for Project 46c is $25 million. Page B-17: The limits of Project 169d are Loveridge to State Route 4 Bypass. A 'D Page B-23: The major arterial improvements serving Daugherty Valley should be listed Dere and included on Figure VI. Page B-23: Project 57 should be revised as follows: Description: realign and widen for bike lanes, Project Limits: east of Blackhawk Dr to county line. Page B-23: Contra Costa County is not a sponsor for Projects 153a and 153b. Please clarify this in the table. Circulation Drafts of the Action Plan Updates The West County Action Plan includes actions for San Pablo Dam Road. In addition, the Corridor Action Plan for San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo is included. There should be some attempt to better integrate these documents to avoid duplicate descriptions of actions related for the same corridor. This will lead to confusion regarding which document to use for Measure C- 88 compliance purposes, 0 � a a a IL a a a IL a c L- �= O 21 �,�• c c L as l 0 0CL CL Ln o N w c a ' 76 at U a g LA e37 � C7� c o m °c' U •� m C: ccs' °' ro v N a.) w '0 V EU 0 c c ro .5CO Q c _ _ 0 v C3 H- 0 +. D@JV 40g p 0 0 OIN bp bz 0 0 -cg u cl > a p ° ° ani :3 rn cz 0 ON C-4 -cl 0 wo o >0 it .00 Cc> X C: u C) 0 0 cl m ............. .......... ..................... ............................. ............. ........ C:C: c U W Qj 'a) CU (U >� 'o E ti cc 0 w Ll 'o 0 12 5 E (U ZE `0• CL '0 SO 6 A4 u -0 *0 Ln c >, 0 L CL E C -oE U0 E (u 0 ru 20 o u eo tj 2 C: A3 c Qj :3 0 E (u 0 CU 4� �n E > 0 0 u Cie m 0 Ll cc L C: 0 c mss4--� c E c 4 :0 12 E (,U E M CL tu > cu w -e- i �k t 12 v) E '05 CU E, U cu (cu: 0 Q, Jr� $1 E c aj Lo E 'C: t17 aj CL QJ 0 0) 0 !E w 0 E u -Sj to M C) 0 0 a C: U -0 c ru 0 a 'S @ E c: a) '10 E M aj F J� m (U 'is aa,J n L u c c cm: .= :3 cu cm '8, 1 v) - I rz CL cn .................... ............... ................. .......... ....... .................................................. .................. NO -$ !'-E ✓ti. EAS,, � ,� -� y � -� � bA "� � a � •� '� ��„ � � cid � � .� ...�"' ,� � ,� *� v 8 ..., o. U � bb w y a EAe 4j a 41 ei a� bb ro IS M ow U o 11 f.L U a cd �s O G7 Q. .c il. Cd 0 X41 e�3yami as C) � .n 4, 1 .� -d r a -d ami C0 � o U N a �; -0 E� 0 °' `, Jo. (U a e� + -45 5 +� a ,y O ¢moi cd a ►� c`� r G v G" �"' bA .o ate. Via± w V O r�` t�� p G U14 Cl. —u �r 0. yj V) a d a 14 p d u u 0 �' ou 0 y 000)duo ESA as "�J C3 a �sg . ° N 4-12-er) ............... ............ ........... ....................... o ow 'Cc: ccn '0= C: E cz Q) W CL E 2 'r- u 0 CL (L) 0 m CL zo m 6 C: as E Lg cu 0- cu 0- IT c C) > m 00 (D cn E E m 0 is CL 0 0 e 2 E E "o Q) o o> W C: 0) Q) > 'C: " 1 w CL 0 OE82 m 0 m L = (U 0 Z) `� g o c w CL o V) gu 0 m 0 C AEM -Ll I :--3 u 2M3 E > , 0 E u -C cu E E 0 j5 C) i Q) cn =3 U cu (U CL S CL 'p Ln ol , 0 E E -9 oj .3 o c cu 2 Ql) o '02 U 4.11 FL- �d C. m IL 30 U -P .0 (Ij m C) Q) 0 M :3 u 2 E E u u �2) 0) co C- m < cu u U-i ryi ...........- ..................... .......... ..o ........ ngI E bof0. Cl 4.A u C) 0 to 0 0 C) (U tA) 4.4 4.4 tz v0 cl 7a ju (U bio 4.4 A'e Z Z3 bl) w lu 0 c 4) .0 go *j -z: z r. 't w an tv 0 0 Up 10. Ag 41 '= �4 cz %4-s 5 -0 lz rs 10 9 V 0 0 tZ bb = -0 o u g 4) 0 -4Z 0 m CIO .0 bb 0 bb ':3 0 bo 0 0, -S 0 t 0 a 0 lu u 4j 4�6 4� ct lu r4 u rk) J") 0 14-t an u tg 0 u 11 3o) Jt tzi 0 L2 e 70 Z -S 'e79 cis72 21 IS -9 70 7 LL> 1 1 9 f !9 a CL W 78 CL Jar. A2 IL r= e` Me tai Lei -4i C-4 72 71 78 eu O0 ra. SL -8 to S2 72 9 d go Ci lX7 o-e >u bb td 03 r, t; bb 42 bo Eb bO > 00 4,j utt u Im m U tb bll C) bo u 04 u z:=. cd m S 4 C: S: .5 bb >, 0 bli 0 y 5� 0 bO 1-04 u 00, C2 0 0. to in. see .Sz >, X �t 11 , u o tA s -X� 43 u wu bo -0 Q 44 Cd to 59. �F� o" to 0 M 0 OR cm u tj C:6, 4) u Z3 rd *am Or v I b 4 2 u ow "go o 0 w -0 al wu .0 0 dw S u tb -IN b- 0--oo e17 s ;r x. • ` y , i It I-•-- f ill co �s } f w ^` �3 # •i, rte' y 4i [5 ! ,r+ 1 {' f •, oc v L 31 _. . 0 / ceC✓I .. + �...+tA' nC? l t - 0 N S t o ss C4 s' bR ',;I ? j ,its 0 's �o ', .. v ti N .• ca _ u bD "� sn OJ wee Cl vs Ow co "'D �3 +t" o> O *d� p O Ct 0 ¢ �c.� ` vs y U p t7 1 ¢ u ay Cs S� o bts� + a3 O c�i N �A un � cd C5 '" '.� +.+ -ct � � t 7 as �„ � •� n� � o � '� ,� sv a,� .� � � �+ vs by bb 'AM bt �.+ a C3 N 7' °� .,... �✓ °'� ",s� uyg'} t�., •h4 N �6 bD bb p a> �b Y3 � v aA rppm -tS � ,s� v, y � '� `�'S y .,,,, O a> C� N � w+ ny •�,, ay b � 4 % 00 ° toU .fix n N -8 o• T cl 6-1,?-tea 9`Y it rl /' w,�s'r.r►,�xs� �ftf � w f�4►�`° n x? t �o,�� r•� _�.�...■...�.�,.��......... ? It _ 71 t +.ww t j .•{.. .�_. / "R j s L as ,Nl .A to t ■ p eC 2 � a t c Al.� X0 k �1 e{ r / fit✓♦\ 9� .�' �1' / rpt r d� c "r✓ `ti,t,:,.„, / �� '� sk f tle�.1• . a.f � t L � j �� "eY#-"y lb ��y G�q Y oA OA o. td � as � � '• "� `"'� � � c, � 'L� ua c0 cCad bll � � t , 0 as Cl, 4.4 Vo, asbo o °' o ° .t tj "D 5 ° as OA as a o as -cs o, d as as anbb 0 an-ZI � td ' • r 4S C2 bo IR V. ata 'ti ' Ed, ov d ` o o Q .b c 0 tio ; t n bDc c, ,moo{{ . °� " " C,, 4) sji �y °m a y y y "4'� tl .�y �.� "{ 1+ r•,� �.•+, p�p,.>y{,} "'r` t1 CJ i3 y MCIC4 L:i RY4:' i•+„� tl ij b u r T41 ......... {................ ` > rN 1t ' cr S $L' mow,✓,: ! p � q�t k $ 1 W y If I i NA r F sM '10 rt m 0 �z bri 0 0 bl) Ow up, w ar Gr to ix sl u u low_ w 0. CEJ 0 4 0 n o u 4-4 iA tot o. bl 0 bb 0 190 0 -s =0 o. zl bri � 0 0 U 4 ti 0. bDbD w Ci t7 0 q 0,,� -Act S 0 o bb bB -V6 ta W 0. 0 0 0 16 bb 41 *T1 0 bll Ib "0 0 NO o bD 4 WE CL. J ✓ a y.n� � T�� V r.."\ .r � .OM1' "•`5 t a pij Al iv �Gi tit yo Fit IVA ioo { 4 ��`q + f, ',,lyM.. «Myr <4 #.,,, ♦ .....,... j f � + J ,✓^''N •j''' ``r � ,,,/'�'I ,•..r.i � ._...+"'^'"gym ..+`.5.. J� � � �� r�— tJ, r•M '�ut Ci • �y. Sif p r r .�✓ _ U U H O '�, � � � � �, � �y � �, � U Sao �. � °�: �'� ° � �"; �, �• °, '�� v� � a`1' `X� L3 � � � � C> �M w et' j°",,, C`l, Yal^ yY•y sir 7 . + t sJf "Cj PA va 0 VA 0 00 un eA OA IS `° Yc .� � `� � o '�, � •� �, � �, � 'moo � � � .� �. �, � wla f ` t of v5 JA t4 0 rA C+ wO G •„�',,, ii tJ *� °>+ w� O� Cay ,� ;"' 'v '„�� ,� Gj t,�+ •sh�• y� �•", � "'� O O "� y .g +�+ � C7 G+ ��', � ...� .� •"CS ,js +� t'.1 rn C� Cd C3+ :�+ o) '� 'Cd vt J6 0 bD V6 0 oil t3 C�+ C7 a Uw1 bD �M "; ' 4i .0 N s�, 0$ 0 44 u C" 41 Cll Cz, oo0 as so -mm 'o t 6 6 At ?, -. cu r� 'od 5 0 w und Citi W I I o to 0 W U C) r) iA 14�4 0 0 OR 0 lz N V� 0 cd o 1- U tt 0 04 U U MA 0 -0i N11'4 C.,. ris bMZ bt U U 0 � .0 0 � 0 u CIQ. A fc u or id .0 04 P MO 0 d C d �. p,. 4,1 . W. 0 4) 4.1 tu RL m C, 0. 0 0 0 u tom) dA-A '4.4 0 cg m Cc, o 0 0 r. to 'o P-, to 0 as 4A 'c3 �Iql > < tin 0 cl tl 0 Q as o bo 45 0 0 0 -0 bO W w A 0 tb 4 w " 5 cd g t. u co .5 0 u to -cs aha co Ow 0 bD '00, 0 5 5 0 06� 0 0 4) %A-a 0 Ch 0 0 %AM 0A 0 O Cc, 0 tb I 'g, 0 00 64 pZ, is a 4-0 zm t 00 tb cc o 0 00 ot a mu , 6 Is 4 s 00 bD "D I 0 o tL o, bD > .o 4j 15 u IR 15 1 0 u Jz OR bb CU, b.z CK 12 94 10 1 8 bB 0 4 I>u Cd `tip -0 aj 9. —0 WU -0 LP 0 :5 own W4-1 0 0 g vs 0 V u 14, Z S = . i N § 00. 6 -50 'Ebug zia o 0 -M 0 2 o> nz W 4Z bt J-- run to m ed u 0 ,0 o z 2 u os OR 2 1 tb u ba u U V e,) 0 >. baaU 40 WA t &- 0 o F u -5 —0 Z -u ro- U, 0 o = o —0 z 0 0 U0 ru 14-4 4 w 0 ia 0 -Z th IX 0 75 0 2E t �, It 1 w. r s� , 3k 4 f Ahi 91 .r : .... �.: .. JR s go �E4oil / J r fill 16 w 1 i • <b , f 0 0 d C1 9 # h1 a ' �f ` Y ' 4 t. 1h , -fit 9.4 \ fy 1 t , ■W J V tom.. _. 1� t .. x y r.. / f - y r jyr fit/ �"b"�� -�}�-r ✓ '`�r t atti 'f.. ��! J J''�� L�j J ,\. / da.�^' /+�''� IL t / '• .+' ..,a (`. 4° � i+ a�:W ' d • • • e. t LA ICU 41 r P l 1010 `pUOtBet y � � p y�j cwt! 6D t vs a� 00 a 0 0 0 0 cso !� 96 � ro . �a � 04 N 1. via 0 lk o ,m NO W 0 0 � Iwo � , skd .• ," lot -- cl oft w et C ° co co 'CO a � t-atr to3 o .1p. et C 01 tc,10 'ail - 0 CD er a• ' " 0 0 0 JAI o. TO p' a � ala. Ic '� "C C fit. +t got. a, a °. 'S ar '� � a CL �a o "a ' -a° arc W o SE eCL Iq "w. • b n . • ;, a s a` i b ° ° H jF R, �r., . "• 0 2 ., fv IL a & `... QQ Cr' cr a- +` i AL o- a a* 2 9 2 0- tom! to CL eo p C! S2 t7t f' r3 C+ p ° pry; OQ -0 c�a CAS. r_ guo) .y tea I. O o �► a. �o .. on 1 CL ST- ca. a �o a. sr. *0 I as c 0. AW, 0 CS Q to tb y y A a.At o Cc C, w c. �w r C: co 1010, tz 4y ,fit '. t3 > a' N o ` y. y C?. *, Lir, • �•Ci t 04 Lit " {� • say o o w tor- G �tl OZC C '` C. n C3 co .00 R tp 91 mCL g. ° 14 10 On- VA VQ 'C3 •.�'! � A+ �; � � CI" tiCi w � � � 'C3 �' � tb Gl9 4• �}�' �' tL a 00 " c o o ts ow aq Cid- ' ' tS - � ►�' too 0 � � fix. � c p, � � '�" ,� � �. "" .,� cL � � ro p�S A, �" �'' � v, `«7, ��►,, � ° � ��, tii "' ' ro ��• ro tQ cr e p C lom , n ril W .0 cr t2i 13 1 13 o to n CL c w N F.• . ' r o oti ° o. "► ro ` vo • tz �, a ° - � • M. Co a. u' • fl, • `a" vim '�. v`°, `ak'tl per ' 'G v> `► Ci *'+ rr rr if Pao en` � 0. n CL G �c n a b 04 to Jo w 04 aq r57 tzt ,`,�, , UQ as p�e ✓ CIS '�, fl �► � G�" C} � Cs f4 WW baa ,° Sol 0, rte+ ty tla * , "^ "` t3• "� S + ' Cie Iro "� ',+ �• t0 i+• G►•. , Shy Ir: �R � -15flid �. � lid Iz to w • to ay r* +'� � PIs f�MO � �`• �++ Gr' w tp ,�.► p, o• w ', t0 lo � to a Z ,y s RE!4� �a 1 MU I. Witt! •� ter �. �- saSt. Hit I �. 9, t en �, . . ' �, ir . 12 J.A L11 e - /-- /7a " Its IL vt 5�i4 vv it " *01 S cc ,,r lit 8 � At SA � a 106 -P'T V al sr sk st k g o� Elft �� 'r- FF FIN 94 R. ca St.'s f1w r I t r 91 rt . Q, it t • • tit F W F a I ar tit ir am I e *14 SY i� ILISol tit � r } i i N 1C8 ( i€ 4 t� Paul . � 'aar �, - tea. � - . � 1A41 S t all. � a � ..t ! ,T ca �- � a , . I - co r t .Vt till sit Ir I tr vir x std ` a 9L� U. 9 F6 s r 3 q S r still- it till 4 k SF$ f killI��t��€ �g� � 112 IIL � air Y ` q LIL 4 r t � 4} k G � -1 s r t� zill itl 9 f s ,I'l s ilk Ilk. r p6El. ' h� p s 6i } 1 Y Y L c$r6s � 9iIA N t � F § wa y pe fly !I t I f I SL flu J4 MI ir NO ► at a J1acm €fie f ar 1.4 at lei ar f tM5vvc 1�IL iL tit C 9 0 %. tit tit. lei Ir W. } h9 o� sr. 9 h2. .. 411 .r f S-s vlt so I-A WfA t lea Aft t t M qP �� p c: 0