HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05112004 - D4 d: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Contra
Cos;� � Coto
(Supervisor Millie Greenberg, Chair) 1
DATE: May 10, 2004Ou n ty
SUBJECT: Committee Report on the Reauthorization of Measure C-88
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT background information supporting the Committee's report on Measure C-88
reauthorization and providing input to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(see Exhibit A).
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 10, 2004, the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee (Committee)
discussed the reauthorization of Measure C-88, the half-cent sales tax for transportation
improvements and growth management. The Committee requested that the Board members be
provided with the background material that the Committee reviewed at this meeting.
Exhibit A is a copy of an electronic message from Robert McCleary, Executive Director of the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority), which was received by the County
Administrative Officer on May 7 2004. The message complies with a request made by the
Mayor's Conference on May 0. The Mayor's Conference requested that all jurisdictions
receive the most recent version of the Expenditure Plan, Project/Program Descriptions, the
proposed Growth Management Program, copies of letters from Danville and the SWAT
Committee, and the Measure C Renewal Event Schedule. Mr. McCleary's message also
summarizes the outcome of the May 5th meeting of the Authority's Planning Committee.
The Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee recommends that no further changes
be made to the Expenditure Plan or to the Project/Program descriptions.
The Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee recommends that the Board consider
the Danville and SWAT letters. The Committee is supportive of the Danville proposal for the
housing requirement to the Growth Management Program. The Committee has a significant
concern with the proposal by the SWAT Committee on the Urban Limit Line(ULL) requirement.
We object to an ULL that would be contiguous with a city's"planning area". The planning area
for some jurisdictions goes far beyond Sphere of Influence boundaries.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
t
SIGNATURE(S): Supervisor Millie Greenberg Superb or'Gayle B. Uilkema
ACTION OF BOARD ON = 11, 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED � OTHER X
Motion to acceptbackground information supporting the Carmi.ttee's report on Measure c-88
reauthorization and providing input to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority failed
for lack of second; Board requested staff that next Tuesday's agenda include an item for
considering the activities concerning the reauthorization of Measure C-88 and providing
input to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Steven Goetz (925/335-1240)
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED _Ma3�11, 20iy,
JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
G:\7ransporfation\TWiC\Board Orders\2004\measurea.5.doa BY ,� - .' �' �(- ¢ _ , DEPUTY
EXHIBIT A
(Ar ON
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATIONAUTIYORITY
TO: JOHN SWEETEN, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ALL CITY MANAGERS
FROM: ROBERT MC CLEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1. At the May 6th Mayors Conference, a request was made for the Authority to
forward the packet of information and other available material to the City Councils
for their review and comment. Comments should be received prior to May 19th.
2. Three main items were discussed on May 6th: (1)the Authority's "Working Draft"
Expenditure Plan; (2)potential revised requirements relative to housing for local
jurisdiction compliance with the Growth Management Program; and (3) a potential
new requirement for conformance with an Urban Limit Line(ULL)within the
Growth Management Program.
Compliance with both items (2) and(3)would be necessary for each local jurisdiction to
receive its formula share of 18% of the sales tax revenues -- currently$12 million per
year in aggregate-- as well as to be eligible for projects in the proposed new
Transportation for Livable Communities(TLC) category of capital improvements.
Attached for your reference are:
I. The Working Draft Expenditure Plan;
2. A summary and a more detailed description of the project and program components
of the "Working Draft" Expenditure Plan;
3. A description of the proposed Growth Management Program, including discussion
of options for items (2) and(3) above;
4. Copies of letters from Danville, and from the Southwest Area Transportation
Committee(SWAT),relative to the housing question.
5. Measure C Renewal Event Schedule.
The Authority's Planning Committee has recommended option 1 for housing compliance,
while forwarding the Danville and SWAT letters to the Authority for further discussion;
and a "mutually-agreeable" urban limit line. Your jurisdiction's positions on these three
items would be helpful to the Authority, and should be received by May 19th.
Please feel free to contact me at 256-4724, Paul Maxwell at 256-4735, or Martin
Engelmann at 2.56-4729 if you have any questions.
Exhibit A Page Number 1
-- ---------
DRAFT EXPENDITURE PLAN
April 21,2004 EPC Proposal Distribution of Funding By Subregion
uthWest East
est So
CAMALIMPMEV19INT
I Caldecott fourth bore 125 ---6,,.3,%, ............6�2.,.S.......................................J 62..S .................
...... .... .. ........
'TIKk ..Ra.fl Exte.nsion ..................... ............................... ..................i.5.0 7 150.0
.5% ....... ................... ..............
.......... .............I........-.--... .......1-...12,5...........6.3.O/o 125.0
......................Wideni ............................... ............................ ................ .............................. ....... ..............
7.5 7.5
Capital3 Route 4 east Corro5o) ..............
jTpEi�y!�Mtnts at Hercules an Martinez 15 0.8%
s EastCountyCorridors:SR4 B .......... 9.4 5 4..7% 94.5
�Wy ........ ..........................................................
. .. MD SR4
........... �X. ........................... .............. .......
InterchangeImprovements on 1-680&State Route 242
............................ ........... ............... .......................................................
80 Car o I Extension and Int6.
�E` �nq�..!Tprovements 30 1.5%
..p ...... .............. ....................... -............. .......... ...... ................
...... ..».. 25.0
8 I-68(1 Carpool i_ar e Gap Closure/Transit Corridor Improvements 100 75.0 ......... ............
........... ...... 20 1 0°l0 20.0
s Richmond Parkway
..........
oii�
su-MiCa"i", 695-$ -3;."So/,*-, -87
MUNDIWIDE CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE PRO-GRAM 36 1.8% 12.0 1010 3.0 11.0
io BART Parkipg,..!�� .................... ..............
..................................... ................. ............ ..................
............... ......»......
.....11 E -i�r-�e�Maintenance& 4 360 18.0% 10810 82.8 79.2 90.0
..........................
. .. ....... .................
.............. ........... ...................�4 29.0 24.0 18.0 29�0
.............-............ ....... 1.6�i -.1 1........--..... - I - -...
,sta for Livable Communities Project Grants 100 5,00/0
..........-.......I........... ...... . ....... ................. 0
13 Pedestrian/alcycle/Trail Facilities ............ 20
Uft a
g QQUNTYWIDE PI&QGMMS
14 Bus Services_Existing tog!�!��2 100 5.0% 24.0 52.0 15.0 9.0
.......... ...... .............. .......... ............ .......... ..............
.Elliiportatlon for Seniors& .tj I eS-2................. ........... 5.0% 25.0 35.0 17.0 210
............................
1b Express Sus ...............
,-171. Commute AlIternatives
........
..... ..........
............
_...................... .... .. .» 1:0°l0
......
n
ilities&Services . 60 3,00% ..................................................................
18 Congestion Mm� enen�4 Transpqrtation Planning, Fac
Other do-U,htyw01ro� ubtato 17 18 43.8
-
allBREMONAL J!=C0$IPRQGRAl4
19 Additional Bus Transit Enhancements 2 64.5 3.2% 24.0 40.5
n- .......... �-fo'r**S**'e-n'*lor*'s-and Pea le ......6i��Riil'e-s'1
with 23 1,2% 1.10- 11.0-- ....................
2t1 Add b .
............I....................... .......... ..................
Safe Transportation for Children 2
"Lamorinda and San Ramon Valley School Bus Programs,West County Low Income Student Bus Pass Program,
10.0 12.5 66.4
21 central county school Amess Programs,Pedestrian and Bicycle ImprOMMents,etc.) 883 4.4% ...... .............. .............
........... .....................-............. ........... ...........
so 2.5�;,, 50.0
,i�..t�n,Servlce in West County 1-.................. ............ ............... ....... .............
23 Additl� U��J'S-t-re-'e**t"s* an-d**'R,Roads.................
Maintenance* --*-*'-*-' *.....&I...rn-o-r-o v m-,e,n't-s' .........*4-'1-8- 2.1% 20.0 11.0 10.8
.................1........... ...... .................................- ........... ............................... ...............
.2I.MaIRr.St.r.e...e..t.s.:.T.-ra.f.f.ic F!oV/§At� 9e K4 4.01/a 48.0 ......- ......14.4...................M.
o
.............
25 Additional Transrtation for Livable Communities Iti 8 -..0.,.4.%............. ........... �8,0 ..........._...........
.................
2,s Additional'Pe ....I I 3�3.... 01,21%�.....................................3..3-. ......................................................
J�W, k.......... ...........................................-..............-.......................................
9p ..........
........Ai��!�T.jTprovernents at Martinez 2.5 0.1% 2.5 ..........................................................
28 Submglonal Transportation Needs. ..............I.................11-11-.......... . ...... 38 1 1.9% 18.7 6.0 7.2 6.2
,ra"M5 1�$ tal ........... :133.- 7�, 9
What Pro, .3
................ ..................... 400,,
:SU "to Prim
OTH
29 Administration 20 110%
......................... ............ ............... ............ ......... ........... .......
................I I
........... ....................
........................................................................ ...... ........... ............................ Central West Southwest East
�$Pedfld p45 .441 . 56Tw5
Po ui f
: 22
0.iOQ-M' ni$.` iu 'r; Cin MektSari' ala Vii`` `Fah'Share":off#ro acts 4P
1: Funding Is far both capital improvements and costs Incurred to accelerate delivery into the early years of the program(2009-10 through 2015-16)
2, Transit Operators are required to set aside 3%of their annual allocation as a reserve to offset potential future revenue downturns
3: Pedestrian and bicycle,facilities improvements are also eligible to be funded from the Transportation for Livable Communities Project Grants,
Local Streets and Roads Maintenance&Improvements,and Major Streets.Traffic Flow/Safety/CapaeltV Improvements categories
4. Actual funding levels will be determined by formula.For 18410 funds,annually;for TLC,every five years.
5: "Total'excludes funds for pedestrian/bicycle/trall facilities,Congestion Management,Transportation Planning,Facilities&Services,and Administration
Exhibit A Page Number 2
2:vi:3; 9ol
co: : :M.ol:tD:Le):10 Nin:M:'I--0:0 Ln-r', M:N C14
fN: CID M:-4—4
U,
ci
E
e! Z : . . . .
v):
0
>'i 0:V. g :8 5i
:
.5a. :o. E: LU E
Rio! tz: M,
o
0:
L)
r:
I w u- tn: M Cj
VY
X
Z
in: (vi C:i Mi . . . . .
n'
(VJ 'o �20
c 0
M
-t:seics,
0:0
Ln 1L
'0:
r cl:
N EIT
0 Q, p•ip
CL 421
Ez i
<
L9 Ln
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0:C>:0:col c:N 0 0:Lei:o 03 in:0.0:en:0,Ohio "t.
Niv;M: C'4:
M 2 Ni r1j:M:
In.
E:
E:
Ei
sd G1° CL
;L5 r
E i oU:
T9 �51 . . . .
Z02$1 U:
(vi
z1o.
z
L9 4 r.
1yr:9 i 1 0'.
in!E'
=3: 0
v;
0
El p : LUT ' L E.0. vim'?
LU :
0:,o. . .
. . .L9
0:
M!,
cl
lUK5 1 ILO:E
0
Z3-
0!0.- i 0 0
1 U
t:0:0.
co L-'c 1 - *�-- -"- E 4,1 r
0:0 a c
X
LLI 'gr
Pi.2.
U,
0
A 0.
r-4 Ejj%: Rigift!
.1 Ei
. . .p W E
0-
p
11M.
I :(A: c(-:cQ'U9:VCe:co: I I lum:
L9 (2
. . . . . txhiblt A Page Number 3
CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXTENSION
EXPENDI'T'URE PLAN SUMMARY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO"EC'TS
Caldecott Tunnel($1.25 million)
Construct a two-lane fourth bore to reduce delays and improve the predictability of travel.
BART East Contra Costa Rail Extension ($1.50 million)
Extend rail or other high-speed transit service from the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station eastward to the
cities of Antioch,Oakley,Brentwood,and the community of Byron
State Route 4 East Widening($125 million
Complete the widening of State Route 4 in East Contra Costa to provide a total of four lanes (including a
bus/carpool lane)in each direction to State Route 160.
Capitol Corridor Rail Station Improvements at Hercules and Martinez ($15 million)
Construct a new station at Hercules. Improve the Martinez Rail Station by enhancing pedestrian and
vehicular access.
East Counly Corridors (Vasco Rd. SR4 Bypass,Bypon HmW,and Route 4) ($94.5 million)
Construct capacity and safety enhancements to Vasco Road, the State Route 4 Bypass,Byron Highway,and
the existing Route 4 through Brentwood and Oakley.
Interchange Improvements on Interstate 680 and State Route 242 (136 million
Construct improvements at the following interchanges: I-680/SR4,SR 242/Clayton Rd,I-680/Marina Vista,
and/or SR 4/Willow Pass.
Interstate f0 Carpool Lane Extension and Interchange Improvements M0 million)
Construct improvements at the I-80/San Pablo Ilam Road and I-80/Central Avenue interchanges; complete
the bus/carpool lane to the Carquinez Bridge.
Interstate 680 Carpool Lane Gap Closure /Transit Corridor Improvements (1100 million)
Extend existing bus/carpool lanes on southbound I-680 from North Main Street to Livorna Road and
northbound from North Main Street to north of SR 242. Construct bus/carpool on-and off-ramps at Norris
Canyon Rd and/or Sycamore Valley Road.
Richmond Parkways 20 million
Upgrade the Richmond Parkway by constructing intersection and interchange improvements,and/or provide
funds to maintain the roadway.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 l
5/10/2004;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 4
COUNTYWIDE CAPITAI.AND MAIN'I`ENANCE PROGRAMS
BART Parking,Access, and Ober Improvements ($36 million)
Construct improvements to BART such as additional parking,station access,capacity, safety and operational
improvements.
Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements ($360 million)
Eighteen percent of annual revenues are allocated to local jurisdictions on a formula basis for transportation
projects to be determined locally,including street and road maintenance, subject to compliance with the
Growth Management Program.
ransportation for Livable Communities Project Grants ($100 million)
Five percent of revenues are to implement specific transportation projects that encourage the use of
alternatives to the single occupant vehicle such as: pedestrian,bicycle,and streetscape facilities, traffic
calming,and transit access improvements, subject to compliance with the Growth Management Program.
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities ($20 million)
One percent of revenues are for construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities including regional trails
throughout Contra Costa.
OTHER COUNTYWIDE PROGRAMS
Bus Services ($100 million)
Five percent of annual revenues are for bus service provided by all Contra Costa bus transit operators to
alleviate traffic congestion,and improve mobility in Contra Costa.
Transportation for Seniors&People with Disabilities $100 million)
Five percent of revenues are for transportation services for seniors &people with disabilities.
Express Bus ($$8 million)
Provide express bus service to transport commuters to and from residential areas,park&ride lots,BART
stations/Transit Centers and key employment centers.
Commute Alternatives ($20 million)
Provide and promote alternatives to commuting in single occupant vehicles,including carpools,vanpools and
transit.
Congestion Management Transportation Planning,Facilities& Services 0560 million
Provide funds for conducting the countywide growth management program, the preparation of the
countywide transportation plan,programn-dng and monitoring projects that are to be funded with federal and
state funds;and support for Authority and Congestion Management Agency functions.
SUBREGIONAL PROJECTS/PROCRAMS
Additional Bus Transit Enhancements ($64 5 million)
In addition to the$100 million for bus transit improvements countywide,additional funding is allocated for
bus transit improvements in two subregions: Central County-$24 million,West County-$40.5 million.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 2
5/1012004;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 5
Additional Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities ( 23 million,1
In addition to the$100 mullion for transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities under the
countywide program,additional funding is allocated for seniors and disabled transportation in two sub-
regions: Central County-$10 million,West County- $13 million.
Safe Transportation for Children($8$9 million)
In Central County$10 million is for projects to provide transportation to schools such as transit incentive
programs, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In West County$12.5 million is for a low-income student
transit fare subsidy program. In Southwest County$66.4 million is for a school bus program and school-
related access.
FerrService in west CountS-($50 million)
Funds for ferry service in West County from Richmond,and Hercules or Rodeo to San Francisco.
Additional Local Streets Maintenance & Improyements ($418 million)
In addition to the 18%of annual revenues that are allocated to all jurisdictions ($360 million) for
transportation projects to be determined locally,additional funding is allocated to jurisdictions in three sub-
regions: Central County- $20 million,West County-$11 million,and Southwest County-$10.8 million.
Major Streets:Traffic Flow,Safety and Capacity Improvements ($80.4 million
Funds are for improvements to major thoroughfares such as traffic signals,widening, safety improvements,
shoulders,installation of bike facilities,sidewalks,bus turnouts,curbs and gutters. The funds are allocated as
follows: Central County-$48 million,Southwest County-$14.4 million,East County- $18 million.
Additional Transportation for Livable Communities Project grants ($8 million,
In addition to the$140 million available on a countywide basis, $8 million is available for projects specific to
West County.
Additional Pedestrian. Bicycle,and Trail Facilities (0.3 million
In addition to the$20 million available countywide,$3.3 million is available for projects specific to West
County.
Capitol Corridor Rail station Improvements at Martinez ($2.5 million)
In addition to funds provided under the Capitol Corridor Improvement Project, an additional$2.5 million is
to be allocated specifically to the Martinez rail station improvements.
Subregional Transportation Needs t$3$1 millions
Each Regional Transportation Planning Committee(RTPC)will identify projects and/or programs to address
the unique need of each sub-region. The funds are allocated as follows: Central County-$18.7 million;West
County-$6.0 million;Southwest County-$7.2 million;East County- $6.2 million.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 3
5/1012004:4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 6
DETAILED EXPENDIMURE PLAT PROJECT AND PROGRAM
DESCRIPTIONS
The projects and programs that follow constitute the Expenditure Plan for the extension of the
transportation sales tax initially authorized by the passage of Contra Costa Measure C in November
1988. As required under the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act(SB 142,
Chapter 786, Statutes of 1987: principally Sections 180000 et seq. of the Public Utilities Code—
hereinafter"the Act"), the expenditures are "for the construction and improvement of state
highways, the construction,maintenance,improvement, and operation of local streets,roads, and
highways,and the construction,improvement, and operation of public transit systems" (including
paratransit services) (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §180205), and for specific efforts supporting such
investments.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO ECTS
Major capital projects are described below. Funding levels include an estimate of the cost of
financing necessary to accelerate major,critical projects into the first five to seven years of the
extension--2010 through 2016. Project financial plans will include other sources of funds,
particularly state and federal funds obtained through the State Transportation Improvement
Program(STIP), discretionary state and federal grants, local mitigation fees, and other sources as
they become available. It is understood that major projects will generally bear the cost of financing
their advancement,but that bond proceeds and cash will be used to expeditiously deliver other
projects as well,as will be set forth in the Authority's Strategic Plan.
Caldecott Tunnel($125 million
Construct a fourth bore with two traffic lanes plus shoulders to match the through-lane capacity on
both sides of the tunnel to significantly reduce delays,improve the predictability of travel, and
eliminate the existing bottleneck in the non-peals direction.
BART East Contra Costa Rail Extension (e-BART) ($150 million
Extend rail or other high-speed transit service from the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station eastward
to the cities of Antioch,Oakley,Brentwood, and the community of Byron. Subject to
environmental review and assessment of alternatives, the likely preferred alignment will occupy the
State Route 4 median up to Loveridge Road interchange and utilize existing rail right-of-way
thereafter to Byron. BART, diesel multiple-unit trains and other guideway transit modes may be
evaluated in determining the most appropriate near-term and long-term investments.
State Route 4 East Widening(.$125 million.
Widen State Route 4 in East Contra Costa to provide four lanes (including a carpool lane) in each
direction from Somersvie Road to State Route 160. Project components will be staged to provide
congestion relief as quickly as possible with available funding.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 4
S/10/2004;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Fuge Number 7
Capitol Corddor Rail Station Improvements -H--"r ules and-Martinez 15 million :
Construct 425 parking spaces at the Martinez Rail Station including pedestrian,vehicular and
potentially landside ferry access improvements as well as track improvements/equipment in the
vicinity of the station and Ozol Yard. Hercules Rail Station improvements include relocating
railroad tracks,constructing station platforms and plaza,and a parking structure. $7.5 million will be
available to each project. Any funding capacity that is not needed to accomplish the Hercules Rail
Station improvements may be used for Capitol Corridor track improvements,rolling stock, or for
rail operations on the Capitol Corridor line in Contra Costa County.
Eas#County C_o_rridors9
V sc_o Rd,SR4 Bypass, Byron Hm cy Non-Freeway—SR4-) ($94.5 million
This project will provide funds to assist in the completion of capacity and safety enhancements to
Vasco Road, the SR 4 Bypass (Phases 1 and 2),Byron Highway, and the existing Route 4 through
Brentwood, Oakley and unincorporated areas. Subject to environmental review and concurrence
from Contra Costa County, any capacity increases outside of the Urban Limit Line shall be carefully
assessed relative to their potential for inducing additional development, and appropriate project-
related mitigations shall be considered. Capacity expansion affecting the facilities in Alameda
County will be done in partnership with Alameda County jurisdictions. Potential improvements
include:
1. Widening Vasco Road from an existing two-lane roadway to a four-lane roadway. The project
may also provide improvements for safety and operations, and potentially consider realignment
where warranted, subject to the conditions above.
2. Widening the non-freeway portion of SR 4 to a continuous four-lane facility from Main Street in
Oakley to the eastern edge of Discovery Bay. This project also includes alignment and safety
improvements to the two-lane levee road between Discovery Bay and the Contra Costa-San
Joaquin Bridge.
3. Completion of Phase 1 and construction of Phase 2 of the SR4 Bypass project,which include
constructing a 6-lane facility from SR4 to the Laurel Road Interchange,a 4-lane facility from the
Laurel Road Interchange to Vasco Road at Walnut Blvd. The project also includes upgrade of
Marsh Creek Road and other interchanges at the following locations: SR4/SR4 Bypass/SR160;
Laurel Road;Lone Tree Way; Sand Creek Road;Balfour Road;Marsh Creek Road; and Vasco
Road at Walnut Boulevard.
4. Widening Byron Highway between Delta Road northeast of the City of Brentwood, and the
Contra Costa-Alameda County line. The proposed improvements include widening
intersections at various locations to increase capacity,upgrading railroad crossings (grade
separations), and constructing roadway shoulders along the route.
Interchange Improvements on Interstate 680 and State Route 242 ($36 rnillionl:
Construct improvements to reduce congestion and improve safety at (1) I-680/SR4 interchange, (2)
SR 242/Clayton Rd Interchange northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp, (3) I-680/Marina
Vista Interchange,and/or (4) SR 4/Willow Pass ramps.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 5
5/1012004;4:28 PM
Exhibit A mage Number 8
Inter,
9tate 80.Carpool L n Ext n i n and Injerchange Im rove m nts 0 million
Projects eligible for funding in this category include (with priority given to the San Pablo Dam Road
and Central Avenue interchanges):
1. If supplemental funding beyond the Regional Measure 2 commitment is needed, help construct
an eastbound carpool lane extension along I-80 from State Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge
approach.
2. Project development and construction of the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road interchange to
improve traffic operations and safety and accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists.
3. Project development and construction of the I-80/Central Avenue interchange to reduce traffic
backups on Central Avenue.
4. Project development and/or preliminary engineering towards the construction of the SR4/I-80
interchange and approaches.
5. Other interchange improvements may be considered for funding subject to WCCTAC
concurrence.
Interstate 680 CatDool Lane Gap Closure / Transit orridor Improvements ($100 million)
Projects eligible for funding in this category include:
L Extend existing bus/carpool lanes along I-680 in the southbound direction from North Main to
Livorna Road, and in the northbound direction from Forth Main Street to north of SR 242.
2. Construct bus/carpool on- and off-ramps at Norris Canyon Rd and/or Sycamore Valley Road.
Richmond Parkway ($20 nniWon):
Upgrade the Richmond Parkway to facilitate transfer of ownership to the California Department of
Transportation,including potential intersection and interchange upgrades, and/or provide funds to
maintain the roadway.
COUNTWIDE CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
BART Parking,Access, and Other Impr= r�. vemcn $36 million
Construct improvements to BART such as additional parking, station access, capacity, safety and
operational improvements. As part of the review process, BART and the affected RTPC(s) are
expected to mutually agree on the proposed project(s).
Local Streets Maintenance& Improvements (18%): $360 million
Funds may be used for any transportation purpose eligible under the Act and to comply with the
Growth Management Program requirements. This existing program will continue distributing 18
percent of the annual sales tax revenues to all local jurisdictions with a base allocation of$50,000 for
each, the balance to be distributed based 50 percent on relative population and 50 percent on road
miles for each jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the Authority's revised Growth Management
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 6
5/20/2004;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 9
Program (GMP). As appropriate,components for routine accommodation of bicycle and
pedestrian travel shall be incorporated as part of construction projects.
Transportation for Livable Communities Project Grants { %}: $100 million
This category is intended to explicitly link transportation and land use planning. The program will
invest in specific transportation projects that facilitate, support and/or catalyze developments or
activities that encourage the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and promote walking,
bicycling, and/or transit usage.Typical activities include pedestrian,bicycle,and streetscape facilities,
traffic calming, and transit access improvements. Both planning grants and specific transportation
capital projects may receive funding under this program.
Jurisdictions will be eligible for projects that meet the eligibility criteria if they are in compliance with
the Growth Management Program at the time a grant is approved for funding allocation by the
Authority. Eligible projects will be recommended to the Authority by the RTPCs,with each RTPC
proposing projects for five, five-year periods. RTPC programming targets will be based on the
relative population share of each in 2009, and adjusted every five years thereafter. Criteria are to
include flexibility so that urban, suburban and rural communities can be eligible.
Pedestrian,Bicycle, and Trail Facilities (1%): $20 million
This category will provide funds on a countywide basis for pedestrian and bicycle facilities including
regional trails. Other potential funding categories for pedestrian/bicycle/trail facilities include: Major
Streets: Traffic Flow/Safety/Capacity; Safe Transportation for Children;Local Streets and Road
Maintenance; and the Transportation for Livable Communities Project grants.
OTHER. COUNTYWIDE PROGRAMS
The following programs will be available to fund countywide operational programs, based on a
specific percentage of annual revenues received. With respect to transit operations (bus,
transportation for seniors and people with disabilities, and express bus), the Authority will allocate
funds on an annual basis and will establish guidelines (in cooperation with transit operators) so that
the additional revenues will fund additional service in Contra Costa. The guidelines may require
provisions such as maintenance of effort,a specified minimum allowable farebox return, and
reserves for capital replacement, etc.
For the transit operating programs (Bus Services,Transportation for Seniors &People with
Disabilities, and Express Bus) for years in which sales tax revenues increase at or above the change
in the CPI, the Authority will require that each recipient/operator retain up to 3 percent of its
annual allocation to accumulate in a reserve. The reserve would be available as a contingency for
application when one or more periods of decline in sales tax revenues,in inflation-adjusted dollars,
requires application of the funds to"smooth out" the flow of revenues. The reserves would be
available to sustain operations in the event of such economic downturns.
Bus Services (5%a L $100 million
This program provides funding for bus service provided by Contra Costa transit operators to
alleviate traffic congestion and improve mobility in Contra Costa. Funds can be used to purchase
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 7
5/10/2004;4.28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 10
transit vehicles, service operations,maintenance and capital programs to assist operators in the
implementation of adopted plans.
The percentage of program funding now flowing to the bus transit operators will continue.
Reflecting the current distribution among the four parts of the county, the percentage of annual
revenues will be distributed as follows,provided that the bus transit operators jointly consult and
collectively report to the Authority each year on any proposed changes to the services that are
currently funded from Measure C revenues,and the Authority concurs with the change:
• AC Transit, 2% ($40 million);
• County Connection, 2% ($40 million);
+ Tri-Delta Transit,0.4% ($8 million);
• WestCAT, 0.6% ($12 million);
Golden Gate Transit Service from Richmond to Marin shall be funded at the discretion of
WCCTAC and West County operators from the West Contra Costa transit funds.
Under the sub-regional programs, additional increments of 2%, and 1.2% of annual revenues, are
available for West and Central County, respectively.
Transportation for Seniors & People With Disabilities (5%): $100 million
Transportation for Seniors &People With Disabilities or"Paratransit" services can be broadly
divided into two categories: (1) services required to be provided by transit operators under the
Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) to people with disabilities; and (2) services not required by
law but desired by community interests—either for those with disabilities beyond the requirements
of the ADA (for example, extra hours of service orgr eater geographic coverage), or for non-ADA
seniors.
All current recipients of Measure C funds will continue to receive their FY 2008-09 share of the
"base"Measure C allocation to continue existing programs if they so desire,subject to Authority
confirmation that services are consistent with the relevant policies and procedures adopted by the
Authority. Revenue growth above the base allocations willbe utilized to expand paratransit
services and providers eligible to receive these funds.
Paratransit funding will be increased from the current 2.97% to 3.5 % of annual revenues for the
first year of the new program, FY 2009-10. Thereafter, the percentage of annual revenues will
increase by 0.10%each year, to 5.9 %in 2034 (based on a 25-year program). In 2003 dollars,this
averages to 4.7 %over the life of the program,which has been rounded to 5 %to provide some
flexibility and an opportunity to maintain a small reserve to offset the potential impact of economic
cycles. The distribution of funding will be as follows:
• West County paratransit program allocations will start at 1.225% of annual revenues in FY
2009-10, and grow by 0.035%of annual revenues each year thereafter to 2.065% of annual
revenues in FY 2033-34. (An additional increment of 0.65% of annual revenues is available
for West County under its sub-regional program category.) In addition to the current
providers,paratransit service provided by AC Transit and BART (East Bay Paratransit
Consortium) in West County is an eligible recipient of program funds.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 8
5/10/2004;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 11
+ Central County paratransit program allocations will start at 0,875%, of annual revenues in FY
2009-10 and grow by 0.025%of annual revenues each year thereafter to 1.475% of annual
revenues in FY 2033-34. (An additional increment of 0.5% of annual revenues is available
for Central County under its sub-regional program category.)
+ Southwest County paratransit program allocations will start at 0.595% of annual revenues in
FY 2009-10 and grow by 0.017% of annual revenues each year thereafter to 1.003% of
annual revenues in FY 2033-34.
• East County paratransit program allocations will start at 0.805% of annual revenues,and
increase by 0.023% of annual revenues thereafter to 1.357%of annual revenues in FY 2033-
34.
+ The balance of funds not distributed to the operators according to the formulas above shall
be available for (a) managing the program, (b) retention of a mobility manager, (c)
coordination with non-profit services, and (d) facilitation of the Paratransit Coordinating
Committee and the Mobility Management Committee,as appropriate.
Additional funding to address non-ADA services, or increased demand beyond that anticipated, can
be drawn from the"Subregional Transportation Needs Funds" category,based on the
recommendations of individual RTPCs and a demonstration of the financial viability and stability of
the programs proposed by prospective operator(s).
E_wress Bt (-4.4%): $88 million
Provide express bus service and Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) service to transport commuters to and
from residential areas,park&ride lots,BART stations/Transit Centers and trey employment
centers. Funds may be used for bus purchases, service operations and/or construction
/management/operation of park&ride lots and other bus transit facilities. Reserves shall be
accumulated for periodic replacement of vehicles consistent with standard replacement policies.
Commute alternative ("/4 $ 0 million
This program will provide and promote alternatives to commuting in single occupant vehicles,
including carpools,vanpools and transit.
Eligible types of projects may include but are not limited to: parking facilities; carpooling;
vanpooling;transit;bicycle/pedestrian facilities (including sidewalks,lockers,racks,etc.);Guaranteed
Ride Home;congestion mitigation programs;Schooll"ool;and clean fuel vehicle projects. Program
and project recommendations shall be made by the XI'PCs for review and consideration by the
Authority.
Conges-don Management,Tr s arta 'on Planning, Fa cilit:ies S es $60 million
This category includes the Authority's existing planning program;the estimated incremental costs of
performing the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) function currently billed to local
jurisdictions;costs for programming federal and state funds;project monitoring;countywide
planning;and the facilities and services needed to support the Authority and CMA functions.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 9
6(1012W4;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 12
SLJBREGICINAL. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
The objective of the sub-regional Programs and projects category is to respect the diversity of the
county by allowing each sub-region to propose projects/programs that are critical to addressing
transportation needs in its locale. Each Regional Transportation Planning Committee tRTPC) has
identified specific projects/programs which include: school bus programs, safe routes to school
activities,pedestrian/bicycle trails,incremental transit services over the base program,incremental
transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities over the base program,incremental
local street and roads maintenance using the population and road-miles formula,major streets traffic
flow/safety/capacity improvements, and ferry services.
With respect to transit operations (bus, transportation for seniors and people with disabilities, ferries
and express bus), the Authority will allocate funds on an annual basis and will establish guidelines tin
cooperation with transit operators) so that the additional revenues will fund additional service in
Contra Costa. The guidelines may require provisions such as maintenance of effort, a specified
minimum allowable farebox return, and reserves for capital replacement, etc.
In order for an allocation to be made by the Authority for a sub-regional project and program,it
must be included in the Authority's Strategic Plan.
Central Cou oz IERAISSPAC)
Additional Bus Service Enhancements (1.2%): $24 million
Funds will be used to enhance bus service in Central County,with services to be jointly identified by
TRANSPAC and County Connection.
Additional Transportation Services for Seniors and People with Disabilities t0 5y4i$10 million
Funds will be used to supplement the services provided by the countywide transportation program
for seniors and people with disabilities and may include provision of transit services to programs and
activities. Funds shall be allocated annually as a percentage of total sales tax revenues, and are in
addition to funds provided under the base program as described above.
Safe Transportation for Children 10.5°Io): $10 million
TRANSPAC will identify specific projects which may include the SchoolPool and Transit Incentive
Programs, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, sidewalk construction and signage, and other projects to
provide transportation to schools
Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements l%)• $20 million
These funds will be used to supplement the annual allocation of the 18% "Local Streets
Maintenance&Improvements"program funds for jurisdictions in Central County. Allocations will
be made to jurisdictions in TRANSPAC on an annual basis in June of each fiscal year for that
ending fiscal year,without regard to compliance with the Growth Management Program. Each
Jurisdiction shall receive an allocation using a formula of 50%based on population and 50%based
on read miles.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 10
3/10/2004;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 13
Maier Streets. Traffic Flow, Safety and Cal2aci1y Improvements (2 4°l0 : $48 million
Improvements to major thoroughfares including but not limited to installation of bike facilities,
traffic signals,widening, safety improvements, shoulders, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, bus transit
facility enhancements such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities, etc.
Calsitol Corridor Rail Station Improvements at Martinez (0 1%�: $2.5 million
Additional funding to supplement the$7.5 million identified for the project under Capitol Corridor
Rail Station Improvements for the Martinez Intermodal Station and ferry landside improvements.
Subregional Transportation bleeds (0.9%): $18.7 million
TRAIL SPAC will propose programming funds for any project or program identified in the
Expenditure Plan, and to meet other future transportation needs of Central County eligible under
the provisions of the Act.
West County(WCC7'AQ
Additional Bus Service Enhancements (2%}:$40.5 million
Funds will be used to enhance local bus service in Nest County,as determined by WCCTAC and
the west county bus operators. Funds will be used to operate new service,including new bus lines,
expanded service hours,improved frequency, expanded days of the week, etc.
Additional Transportation Services for Seniors and People with Disabilities (0 65%)j$13 million
As determined by WCCTAC, funds will be used to supplement the services provided by the
countywide transportation program for seniors and people with disabilities and may include,but are
not limited to,provision of dedicated shuttles to specific programs and activities, as well as
sedan/taxi service, supplemental service provided by the cities/county/transit agencies, expanded
subsidies for fares, etc.ADA and Non-ADA service will qualify. Funds shall be allocated annually as
a percentage of total sales tax.,revenues, and in addition to funds provided under the base program as
described above.
Safe Transportation for Children-.-Low Income Student Bus Pass Program (0.6%): $12.5 million
Establishment and operation of a program to expand the subsidy for bus transit fares for low-
income students.
Ferry Service in West County Q2 5%). $50 million
Funds for ferry service in West County from Richmond,and Hercules or Rodeo to San Francisco
(with potential stops in-between). The funds may be used for capital improvements (landside
improvements,parking,lighting, etc.), operating the service, transit feeder service,way-finder signs,
and/or other components of ferry service to be determined by WCCTAC and the ferry oversight
agency/provider.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 11
5/16/2°04;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 14
Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements (0.50 o : $11 million
These funds will be used to supplement the annual allocation of the 18% "Local Streets
Maintenance& Improvements"program funds for local jurisdictions in West County. Allocations
will be made to jurisdictions in WCCTAC on an annual basis in June of each fiscal year for that
ending fiscal year,without regard to compliance with the Growth Management Program. Each
Jurisdiction shall receive an allocation using a formula of 50%based on papulation and 50%based
on road miles.
Additional Funding for Livable Communities (CC-TLQ (0.4% $8 million
This program will provide additional funding for West County to supplement the overall
Transportation for Livable Communities Program,with specific projects to be identified by
WCCTAC. WCCTAC will propose programming specific projects through the Authority's Strategic
Plan'. Grants will be provided independent of compliance with the Authority's GMP.
Addional Pedestrian/Bicycle/Traitls (0.2% $3.3 million
WCCTAC will propose programming these funds for additional trail/pedestrian/bicycle capital
projects, and/or facility maintenance in West County.
Subregional Transportation Needs (0.3010 $6.0 million
WCCTAC will propose programming these funds to any project or program eligible under the
provisions of the Act. Such projects may include: (1) planning work or environmental studies for a
project; (2) implementation of recommended transportation projects in a regional study or plan
(including,but not limited to,the El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan,the Richmond-
Area Community-Based Transportation Plan, the El Portal Gateway Plan,the Montalvin Manor
Community Pian, the Safe Communities Program, etc.); (3) bus and/or BART improvements; (4)
neighborhood traffic calming improvements, and/or(5) transportation/transit information in
languages other than English; and/or (6) other eligible transportation investments.WCCTAC will
coordinate with the appropriate local jurisdictions/agencies to plan and implement the projects in
this category.
Southwest Cqunot SWA7"�
Safe Transportation_for_Children: School Bus Program (3.3°/al: $66.4 million
Eligible projects include the continued operation of the Lamorinda School Bus Program ($26.4
million) and the inauguration of a San Ramon Valley School Bus Program, or other projects in the
San Ramon Valley that reduce school related congestion, or improve the safety of children traveling
to and from schools ($40 million). The Authority will establish criteria for the services including but
not limited to farebox return/parental contribution.
Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements (0.5°lob: $10.8 million
These funds will be used to supplement the annual allocation of the 18% "Local Streets
Maintenance& Improvements" program funds for jurisdictions in Southwest County. Allocations
will be made to jurisdictions in SWAT on an annual basis in June of each fiscal year for that ending
fiscal year,without regard to compliance with the Growth Management Program. Each Jurisdiction
shall receive an allocation using a formula of 50%based on population and 50%based on road
miles.
DRAFT# 15,May 6,2004 12
5!10/2004;4:28 PM
Exhibit A Page Number 15
Maur Streets: Traffic Flow,Safety and Capacity I=rovernent(0.7% $14.4 million
Improvements to major thoroughfares including but not limited to installation of bike lanes, traffic
signals,widening, safety improvements, shoulders, curb and gutter,bus transit facility enhancements
such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities, etc.
Subregional Transportation Needs X0.4%� $7.2 million
SQUAT will propose programming these funds to any project or program identified in the
Expenditure Plan or eligible under the provisions of the Act.
East Gorrrity_ BANSPI;AN
Maier Streets:Traffic Flow,Safety and Ca aci, Im rovements (0.9!4:$18.0 million
Improvements to major thoroughfares including but not limited to installation of bike lanes,traffic
signals,widening, safety improvements, shoulders, curb and gutter, bus transit facility enhancements
such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities,etc.
Subregional Transportation Needs-LUL@: $6.2 million
TRANSPLAN will propose programming these funds to any project or program identified in the
Expenditure Plan or eligible under the provisions of the Act.
OTHER
Administration: $20 million (1°lo)
This category funds the salary and benefits costs of administrating the Measure C extension,
consistent with program requirements.
Pegram and Project Management
The draft plan envisions building on the Authority's practice of charging the costs of program and
project management to the various plan categories,rather than identifying a separate category for
such charges. Costs that will be covered include program management consulting, financial advisory
services,bond counsel,project management staff,and similar costs associated with managing the
overall program,periodically preparing and adopting the Strategic Plan,reviewing and processing
invoices, etc.
DRAFT#15,May 6,2004 13
511012004;4:28 P-M,
Exhibit A Page Number 16
nraf' t
Proposed Growth Management Program
Working Draft
Released by the Authority on April 21, 2004
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of the Growth Management Program is to preserve and enhance the quality of
life and promote a healthy,strong economy to benefit the people and areas of Contra Costa
through a cooperative,multi jurisdictional process for managing growth,while maintaining local
authority over land use decisions. r
The objectives of the Growth Management Program are to:
• Assure that new residential,business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required
to meet the demands resulting from that growth.
• Require cooperative transportation and land use planning among Contra Costa County,cities,
towns,and transportation agencies.
• Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of the transporta-
tion system,consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions.
• Support infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfield areas.
I The Authority shall,to the extent possible,attempt to harmonize the Growth Management and Conges-
tion Management Programs.To the extent they conflict,Congestion Management Program activities
shall take precedence over Growth Management Program activities.
PAGE 1 OF 1
Exhibit A Page Number 17
PROPOSED G�t� �� ENT PROGRAM
COMPONENTS
To receive its share of Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvement funds and to be eligi-
ble for Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds, each jurisdiction must:
1 . Adopt a Growth Management Element
Each jurisdiction must adopt a Growth Management Element as part of its General Plan that
outlines the jurisdiction's goals and policies for managing growth and requirements for
achieving those goals.The Growth Management Element must show how the jurisdiction will
comply with sections 2-7 below.The Authority shall refine its model Growth Management
Element and administrative procedures in consultation with the Regional Transportation
Planning Committees to reflect the revised Growth Management Program.
Each jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate other standards and procedures into its Growth
Management Element to support the objectives and required components of this Growth
Management Program.
2, Adapt a Development Mitigation Program
Each jurisdiction must adopt,or maintain in place, a development mitigation program to en-
sure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth.This pro-
gram shall consist of both a local program to mitigate impacts on local streets and other
facilities and a regional program to fund regional and subregional transportation projects,
consistent with the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
The jurisdiction's local development mitigation program shall ensure that revenue provided
from this measure shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has or would
have been committed to any project.
The regional development mitigation program shall establish fees,exactions, assessments or
other mitigation measures to fund regional or subregional transportation improvements
needed to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast development.Regional mitigation pro-
grams may adjust such fees, exactions,assessments or other mitigation measures when de-
velopments are within walking distance of frequent transit service or are part of a mixed-use
development of sufficient density and with necessary facilities to support greater levels of
walking and bicycling.Each Regional Transportation Planning Committee shall develop the
regional development mitigation program for its region,taking account of planned and fore-
cast growth and the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives and actions to achieve
them established in the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance.Regional Transpor-
tation Planning Committees may use existing regional mitigation programs,if consistent with
this section,to comply with the Growth Management Program.
PAGE 2 OF 2
Exhibit A Page Number 18
PROPOSED GR> �EN C PROGRAM
S
e "k .eCi
....___««»..._.__.«.»...,._,,._...--_»...............
_...........
........
...,......
..................
.......
...............
..«»».»'. ___»»...».................,»«...........»............._.....__.........._.............»..«....._....___».___...-_-_.........................»..._......1
3
The existing GMP recommends that"such issues as jobs/housing balance, carr
i pool and vanpool programs and proximity to transit service [should be consid-
ered) in the establishment of the regional traffic mitigation program."The pro-
posed language more explicitly allows adjustments to the fees or mitigation
measures where a development could support alternative travel modes.
L.._.»..v..__.-------------_....«......................»-..........,......................._.................»........_.......__»...._.__..__.._........._.»..._. ,.. .._.a..».....»..._..................»....,..........................._...............».,.........«».....__._...........................
......1
3. Address Housing Options And Job Opportunities
Option One --Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate reasonable progress in providing hous-
ing opportunities for all income levels as part of a report on the implementation of the actions
outlined in its adopted Housing Element.The report will demonstrate progress by comparing
the number of housing units approved,constructed or occupied within the jurisdiction over
the preceding five years with the number of units needed on average each year to meet the
housing objectives established in the jurisdiction's Housing Element.A jurisdiction may al-
ternatively be found in compliance with this requirement if its General Plan and zoning regu-
lations demonstrate land development capacity sufficient to accommodate the construction of
sufficient housing to meet those objectives,
In addition,each jurisdiction shall consider the impacts that its land use and development
policies have on the local,regional and countywide transportation system,including the level
of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided,and shall incorporate policies and
standards into its development approval process that support transit,bicycle and pedestrian
access in new developments.
..... .... ........ .....................
......... .................«.._...................«.........._...».m.....
.....»...«....».............»«....«.._......................................w.»...»...............
«...
.............
......._......_.....»..»,........».....g
Comment: OptionNl_ would require a jurisdiction to show either that it had ap-
proved enough housing to reasonably address its housing objectives or had i
otherwise been constructed, with the proviso that the demonstration of suffl-
j cient development capacity would be allowed as a "fall back". i
F
Option Two — [Same as Option 1 with the addition of the following language]A jurisdic-
tion shall not be found in compliance with this program if it demonstrates a consistent pattern
of denying applications for housing.
In addition,each jurisdiction shall consider the impacts that its land use and development
policies have on the local,regional and countywide transportation system, including the level
of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided, and shall incorporate policies and
standards into its development approval process that support transit,bicycle and pedestrian
access in new developments.
PAGE 3 OF 3
Exhibit A Page Number 19
PROPOSED GRA A I ENT PROGRAM
;�} 5 h;
}..:.......................____...._......_......._._._._.__.._._......._.........._._............._.......................e....................._._..�a................_..__.................................. ....
i
Comment: This option retains the requirement in Caption I to demonstrate
progress on meeting housing objectives, but adds an additional criterion of a I
"pattern of denial".
L.....................____...........___�_..__............_...................._._._.....__._...._... ..... -.-_._..............
Option Three —Each jurisdiction shall consider the impacts that its land use and develop-
ment policies have on the local,regional and countywide transportation system, including the
level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided,and shall incorporate policies
and standards into its development approval process that support transit,bicycle and pedes-
trian access in new developments.
"....n_....._._.l-..........................,..............__ _ ..__....._...._....._............................__-__-......_............,............_.......__...._..._.__...____...___.._.._....................._...._...................._.._...._.......................
.�
Comment: Option 3 would eliminate any requirements tied to the development
of housing needed to meet the housing objectives established in the jurisdic-
tion's Housing dement. The requirement to consider the transportation impacts
of local land use policies and to incorporate transit, bicycle- and pedestrian-
supportive standards would continue.
Other Options -- Other options are possible as well. For example, a jurisdic-
tion could be asked to certify that its development review process for new
housing was streamlined to minimize the time the review and approval process I
takes for development on appropriately zoned land, for example by setting time
limits for design, planning commission and other reviews and for project ap-
proval, where the project conforms to established regulations. The Committee
may wish to discuss other options as well.
4. Participate in an Ongoing Cooperative, Multi--jurisdictional
Planning Process
Each jurisdiction shall participate in an ongoing process with other jurisdictions and agencies,
the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and the Authority to create a balanced,
safe and efficient transportation system and to manage the impacts of growth. Jurisdictions
shall work with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees to:
A. Identify Routes of Regional Significance, and establish Multimodal Transportation Ser-
vice Objectives for those routes and actions for achieving those objectives.
B. Apply the Authority's travel demand model and technical procedures to the analysis of
General Plan Amendments{GPAs}and developments exceeding specified thresholds for
their effect on the regional transportation system,including on Action Plan objectives.
C. Create the development mitigation programs outlined in section 2 above.
PAGE 4 OF 4
Exhibit A Page Number 20
PROPOSED GR �� ENT PROGRAM
D. Help develop other plans,programs and studies to address other transportation and
growth management issues.
In consultation with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees,each jurisdiction shall
use the travel demand model to evaluate changes to local General flans and the impacts of
major development projects for their effects on the local and regional transportation system
and the ability to achieve the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives established in the
Action Plans.
-... _...__.._____...._._.__._..........._......____..__..__.__..__._...._........................._._.....__......__......._.................___.._.............._._...__.._....__......_...._..........._.__._..._.__...._......_......__..._..._...._.._..._................_.._...._.................f
County staff suggested language that would have found General Plan Amend- I
ments (rather than the jurisdictions themselves) in compliance with the GMP if
j adopted MTSOs were not exceeded and the jurisdiction used the travel demand j
model and technical procedures. While the PC has agreed to eliminate the con-
flict resolution process, they have not agreed to eliminate the requirement of
consultation with the RTPCs on the impacts of GPAs and major developments. I
_...._........_._--l-._.........I._................_......_...._......................_._...._......_............_...__._............___ ......_............._......._.__._.._.........._..........................................._..........................................._.......__._..._.__..._............................
.!
Jurisdictions shall also participate in the Authority's ongoing countywide comprehensive
transportation planning process. As part of this process,the Authority shall support county-
wide and subregional planning efforts,including the Action Plans for Routes of Regional
Significance,and shall maintain a travel demand model. Jurisdictions shall help maintain the
Authority's travel demand modeling system by providing information on proposed improve-
ments to the transportation system and planned and approved development within the juris-
diction.
S. Adopt an Urban Limit Line
All jurisdictions shall work together to identify a mutually agreeable Urban Limit Line.The
purposes of the Urban Limit Line are to:
A. Encourage compact development,infill and redevelopment, and thereby reduce sprawl,
B. Provide sufficient development opportunities to accommodate and respond to forecast
growth,
C. Support a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system,and encourage greater use of
alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle,
D. Promote the efficient and cost-effective provision of public services,and
E. Preserve natural resources lands and open space.
PAGE 5 OF 5
Exhibit A Page Number 21
M }:.n
PROPOSED GR � iENT PROGRAM
In defining the Urban Limit Line,jurisdictions shall consider regional growth projections,the
ability of existing and planned infrastructure to support forecast growth,physical constraints
and important resource lands,the potential for infill and redevelopment within existing urban
areas,and the character of existing areas.To the extent possible, the process of determining
the Urban Limit Line should be undertaken cooperatively with and be consistent with
LAFCO's Municipal Services Review and determinations on Sphere of influence boundaries.
The agreement among the jurisdictions on the Urban Limit Line shall include provisions for
periodic review and amendment of the agreement to provide sufficient developable land to
accommodate forecast growth,and shall provide a mechanism for minor expansions of the
line which should be offset by equal or greater deletions from the area within the Urban Limit
Line.
Option One —Each jurisdiction shall ratify the Urban Limit Line as it applies within the ju-
risdiction's sphere of influence through approval of the voters of that jurisdiction. A jurisdic-
tion whose corporate limits and approved sphere of influence are located completely within
the mutually agreed-upon Urban Limit Line may incorporate the line into its General Plan
without the approval of voters of the jurisdiction.
Option Two —Each jurisdiction shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement with other jurisdictions within Contra Costa to establish the
mutually agreed-upon Urban Limit Line.The agreement shall require each jurisdiction to in-
corporate the Urban Limit Line into its General Plan and establish for its periodic review and
amendment to ensure that it adequately fulfills the purposes outlined above. The agreement
shall also establish a process for adjustment where the jurisdiction can show that insufficient
opportunities to meet the jurisdiction's housing objectives through infill and redevelopment
remain within the jurisdiction's area within the Urban Limit Line.
..._................................._..__..._ _...._._._...._..............__..r.............______...._...........................................__._.__.__..._._.___.._................................._..................._......................................__-......__._.._....................
,
Comment: Option 1, while it could provide greater certainty and permanence,
i raises several issues: What happens if the voters of a jurisdiction do not ap-
I prove the ULL?Are they immediately out of compliance, and how long do they
have to gain voter approval? More important, if the jurisdiction's elected offi-
cials believe that the ULL must be modified to gain voter approval, must they
first get approval from the other jurisdictions to ensure that the ULL remains
"mutually acceptable"? What if voters approve a more restrictive line, and that I
line limits the ability of the jurisdiction to meet its housing goals?
i
To provide comparable assurances of permanence, the mechanisms relied on in
Option 2 must require approval of other jurisdictions for all but very minor ad-
justments to the Urban Limit Line, and must establish clear standards for how
adjustments will be allowed.
E
I This section doesn't address how or whether the Authority would be involved in
I developing the ULL, but Authority member comments have suggested that the s
PAGE 6 OF 6
Exhibit A Page Number 22
gg
wR
PROPOSED GR 4�"W 1A, ENT PROGRAM
x 1 .
Authority should not assume any land use planning responsibilities. If appro-
priate, however, the PC could add a paragraph noting that the Authority could
assist in the development of a mutually acceptable ULL by assisting in the
analysis of growth and transportation impacts, and potentially in the prepara-
tion of any necessary CEQA documents.
Option Three —All jurisdictions within each Regional Transportation Planning Committee
area shall work together to define and establish a mutually agreeable Urban Limit Line for
that area.If any land within the proposed Urban Limit Line would border or adjoin another
Regional Transportation Planning Committee area,the jurisdictions within the two areas shall
review,and make mutually agreeable refinements to, the proposed subregional Urban Limit
Lines,prior to their adoption.
Jurisdictions within each Regional Transportation Planning Committee area shall enter into a
Joint Exercise of Powers.Agreement,or other binding agreement,to establish the Urban
Limit Line.This binding agreement shall require each jurisdiction to incorporate the Urban
Limit Line into its General Plan and shall establish periodic review and amendment to ensure
that it adequately fulfills the purposes outlined above.The agreement shall also establish a
process for adjustment where the jurisdiction can show that insufficient opportunities to meet
the jurisdiction's housing objectives through infill and redevelopment remain within the ju-
risdiction's area within the Urban Limit Line.
If jurisdictions with the Regional Transportation Planning Committee area have not reached
agreement on an Urban Limit Line or a binding agreement to implement such a line by June
30,2007,each jurisdiction shall ratify the Urban Limit Line as it applies within the jurisdic-
tion's sphere of influence through approval of the voters of that jurisdiction,unless the juris-
diction's corporate limits and approved sphere of influence are located completely within the
mutually agreed-upon Urban Limit Line, in which case the jurisdiction may incorporate the
line into its General flan without the approval of voters of the jurisdiction.
............................._..-------_._._...__........... u..._..- -- -- ._._..._.._...._..................__............_........._........................_............................................................
....._......_......-___._..._.._..__.._.._..........-...............,
I This option would combine options l and 2 by requiring that jurisdiction estab-
lish a jointly binding agreement but that, if such an agreement cannot be
reached, they hold separate local elections to get voter approval of the ULL. As
with the first two options, this option doesn't address how or whether the Au-
thority would be involved in developing the ULL. The Authority could, however,
assist in the development of a mutually acceptable ULL by assisting in the
analysis of growth and transportation impacts, and potentially in the prepara- i
1 tion of any necessary CEQA documents.
.............................................................................................................................................................__._.._._.....-.__........................._._...-...............-......................................................._.....................
Option Four — [Under this option,no ULL would be required.]
PAGE 7 OF 7
Exhibit A Page Number 23
PROPOSED GR', � 1� qiENT PROGRAM
6. Develop a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
Each jurisdiction shall prepare and maintain a capital improvement program that outlines the
capital projects needed to implement the goals and policies of the jurisdiction's General Plan
for at least the following five-year period.The Capital Improvement Program shall include
approved projects and an analysis of the costs of the proposed projects as well as a financial
plan for providing the improvements.The jurisdiction shall forward the transportation com-
ponent of its capital improvement program to the Authority for incorporation into the Author-
ity's database of transportation projects.
7. Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance or
Resolution
To promote carpools, vanpools and park and ride lots, each jurisdiction shall adopt a local or-
dinance or resolution that conforms to the model Transportation Systems Management Ordi-
nance that the Transportation Authority has drafted and adopted.Upon approval of the Au-
thority,cities with a small employment base may adopt alternative mitigation measures in
lieu of a TSM ordinance or resolution.
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
Portions of the monies received from the retail transaction and use tax will be returned to the lo-
cal jurisdictions(the cities and the county) for use on local, subregional and/or regional transpor-
tation improvements and maintenance projects.Receipt of all such funds requires compliance
with the Growth Management Program described below.The funds are to be distributed on a
formula based on population and road miles.
Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate its compliance with all of the components of the Growth
Management Program in a completed compliance checklist. The jurisdiction shall submit,and the
Authority shall review and make findings regarding the jurisdiction's compliance with the re-
quirements of the Growth Management Program, consistent with the Authority's adopted policies
and procedures.
If the Authority determines that the jurisdiction complies with the requirements of the Growth
Management Program,it shall allocate to the jurisdiction its share of local street maintenance and
improvement funding.Jurisdictions may use funds allocated under this provision to comply with
these administrative requirements.
If the Authority determines that the jurisdiction does not comply with the requirements of the
Growth Management Program,the Authority shall withhold those funds and also make a finding
that the jurisdiction shall not be eligible to receive Contra Costa Transportation for Livable
PAGE 8 OF 8
Exhibit A Page Number 24
PROPOSED (
f #ENT PRCIGRAM
zt
Communities until the Authority determines the jurisdiction has achieved compliance. The Au-
thority's findings of noncompliance may set deadlines and conditions for achieving compliance.
Withholding of funis,reinstatement of compliance,reallocation of funds and treatment of unallo-
cated funds shall be as established in adapted Authority's policies and procedures.
WAGE 9 OF 9
Exhibit A Page Number 25
"Small Town Atmosphere
Outstanding(duality of Life"
May 1,2004
Amy Worth,Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
3478 Buskirk Avenue,Suite 100
Pleasant Dill,CA 94523
RE: Measure C Reauthorization Proposals for the Expenditure Plan and Growth
Management Options
Dear Chair Worth and Commission Members:
On behalf of the Danville Town Council,I would like to express our appreciation for the
Authority's tireless efforts in crafting an equitable Expenditure flan and appropriate
Growth Management Program to the needs of this'diverse county.
The Authority has gone to great lengths to consider diverse views and make
adjustments to the draft plan and program in an attempt to meet the needs of a broad
group of interest groups. Cities must play a major role in this process as well. The
overwhelming majority of residents in Contra Costa County reside within incorporated
cities, and strong city support is essential to passage of the Measure C Reauthorization.
I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate Danville's comments that were
communicated at the April 21,2004 Authority Board meeting, and recommend revised
language for Growth Management Program 00tion 1.
Local.Streets Maintenance &Improvements Funds ("18% Return-to-Source")
The absolute minimum percentage necessary for jurisdictions to maintain local
transportation infrastructure necessary to move people and goods is 18 percent. The
polling results presented by the consultant on April 21 underscore the importance of
reinvesting these funds in'local streets and roadways, within each city, as well as in the
unincorporated areas.
510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526
Adxniaialraadon Brading Ingfneedus&Planning Tmnsparwion Mainttuance police Yasuo and Recmadon
(975)314-3368 (925)314-3330 {9253 314-3310 (925)314-3310 (935)314-3450 {925)314-3410 (973)314-3400
Exhibit A Page Num' gr 26
1
�1
}
1
May 1, 2004
Page 2
Growth Management Program
Compliancewith a Growth Management Program will continue to be a prerequisite for
receipt of return to source funds. The Authority must bear in mind that these
requirements will be binding upon all cities through sunset of the reauthorized Measure
in 2034. A'number of cities in the county have already experienced their peak growth
years per their respective General Plans, and cannot be expected to provide for future
housing growth based upon past trends. Receipt of return to source funds should not
be contingent upon additional obligations that would require such provisions or
rezoning of existing neighborhoods. Furthermore, plans for additional housing should
not inadvertently result in development patteins that cannot be sustained by the
transportation improvements identified through this transportation measure.
Given these concerns we recommend that the Authority consider the following
modification to the Growth Management Program"Option 1" language:
Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate reasonable progress in providing housing
opportunities for all income levels as part of a report on the implementation of the ,
actions outlined in its adopted Housing Element. The report will demonstrate progress
by 1comparing the number of housing units approved, constructed or occupied
within the jurisdiction over the preceding five years with the number of units needed
on average'each year to meet the housing objectives established in the jurisdiction's
Housing Element; or illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately ,planned to
meet the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption of land use plans
and regulate vstems which provide r ortunities for, and do not unduly constrain,
housing development, rhile at the same time respecting the character of the
jc r ssc ictir�n`s existing -neighborhood& or .(3) illustrating.how a jurisdiction's General
Plan and zoning regulations demonstrate land development capacity sufficient to
accommodate the construction of sufficient housing to meet those objectives, where the
definition of "land development capacity„ includes vacant, underutilized or
redevelopment area lands located within a jurisdiction's legal boundary or sphere of
influence.
In addition, each jurisdiction shall consider the impacts that its land use and
development policies have on the local, regional and countywide transportation system,
including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided, and shall
incorporate'policies and standards into its development approval process that support
transit,bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments.
Exhibit A Page Num er 27
May 1,2004
Page 3
The third option that has been added summarizes State HCD requirements. This
modified language maintains the housing and transportation connection that has been
recommended by the EPAC while assuring that jurisdictions continue to follow the
direction of, and comply with,State housing law.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective as part of this inclusive
reauthorization process.
Sincerely,
Ne ell'Arnerich, Mayor
Danville Town Council
Exhibit A Page Nuniver 28
.;. ;--- transportatlon AQtri ; Page 2
May-04-04 05: 17P P _02
S-WAT
+. +k...� Danville Ursytttt Wrap Ooirtda Swn Ramon&€ha County of f;aMrs Coral
'►rir�i+C�t�
May.4,2004
{ Robert McCleary, Executive Director
! Contra Costa Transportation Authority
3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100
#
Pleasant bill,CA 94523
jDear Mr.McCleary:
On behalf of the Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT)Committee, I would like to take .
this opportunity to thank you for your continuing efforts in this reauthorization process to
address the varying — and sometimes competing - transportation needs of an extremely
diverse county. Based on its discussions at the May 3,2004 regularly scheduled meeting,
3 the Committee would like to forward the following additional comments related to the
housing, requirement and urban limit line components of the currently proposed Growth
Management Program for consideration.
} Housing Requirements
i
The. Committee reviewed in great detail the suggested text revisions to the Growth
Management Program housing requirements (Option 1) that is contained on wage 2 of the
letter from Danville, submitted to the Chair of the Authority at the Measure C Workshop,
dated May 1, 2004. After extensive discussion and consideration, the Committee would
like to offer the following modifications to the OCTA staff language to address the
concerns and issues that have been articulated both at the May 1" Summit of Elected
Officials as well asat the May Yd SWAT meeting:
i Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate reasonable progress in providing housing
opportunities as part of a report on the implementation of the
l actions outlined in its adopted Rousing Element. The report will demonstrate
progress by acomparing the number of housing units approved, constructed or
occupied within the jurisdiction over the preceding five years with the number of
units needed on average each year to meet the local housing objectives istablished
in the jurisdiction's Housing Element,• or Z illustrating bo*- the juricdjctisin has .
adequately- planngd to meet the existi d rniected local housing needs
Ado-p-t_qd, -jn,im land u e plans-and rc rulata s stents whit roNi n rtuniftcs
{
i
Exhibit A Page Neem ,er 29
. ... .._...�. ....e ,e.w`.�i...w. .. .r.........+.r-r`gym. �.._�... .w...._.. ..... ...tr.. ..
May-04-04 05 : 17P p .03
r a d r+o �d r n txa'n hnuin deve o tttent whi of he s c
rcip
--pStin the in crit of the 'urisdicti n's crier ' flan a a d ct icit:s, c r
A; tri ritr hc�v� it risd�ci�c�n'sfed"d in
General Plan and zoning regulations
demonstrate land development rapacity sufficient to accommodate the
construction of sufficient housing to meet those lgeal hoRN`tg► objectives.
In addition, each jurisdiction shall consider the impacts that its land use and
development policies have on the local, regional and countywide transportation '
system, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be
provided, and shall incorporate policies and standards into its development
approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian across in new
devtlopments.
Urbain Limit Linz
The,Committee continued 'to discuss the issues relating to the proposed Urban Limit Line
requirements of the new Growth Management Program. While there was no agroement
regarding specific language revisions, the Committee Hitt agree to forward the following,
discussion points,
0 if an urban limit line is determined to be necessary to the success of the passage of
Measure C, there it must be a mutually agreed-upon line;
• A mutually agreed-upon urban limit line may be one that is contiguous with a
ro uoity's city limits, sphere of influence,or its planning,arca,
t A mutually agreed-upon urban limit line should be subject to review, and any
necessary modifications, every 10 years; and finally,
41 Ratification of a countywide mutually agreed-upon urban limit line through separate
local clections is a fragmented approach that is inconsistent with the regional nature
of this effort.
We rewgnize that the successful extension of'this sales tax measure will require that we
read a balance between divergent and sometimes competing needs this county. We hope
these comments are helpful in furthering the efforts toward building consensus relating to
the reauthorization of Measure C. Please let 'me know if you have any questions
regarding this information.
Yours very truly,
Karen C3. & -r, Chair
Southwest Area Transportation Committee
c' SWAT
SWATTAC
C",C�orneif:gWhT 1.�iYer,IMP C,art�ssape ModificEriarrc tkfCun/jYAll l.+fete -
Exhibit A Page Number 30
2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension
Proposed Meeting; SChedule
REV 18: MARCH 2, 2004
Group date Activity
F
Authority staff Dec 15 Release Draft 2004 CTP Update including proposed Expenditure Plan,
revised policy directives for CMP,proposed Centra Costa
Transportation for Livable Communities(CC-TLC)component,and
alternative projects
_......_._ __._.� ._...... _....,.._............................
Dec 15- Public,RTPC and County review of draft 2004 CTP Update
Mar 3
(2004)
Authority Dec 17 [Adopt Final 2003 CMP Update]
[Adopt Final Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan]
TCC Dec 18 -
PC Jan 7 Review public outreach plan for the DCTP, DEIR,and Expenditure
Plan Alternatives
[Review Draft Transportation 2030 Financials]
Authority Staff Jan 20 Release CTP DEIR
Jan20-Mar 8 Public Review/Comment Period for CTP DEIR
Public comment on the Draft CTP and its DEIR at four public meetings
(West,Central, East,and Southwest)
Telephone tracking poll on Expenditure Plan and GMP element
(tentative)
_EPAC Jan 14 Review Draft CTP and DEIR
TGC Jan 15 [Review Draft Transportation 2030 Financials and Project List]
Authority Jan 21 [Discuss Draft Transportation 2030 Financials]
_yEPAC Jan 28 Continue Review of Draft CTP and DEIR
CAC Jan 28 Review DCTPIDEIR and Expenditure Plan Alternatives
WPC Feb 4 [Cancelled]
EPC Feb 9 Receive draft EPAC proposal
___ ,.r_..__w....__.. ............._.__._
Discuss Tracking Poll
_.-_....._
Authority Feb 18 [Review Draft Transportation 2030 Project List]
EPC Feb 23 Discuss issues involved in achieving a"balanced"plan.
(6 PM)
Exhibit A Page Number 31
Proposed Meeting Schedule for 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension
Group Date Activity
EPAC Feb 25 Continue Review of DCTP/DEIR,and Expenditure Plan Alternatives
CAC Feb 25 Continue Review of GCTP/DEIR,and Expenditure Plan Alternatives
CTP TF Feb 26
EPAC Mar 3 Final recommendation on Expenditure Plan
PC Mar 3 Report on comments received at the 4 Public Workshops
Public Hearing on Draft Plan,DEIR and Expenditure Plan Alternatives
Begin discussion on preferred draft GMP Option
-+ - Mar 8 End of comment Period on DEIR, Draft CTP,and Draft Expenditure
(5 PM) Pian Alternatives and Growth Management Program Options
EPAC Mar 8 Final EPAC meeting
(2,30 PM)
EPC Mar 8 Presentation of final EPAC proposal.
Review comments on draft 2004 CTP Update
Guidance to staff on draft expenditure plan,clarify project and program
investment level in alternatives and in relationship to 2005 RTP(T-
2030)
PC Mar 17 Continue to frame conceptual approach for preferred GMP and TLC
options.
EPC March 22 Initial recommendation for draft Expenditure Plan,continued direction
to staff.
Authority Mar 24 Review comments on draft 2004 CTP Update and Draft Expenditure
Plan Alternatives
Mar 24 [Comments due on Draft T-2030 Project List]
CTP TF Mar 25 Review comments on DCTP and discuss;propose revisions
EPC April 5 EPC recommendation on draft final Expenditure Plan for Authority
review on April 21.
Direction to initiate polling.
[Review Draft Final T-2030 Project List]
Consultant April 6-20 Conduct tracking polling
PC April 7 Formulate Draft Final GMP Policies and TLC program
Discuss issues re: FOR Response to Comments
Authority Staff April 9 Transmit responses to comments to DEIR commentors.
Authority April 21 Issue Draft Expenditure Plan and GMP for public review.
[Adopt Final T-2030 Project List and transmit to MTC]
CTP Task Force April 22& Review Proposed revisions to the draft 2404 CTP Update
April 29
Rev 18: March 2, 20104 Page 2
Exhibit A Page Number 32
Proposed Meeting Schedule for 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension
Group Date Activity
Elected Officials May 1 Countywide Summit of Elected Officials to discuss Draft Expenditure
(Sat. 8 AM) Plan(Sheraton Hotel in Concord)
PC May 5 Review and recommend approval of proposed Final 2004 Update to
the CTP,including proposed GMP Policies and TLC Program
Authority May 19 Certify Final E1R for the 2004 CTP Update and Expenditure Plan
Approve Draft Final Expenditure Plan and CAMP
Adopt Final 2004 Update to the CTP
Release Draft Final Expenditure Plan for Review by local jurisdictions
and the public
(Forward Final T-2030 Project List to MTC]
CTP Task Force May 27 -
June/July Public Reviews graft Final Expenditure Plan
Secure approval from Board of Supervisors and a"majority of cities
representing a majority of population within the incorporated area of
the county"
CCTA July 21 Authority adopts Final Expenditure Plan and approve the Sales Tax
Ordinance and forwards to the Board of Supervisors for call of special
election
August 6 Last day for Board of Supervisors to call election and forward Final
Expenditure Plan and Sales Tax Ordinance to County Elections
Commission for placement on the November 2"d ballot(88 days prior
to election day)
Nov 2 Election Day,2004
Rev 18: March 2,2004 Page 3
Exhibit A Page Number 33