Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07132004 - D.4
TO: Board of Supervisors Contra FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure CommitteeCosta _ ` •`, (Supervisor Millie Greenberg, Chair) County DATE: July 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Committee Report on the Reauthorization of Measure C-88, a Local Sales Tax for Transportation Improvements and Growth Management SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JU aTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSIDER report from the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee on the Reauthorization of Measure C-88, a local sale tax for transportation improvements and growth management; 2. CONSIDER THE ADOPTION of Board Resolution No. 2004/354 (See Exhibit A)approving the final Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, and the findings therein as the basis for this approval; and 3. DIRECT the Community Development Department staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and as appropriate post the Notice of Determination. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. If the Transportation Expenditure Plan(TEP)is ultimately approved by the voters, it will extend the existing half-percent sales tax for transportation to 2434 (25 years). The TEP will return 18%of the tax revenue by formula to cities and the County, pending a jurisdiction's compliance with the requirements of the TEP's growth management program. The County is anticipated to receive $2.1 million annually (2003 dollars) from this revenue source during the life of the measure. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMII MATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES Supervisor Millie Greenber {� `` Su ervltor Gayle B. Uilkema ACTION OF BOARD ON i :> '+ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED —OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �, 'j } ,<< _, : ) 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 -J LLA/ Public Works Department JOHNETEN, CLERK OF Contra Costa Transportation Authority (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY,L DEPUTY P GATransportation\TWICIBoard orders120041measurecl.doc Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee Report on Reauthorization of Measure C-88 July 12, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors asked the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee (Committee)to monitor the activities in support of reauthorizing Measure C-88, the one-half of one percent sales tax for transportation improvements and growth management. This existing local transportation sales tax is scheduled to expire on April 1, 2009. Accordingly, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) has conducted a two-year process to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)for the extension of the existing tax. Supervisor Gioia and Supervisor glover are the Board's representatives to the Authority and have participated directly in this process. The Board has also co-sponsored (with the Authority)two countywide workshops of elected officials on the local sales tax extension. In addition,the Committee has periodically reported to the Board when the process reached key milestones. The Committee's last report to the Board was prepared on April 12, 2004. The Committee forwarded the Draft EIR on the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) for review. Another copy of the Draft EIR is included as Exhibit B. No comments on the Draft EIR were submitted to the Authority. Since then, the Authority has taken the following actions: • Certified that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (see Exhibit C)was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); • Considered the FEIR and the Addendum to the FEIR(see Exhibit D)as the EIR for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Proposed Measure C Extension, final Draft TEP and Growth Management Program (GMP) implementation options; • Adopted the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and adopted related findings to support this action; and • Adopted the final Draft TEP (see Exhibit E) and Ordinance No. 04-02 (see Exhibit F)which amends the Authority's existing ordinance that implemented the local sales tax,and adopted related modifications to previous findings to support this action. For your information, the existing ordinance as amended by Ordinance No. 04-02 is shown in Exhibit G. As you may recall, in January 2003, County staff advised the Board on the process for extending this local sales tax. Before the Authority can send an ordinance to the Board for placement on the ballet,the TEP must receive the necessary approvals from the cities and the Board of Supervisors. The Board was also advised that they would be acting as responsible agencies under CEQA, when considering the TEP for approval. Consequently, on June 3, 2004, the Authority's Executive Director requested each city and the Board of Supervisors to approve the final Draft TEP by July 16, 2004 and to comply with the requirements of CEQA. On July 12,2004,the Committee considered the request of the Authority's Executive Director to approve the TEP. The remainder of this report highlights key aspects of the TEP and summarizes the remaining actions needed to extend this local sales tax. Ivey Aspects of the TEP The final Draft TEP was assembled giving significant weight to the needs and interests of each sub-region, as determined by the four Regional Transportation Planning Committees. it provides "fair-share" funding for each sub-region based on its relative estimated 2020 population - Central, 97.6/0, East, 1031, Southwest, 100% and West, 99.210. To accommodate the diverse needs, address sub-regional priorities, and provide sufficient funding for major investments that polls and focus groups suggest have the strongest support of the voters, the extension is targeted for a 2 -year period. It is estimated to generate$2 billion (2003 dollars) over its duration. The major investments include: • Local streets and roads maintenance and improvement funding (18%, $360 million); • Transit for seniors and people with disabilities (6.2%, $123 million); • Caldecott Tunnel, 4t' Bore ($125 million); • BART— East Contra Costa Rail Extension ($150 million); • State Route 4 East Widening ($125 million); • 1-680 Carpool Lane Gap Closure/Transit Corridor Improvements ($100 million); and • East County Corridors--Vasco Rd,SR4 Bypass, Byron Hwy, Non-Freeway SR 4($94.5 million). Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee Report on Reauthorization of Measure C-88 July 12,2004 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Continued The TEP includes revisions to the Authority's existing Growth Management Program, including revisions to the housing requirement intended to encourage the provision of more housing within parameters that local jurisdictions can feasibly address. It also includes the requirement that anew urban limit line be established by mutual agreement of the County and cities effective through 2034, and that a process be established for amending it. The program also includes a`Transportation for Livable Communities"(TLC)component,which provides that 5%of the total sales tax revenue($100 million)be allocated to transportation projects that encourage more transit-oriented,pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities and encourage more affordable housing and mixed use developments. Each jurisdiction must comply with the requirements of the growth Management Program to be eligible to receive local road funds and TLC funds. In addition to the major capital projects, the TEP would provide significant resources for local jurisdictions: $80.4 million (4%)for improvement of major streets in Central, East and Southwest Counties; $41.8 million(2.1%)in additional local streets and roads funds for Central,Southwest and West Counties; and up to$30.6 million (1.5%)for sub-regional transportation needs at the direction of the Regional Transportation Planning and Committees. Next Steps for Extension of the Sales Tax 1. As a responsible agency under CEQA,the Board (as well as each city), is required to make "Findings, Facts in Support of Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations" and adopt a mitigation monitoring program prior to approval of the TEP. Resolution 2004/354 includes these actions. Summary minutes from the Authority meetings of May 19 and May 26, and responses to comments on CEQA documents made at the May 19 Authority meeting address public testimony considered by the Authority. This information is included as Exhibit H. 2. The TEP must be approved by the city councils of a majority of the cities (at least 10) representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area (approximately 420,000) and by the Board of Supervisors prior to final approval by the Board of the Authority. Approval of the final Draft TEP is included in Resolution 2004/354. 3. Approvals by the Board and the cities are required by July 16th, so that the Authority can adopt the TEP as final on July 21"t and send Ordinance No. 04-02, which incorporates the final TEP, to the Board of Supervisors for placement on the November 2nd ballot. 4. The Board of Supervisors has until August 6th to call for a special election, in this case the November 2, 2004 general election, and to forward Ordinance No. 04-02 to the County Elections Department for placement on that ballot. If the Ordinance receives the necessary approvals, the Authority should transmit the Ordinance to the Board in a timely manner so that action can be taken on August 3�d,which is the last regularly scheduled meeting of the Board to have the ordinance placed on the November ballot. 5. Ordinance No. 04-02 authorizes extension of the sales tax for 25 years from the date of its current expiration and makes other technical changes. The ordinance stands as approved by the Authority unless overturned by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area, and the Board of Supervisors. The County and cities have 45 days from the date of adoption of Ordinance No. 04-02 to obtain the necessary resolutions of support for the override from the cities and from the Board of Supervisors. 6. Final approval of Ordinance No. 04-02, including the final TEP, requires a two-thirds approval by those voting on the measure as it appears on the November 2, 2004 ballot. Exhibit A: Resolution No.2004/354 approving the extension of Contra Costa's transportation sales tax and related actions Exhibit S: Draft EIR for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension {SCM No. 2003082128}(CD's have been given to the Members of the Board as well as the Clerk of the Board, anyone interested in getting a copy can contact Steven Goetz at 925-335-1240) Exhibit C: Final EIR for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Flan and Proposed Measure C Extension Exhibit D: Addendum to the Final EIR Exhibit E: Final Draft Transportation Expenditure Flan Exhibit F: Ordinance No. 04-02 Exhibit G: Ordinance No. 88-01 as amended by Ordinance No.04-02 Exhibit H: Summary Minutes from the Authority Meetings of 05/19/04 and 05/28/04 and responses to comments on CEQA documents made at the 5/19/04 meeting EXHIBIT A THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on July 13, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILKEMA, GREENBERG, DESAULNIER and NGLOVER NOES: ". NONE �� ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 2004/354 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF CONTRA COSTA'S } TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX AND RELATED ACTIONS ) It is hereby RESOLVED by the Board that: WHEREAS, as a result of voter approval of Measure C in November 1988, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority ("Authority") has administered a one half of one percent sales tax for transportation purposes since its inception on April 1, 1989, said tax to run for a period of twenty years; WHEREAS, the Authority proposes that said tax be extended for an additional period of twenty five years through March 31, 2434; WHEREAS, the Authority conducted extensive consultations with local governments, including joint workshops with the Board of Supervisors,and conducted outreach to a wide variety of interest groups and the public in order to develop a mix of projects and programs to be funded by the proposed extension; WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004 the Authority adopted a final Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan ("TEP")to guide the use of the proposed sales tax extension revenues; WHEREAS, the final Draft TEP includes the final Draft Growth Management Program to help the Authority achieve its goals to reduce future congestion, manage the impacts of growth, and expand alternatives to commuting alone by car; WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180206(b) an Expenditure Plan may not be finally adopted and placed before the voters until it has received the approval of the Board of Supervisors and city councils which in aggregate represent both a majority of the cities in Contra Costa and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of Contra Costa; WHEREAS, the Authority, as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"), has prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension, and has prepared an Addendum to the FEIR for the final Draft TEP(collectively,the"EIR"); WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, a FEIR prepared by a lead agency shall be conclusively presumed to comply with CEQA for purposes of use by responsible agencies which were consulted through the Notice of Preparation; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is a responsible agency under CEQA, has responded to consultation by the lead agency, and has considered the EIR. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"}, the Board of Supervisors considers the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension and the Addendum to the FEIR for the final Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan ('TEP"), collectively the"EIR", adequate for use by responsible agencies. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with CEQA, the EIR considers all reasonably feasible alternatives and feasible mitigation measures within the powers of the Board of Supervisors that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with CEQA, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts the "Findings, Facts in Support of Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations" contained in Attachment#1 to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with CEQA, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Report" contained in Attachment #2 to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference, which describes environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and mitigation monitoring for the final Draft TEP; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors approves the final Draft TEP which was adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority("Authority")on May 26, 2004; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors urges the Authority, consistent with the provisions of Public Utilities Code Section 184201, to approve the final TEP, Attachment#1: Findings, Facts in Support of Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations Attachment#2: Mitigation Monitoring Report RESOLUTION NO. 2004/354 q:1'TransifiwICiBo120041measurec.7.exhiWtA.resolution.doc ATTACHMENT#1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 2004/354 Findings, Facts in support of Findings and Statement of Overriding considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'") for Measure c Extension 1. Introduction ROLE OF THE FINDINGS These Findings and Facts in Support of Findings relate to the approval of the Proposed Measure C Extension(the Project).The proposed Measure C Extension includes a final Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan(TEP)which also incorporates refinements to the Growth Management Program (GMP).The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(Authority)is the Lead Agency for the Project and the Board of Supervisors("Board")is a Responsible Agency for the Project pursuant to CEQA. The Findings state the Board's conclusions regarding the significance of the Project's potential environmental impacts after all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted.The Findings are based on information in the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Project and on other relevant information contained in the administrative record for the Project. The Facts in Support of Findings state the Board's reasons for making each finding.They also set forth the evidence that supports the Board's conclusions.Like the Findings,the Facts in Support of Findings are based on the administrative record for the Project,including information contained in the EIR.All records and materials,which constitute the record of the proceedings,upon which these findings are made,are located at the offices of the Authority,3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100, Pleasant Hill,California,94523. Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Statement of Overriding Considerations explains the Board's reasons for approving the final Draft TEP,despite the fact that the final Draft TEP will have significant impacts on the environment. These findings do not repeat the full discussions of environmental impacts contained in the EIR. The Board ratifies,adopts and incorporates the analysis,explanations,findings,responses to comments and conclusions of the EIR. The Board recognizes that there is controversy among experts and lay persons over the EIR's methodology,use of data,and conclusions. The Board adopts the reasoning of the EIR. These findings include a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. STATE GUIDELINES The EIR identifies significant effects on the environment,which may occur as a result of the projects in the final Draft TEP.The State Guidelines adopted pursuant to CEQA provide as follows: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.The findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. This finding shall be referred to as"Finding(1)." (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. This finding shall be referred to as"Finding(2)." (3) Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. This finding shall be referred to as"Finding(3)." State guidelines further require responsible agencies,(e.g.the Board),to mitigate or avoid only the direct or indirect environmental effects of those parts of the project which it decides to carry out,finance or approve. The Board's approval of the final draft tep requires adoption of the mitigation measures established in the EIR,which is included in resolution 2004/354 scope of the environmental analysis. The Authority,as Lead Agency,prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR) for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension. Subsequent to certifying the FEIR,the Authority adopted a final Draft TEP which refines and improves on the alternatives evaluated in the FEIR. As Lead Agency, the Authority prepared an Addendum to the FEIR for the purpose of approving the final Draft TEP. The FEIR and Addendum to the FEIR.are collectively referred to as the"EIR". Page 2 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ..........I——....._...................................... .................... ............... ...... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS This programmatic EIR prepared for the Project analyzes the potential significant effects of the adoption and implementation of the proposed 2004 Update to Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan(2004 CTP Update)and Proposed Measure C Extension,which includes the final Draft TER This assessment fulfills the requirements of CEQA to inform decision-makers,other responsible agencies and the general public of the proposed action and the range of potential environmental impacts of that action.CEQA provides that a program EIR should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow its adoption,but need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.In accordance with CEQA,the EIR identifies countywide effects of the implementation of projects which could follow adoption of the 2004 CTP Update and Proposed Measure C Extension. The 2004 CTP Update,prepared by the Authority,is a long-range transportation-planning document with a time horizon until the year 2025.The proposed Measure C Extension includes a new Expenditure Plan and an update to the 1988 Growth Management Program(collectively,the"final Draft TEP"),which would extend the current one-half of one-percent sales tax for 25 years starting when the current measure expires in 2009. ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT Section 2 of this document identifies the significant environmental effects of the projects in the proposed Measure C Extension,which cannot feasibly be mitigated to below a level of significance. Section 3 identifies potential environmental effects of the projects in the proposed Measure C Extension which are not significant because of the design of the Project or because they can feasibly be mitigated to below a level of significance. Section 4 summarizes the alternatives discussed in the EIR and makes findings with respect to their feasibility and whether the alternatives would lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project. Section 5 consists of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Page 3 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 .. ... .............................. FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 2. Findings Regarding Significant Effects Which Cannot Feasibly Be Mitigated to below a Level of Significance The Board has determined that the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, alternatives and proposals incorporated into the Project will not reduce the following impacts to below a level of significance. AIR QUALITY Impact 2.2-2 Implementation of projects under the 2004 CTP Update would result in an increase in emissions of regional air pollutants such as ROG, CO, and PM-10, and a greater than five per cent increase in emissions of NOX,, compared to the No Project Alternative. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1),(2)and(3). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The following mitigation measure will reduce impacts on air quality. The Authority should 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 Contra Costa County and the region.These measures could include: (1) Support or require the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of the widening and extension of arterials where feasible,and consistent or countywide or local bicycle,pedestrian and facilities plan. (2) Seek funding priority for TCM projects in the 2004 CTP Update for State and regional agencies. (3) Follow requirements of regionally adopted particulate attainment plans when such a plan is prepared and adopted. (4) Continue to support or expand Transportation Demand Management(TDM)activities to encourage drivers to reduce motor vehicle use. (5) Support local jurisdiction efforts to modify land use patterns and implement development projects that reduce VMT,consistent with Measure C Growth Management Program. (6) Use cleaner fuels such as electricity,instead of diesel for the eBART project, (b) The project incorporates all feasible measures to reduce air quality impacts that are consistent with project objectives.These measures include advancing the construction of the Caldecott Tunnel to reduce delay and improve air quality;funding for high occupancy vehicle(HOV) facilities and express bus service to increase the attractiveness of carpooling and transit for Page 4 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ~ FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONSw commuting;funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to help the region meet the region's adopted TCMs,and support for programs to encourage more walkable communities and districts so that people need not rely as much on use of single-occupant vehicles. (c) Compared to existing conditions,countywide transportation emissions of reactive organic gases,carbon monoxide,and NOx would be reduced,This is because emission factors are expected to drop considerably by 2025 due to better fuel mixtures and emissions control technology and the attrition of older,more polluting vehicles.The comparison to the No Project alternative provides a more appropriate baseline for assessing this impact because it compares future impacts,thereby allowing a comparison of impacts based on like assumptions about technology, fuels,and vehicles. (d) Even with these mitigation measures and project elements,this impact could remain significant for NOx under Alternatives B and C. This is primarily because neither the Board nor the sponsors of individual projects proposed under the 2004 CTP Update would have authority to take actions to reduce the number of vehicle trips and subsequently the VMT generated.The 2004 CTP Update and its projects primarily respond to demand generated by forecast land use changes in Contra Costa and the Bay Area,irrespective of the implementation of the 2004 CTP Update or its alternatives. (e) Alternative A could result in reduced air quality impacts compared to the project,but is less consistent with the project objective of expanding travel choices beyond the single-occupant vehicle.The Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 5 of this document contains additional information explaining the reasons for the Board's decision to approve the Project in spite of its environmental effects,and is hereby incorporated by reference. POPULATION AND LAN© USE Impact 2.11-1 The construction of new or expanded transportation facilities proposed by the 2004 CTP Update could result in the conversion of agricultural lands to transportation uses. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1),(2)and(3). Facts In Support of Findings: (a) The following mitigation measure will reduce impacts on agricultural land conversion: The Authority will work with State and local agencies to minimize any adverse impacts on agricultural lands in the county resulting from the construction of new or expanded transportation facilities.While the potential for any impacts,and required mitigation,would be addressed at the project-specific EIR stage,the following measures should be considered for mitigation of such impacts: (1) Corridor realignment,where feasible,to avoid agricultural land areas. (2) Buffer zones and setbacks to protect the functional aspects of agricultural land areas. Page 5 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 ........................................................................................<...,.. 1:INDINGS9 FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (3) Berms and fencing to reduce conflicts between transportation uses and agricultural land uses. (b) The project incorporates all feasible measures to reduce impacts on agricultural land that are consistent with project objectives.These measures include reducing funding for the East County Corridor projects(compared to Alternative A),which would reduce land use impacts (c) The conversion of agricultural lands to transportation uses would remain a significant impact despite the limitations on the extent of conversion provided by measures incorporated into the project and the proposed mitigation measures. (d) Alternative C would result in greater reductions in the significance of this impact,but has more significant environmental impacts in other areas.It is also less consistent with the project objective of reducing future congestion on highways and arterial roads. The Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 5 of this document contains additional information explaining the reasons for the Board's decision to approve the Project in spite of its environmental effects,and is hereby incorporated by reference. 'age 6 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 ........................ .................................................< FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 3. Findings Regarding Potential Environmental Effects Which can Feasibly be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance The Board has determined that the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, alternatives and proposals incorporated into the Project will reduce the following potential environmental effects of the project to below a level of significance. AIR QUALITY Impact 2.2-1 The construction of proposed projects in the draft 2004 CTP Update could result in significant short-term direct impacts on air quality near construction sites. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The following mitigation measures will reduce the significance of this impact: (1) Appropriate dust abatement programs,patterned after the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)approach,shall be implemented by the sponsor for individual projects under the final Draft TEP.The BAAQMD approach calls for"basic" control measures that should be implemented at all construction sites,"enhanced"control measures that should be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area, and"optional"control measures that should be implemented on a case-by-case basis at construction sites that are large in area,located near sensitive receptors or which,for any other reason,may warrant additional emissions reductions(BAAQMD, 1999). (2) Mitigation measures included in the Caltrans' Highway Design Manual that are designed to limit air quality impacts from construction should be used by the project sponsor,as appropriate,during the design phase of projects and written into construction documents. Caltrans has several policies for dust abatement during construction that may serve as a model for dust control at construction sites.There are far-reaching measures such as the use of special contract provisions to require that burrow pits and temporary haul roads be restored to a condition such that their potential as sources of blowing dust or other pollution is no greater than that of their original condition.The checklist of on-site measures includes provisions for temporary erosion protection with mulches, fiber mats, dust palliatives,etc,and for timely planting of slopes to permanently abate wind erosion, etc. (3) If a specific project under the final Draft TEP would entail the demolition of a building containing asbestos materials,the Authority shall require that the project sponsor consult Page 7 of 35 . ............ Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 --... ...... ... ................I—....... ...... ........ ..........--...................... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS with BAAQMD staff concerning the specific requirements of Regulation 11,Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition,Renovation and Manufacturing)of BAAQMD's regulations. (b) With implementation of these mitigation measures,the temporary local impacts of construction dust would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.2-2 Implementation of projects under the 2004 CTP Update would result in less than five percent increase in emissions of regional air pollutants such as ROG, CO, and PM-1 0 compared to the No Project Alternative. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The following mitigation measure will reduce the significance of this impact: The Authority should work with local,regional and State agencies to implement TCMs effectively as a way to reduce the number and length of trips made in Contra Costa County and the region.These measures could include: (1) Support or require the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of the widening and extension of arterials where feasible,and consistent with countywide or local bicycle and pedestrian facility plans. (2) Seek funding priority for TCM projects in the 2004 CTP Update for State and regional agencies. (3) Follow requirements of regionally adopted particulate attainment plans when such a plan is prepared and adopted. (4) Continue to support or expand TDM to encourage drivers to reduce motor vehicle use. (5) Support local jurisdiction efforts to modify land use patterns and implement development projects that reduce VMT,consistent with Measure C Growth Management Program. (b) Use cleaner fuels such as electricity,instead of diesel for the eBART project.The increased use of electricity,however,depending on the method of production,could have secondary and potentially significant impacts where the electricity is produced.The cost of substituting electricity for diesel could make its use infeasible. (c) Implementation of these mitigation measures would further reduce the less-than-significant impacts projected. (d) The Project incorporates all feasible measures to reduce air quality impacts that are consistent with project objectives.These measures include advancing the construction of the Caldecott Tunnel to reduce delay and improve air quality;funding for HOV facilities and express bus service to increase the attractiveness of carpooling and transit for commuting; funding for Page 8 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 .........................................................................„.,<,........,.....,. FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS bicycle and pedestrian facilities to help the region meet the region's adopted TCMs,and support for programs to encourage more walkable communities and districts so that people need not rely as much on use of private automobiles. (e) Compared to existing conditions,countywide transportation emissions of reactive organic gases,carbon monoxide,and NOx would be reduced.This is because emission factors are expected to drop considerably by 2025 due to better fuel mixtures and emissions control technology and the attrition of older,more polluting vehicles.The comparison to the No Project alternative provides a more appropriate baseline for assessing this impact because it compares future impacts,thereby allowing a comparison of impacts based on like assumptions about technology, fuels,and vehicles. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY Impact 2.4-1 Seismic events could damage proposed transportation infrastructure through surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides and tsunamis. Potential impacts on property and public safety from seismic activity would be considered significant. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Potential seismic hazards associated with projects located within tsunami inundation areas shall be minimized through designs to diminish wave inundation and associated damage. For example,precautionary measures such as specifying final foundation or roadbed elevations greater than the expected height of a tsunami with a given return frequency would be effective. (b) The project proponent or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to above mitigation measure for proposed new transportation improvements prior to construction. Implementation of above mitigation measure would reduce exposure of people and structures to seismic hazards from new transportation facilities.Although most new structures would be constructed to survive a strong earthquake without collapse,it is likely that some segments of roads and transit facilities would be damaged.However,compliance with above mitigation measure would reduce potential adverse impacts to a less-than- significant level. Impact 2.4-2 Highway and rail construction could require significant earthwork and road cuts. Such projects could increase short-term and long-term soil erosion and the potential for slope failure. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Page 9 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ..........._. ........................................................................ FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Facts In Support of Findings: (a) The following measures shall be used to mitigate the impacts of projects funded through the proposed Measure C Extension: (1) Sponsors of individual projects proposed under the 2004 CTP Update shall be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 2.7-1a,as discussed in Water Resources Section 2.7,to reduce potential erosion during construction activities. (2) The project proponent shall ensure that all construction activities and design criteria comply with applicable codes and requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code with California additions(Title 22),and applicable Caltrans construction and grading specifications. In addition,the project proponent shall ensure that project designs provide adequate slope drainage and appropriate landscaping to minimize potential future occurrences of slope instability and erosion. (b) Implementing agencies shall ensure that project designs provide adequate slope drainage and appropriate landscaping to minimize the occurrence of slope instability and erosion. Design features shalt include measures to reduce erosion from storm water.Road cuts shall be designed to maximize the potential for revegetation. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.4-3 Projects built on highly compressible or expansive soils could became damaged and weakened over time. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The project proponent shall require that a site-specific geotechnical investigation be conducted by qualified professionals(registered civil and geotechnical engineers,registered engineering geologists)to identify potential geologic hazards associated with surficial soils and subsurface sediments.Recommended corrective measures,such as structural reinforcement,soil treatment,or replacing existing soil with engineered fill shall be incorporated into project designs. (b) The project proponent or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for incorporating this procedure in project-level analysis and ensuring adherence to the above mitigation measure for proposed new transportation improvements prior to construction.Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Page 10 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 ............... ....... ....... ......... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 2.5-1 Projects included in the 2004 CTP Update could adversely affect rare, threatened or endangered, or other special-status species of plants and animals and their habitats, including potential interference with the movement of wildlife species, Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The project proponents,as a condition of project approval shall implement the following mitigation to reduce impacts on special-status species: (1) Select alignments to avoid areas of resource sensitivity and to minimize the need for large areas of cut and fill that would remove vegetation and habitat. Stabilize cut and fill slopes and revegetate immediately following construction.To the extent possible,use native vegetation to landscape project sites to provide some wildlife habitat and minimize the need for fertilizers and pesticides.Avoid introducing invasive species and monitor and control pampas grass,broom and other weedy plants. (2) Avoid construction in wetland areas.Wherever possible,place above ground structures along an alignment to avoid shading of wetland or riparian vegetation.Control discharges from facilities so that pollutants in runoff do not affect wetland habitats. (3) Where wetland disturbance is necessary,require restoration.The new vegetation should consist of plants that are of similar species to those that were removed,such as cattail, rush,and willows.Restoration requirements would be determined on a project by project basis depending upon the value of the habitat.At a minimum there should be no net loss of wetlands. (4) Preserve existing and mature trees and snags as nesting and roosting habitat to the extent feasible,except when trees are diseased,over-aged,or otherwise constitute a hazard to persons or property.Remove topsoil,stockpile and respread to preserve natural vegetation. (5) Keep disruption of soils within streambeds to a minimum and implement stabilization efforts around support pillars. (6) Conduct field surveys for rare and endangered plants,as well as candidate species as part of the environmental review process for proposed projects,where suitable habitat exists. Such surveys are not mitigation in themselves,but provide critical information for assessing impacts and determining if effective mitigation is possible. (7) Protect rare and endangered animal species through controlling or eliminating development in primary habitat areas. Where wildlife habitat is disturbed,undertake relocation efforts where feasible. Page 11 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 ............................. ........ ........ .................... ....... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (8) Avoid known animal movement corridors where possible when designing new road and rail alignments,pedestrian/bike paths,and other transportation facilities;design lighting to be responsive to wildlife sensitivities.Place pass through-culverts under highways to allow wildlife movement Fencing should be used to prevent wildlife from entering highways. (9) Schedule construction activities to avoid disturbance to wildlife;require appropriate erosion control measures in conjunction with new development to minimize wildlife habitat destruction. (b) Specific mitigation measures will need to be recommended for impacts identified during the environmental evaluation of individual projects.On a case-by-case basis,these measures can reduce project-specific impacts to a level that is less-than-significant. (c) in addition to the mitigation measures listed above,the project proponent will implement the following mitigation measure to reduce overall impacts of the Project to a less-than- significant level. (1) The project proponents,as a condition of project approval shall work with agencies involved in the development of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP and determine whether this plan could incorporate the Project into its list of covered activities.The January 2003 draft list of activities covered in the HCP/NCCP includes road and highway construction and maintenance.Because projects and programs included in the Project involve these types of activities,it is likely that the final list of activities covered by the HCP/NCCP could cover potential impacts of the Project.If the Authority and other agencies determine the HCP approach would provide such benefits for Project activities,the Authority will work to support the development of theHCP NCCP. Authority also may need to develop an HCP to address impacts of Project activities on biological resources located in western and central Contra Costa outside the East County HCP/NCCP coverage area. Upon completion of CEQA/NEPA documentation and finalization,the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP will provide an effective way to achieve local goals for preserving habitat and maintaining environmental quality within eastern Contra Costa while balancing other development goals.This HCP/NCCP would have the effect of preserving key habitat in a systematic fashion,and would allow for a"taking"of listed plants and animals in a way that would still ensure no net loss of the region's ability to maintain populations of listed species. Impact 2.5-2 Projects included in the 2004 CTP Update could adversely affect wetlands and other aquatic resources. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Page 12 of 35 ....................... Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 11....11... ......___...1....I......1...._....................> ....................... ....... ........ FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Facts In Support of Findings: (a) Prior to project implementation,project proponents shall obtain applicable permits from the appropriate agencies(Corps,Regional Water Quality Control Board[RWQCB],Bay Conservation and Development Commission[BCDC],and CDFG)and agree to comply with permit conditions to protect jurisdictional waters and other sensitive habitat.This requirement obligates project proponents to implement measures that avoid,minimize,and compensate for significant impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and other aquatic resources within or adjacent to the project area. In accordance with guidelines of the Corps,RWQCB,BCDC,and CDFG, a goal of"no net loss"of wetland acreage and value will be implemented,wherever possible, through avoidance of the resource.Mitigation for wetlands impacts due to proposed transportation projects would be based on project-specific wetland mitigation plans,subject to approval by the Corps and commenting agencies.Mitigation for placing fill in wetlands would be partially achieved by avoiding wetlands and by minimizing fill where avoidance is not feasible. Avoidance,compensatory restoration,or creation of new wetland communities to offset the conversion of wetlands for proposed transportation improvements would achieve "no net loss"of wetland acreage and value. (b) Implementing the above mitigation measure on a site-by-site basis,where necessary,would reduce Project effects to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.5-3 Projects included in the 2004 CTP Update could result in the removal of trees protected by local ordinances. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Project-level analysis will determine whether the Project will result in the removal of trees protected by Contra Costa County or city ordinance.The project proponents will avoid work activities within the drip-line of protected or heritage trees.In the event that it is infeasible to avoid the drip-line of protected or heritage trees,the project proponents would apply for any applicable permits and comply with local city or County replacement mitigation guidelines for impacts to protected trees specified in the permits. (b) This measure would reduce impacts on protected trees to a less-than-significant level. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 2.6-1 Hazardous materials used on-site during construction activities(e.g.,fuels, oils and solvents) could be released to the environment through improper handing or storage. Page 13 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 .............................................................<.......,.,...,,,..,.,.......,<.<..,.............. FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Sponsors of individual projects under the 2004 CTP Update shall be required to comply with CEQA and NEPA. The following mitigation measures should be included in project-level analysis as appropriate for proposed new transportation improvements. (1) The project proponent or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for ensuring utilization of construction best management practices that are typically implemented as part of construction.The use of construction best management practices would minimize the potential negative effects on groundwater and soils.Best management practices could include the following: i. Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use,storage and disposal of chemical products used in construction; ii. Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; iii. During routine maintenance of construction equipment,properly contain and remove grease and oils;and iv. Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. (b) Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce hazardous materials exposure during construction.With implementation of such construction best management practices, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.6-2 Disturbance of impacted soils or groundwater during project construction and excavation work could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous conditions. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Sponsors of individual transportation projects proposed under the 2004 CTP Update should be required to implement the following mitigation measures.Any additional mitigation needed for specific projects shall be identified and implemented following project-specific CEQA and/or NEPA analysis. (1) A soil sampling plan shall be prepared and implemented along construction corridors to determine the presence or absence of soil contamination. if soil contamination is found, the contaminated soil shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Page 14 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 ................................................................................................................... FINDINGSo FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (2) In the event that soil contamination is encountered,project sponsors shall insure that one competent professional is onsite at all times during construction phases to perform soil analyses.All construction shall cease until the contaminated soil is reused or removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements.A competent professional shall collect verification soil samples to ensure complete removal of contaminated soil. (3) If any underground storage tanks(UST)are discovered during construction,all construction in the immediate area shall stop until the UST is removed under the guidance of the Contra Costa Environmental Health(CCEH)or other regulatory agency. If required by the regulatory agency,removal may include the over-excavation and disposal of any impacted soil that may be associated with such tanks to a degree considered sufficient by the CCEH. (b) With implementation of the above mitigation measures,the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.6-3 Disturbance of structural and building components (i.e., asbestos, lead, PCBs, and PAHs) could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous conditions. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) In addition to the following measures,any mitigation needed for specific projects shall be identified and implemented following project-specific CEQA and/or NEPA analysis. (1) Prior to the demolition of any building,a pre-demolition asbestos containing material (ACM)and lead-based paint(LBP)survey shall be performed by the project proponent. Abatement of known or suspected AGMs and loose or peeling LBP shall occur prior to demolition or construction activities that would disturb those materials. (2) In the event that PCB-containing materials are identified prior to demolition activities they shall be removed,and shall be disposed of by a licensed transportation and disposal facility in Class I hazardous waste landfill cells. (b) With implementation of the above mitigation measures,this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.6-4 Exposure to hazardous materials, such as petroleum products,fuels, spent oil, and solvents used during project construction and operation, could expose humans and the environment to potentially hazardous conditions. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Page 15 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 .___... ....11...I.......__.....__...1-1................ ...._............ ............... ....... FINDINGSO FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Facts in Support of Findings., (a) Sponsors of individual transportation projects proposed under the 2004 CTP Update should be required to implement the following mitigation measures,as a condition of project approval.Any additional mitigation needed for specific projects shall be identified and implemented following project-specific CEQA and/or NEPA analysis. (1) In the event of an inadvertent release of hazardous materials during project operations, cleanup shall occur in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. (2) Spent oil and other solvents used during maintenance of transportation facilities and equipment shall be recycled or disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements.All hazardous materials shall be transported,handled,and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. (b) With implementation of the above mitigation measures,the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOUCRES Impact 2.7-1 Construction activities could result in erosion and cause subsequent sedimentation of storm water runoff, or introduce pollutants to runoff from the use of automotive fluids and hazardous materials, Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Construction-related grading and other activities shall be required to comply with the Association of Bay Area Government's(ABAG's)Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures(ABAG, 1995)and with the California Stormwater Quality Association(CASQA),Stonnwater Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction (CASQA,2003a).The project proponent shall also apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB)National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)General Construction Permit for construction projects that incorporate over one acre,as required by the SWRCB. Under NPDES permit regulations,the project proponent would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).The SWPPP shall be consistent with the State Construction Storm Water General Permit,the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control byABAG,policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff program(city and/or county),and the recommendations of the applicable RWQCB.Implementation of the SWPPP shall be enforced by inspecting agencies during the construction period.Typical elements of a SWPPP include: Page 15 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ..........................._........................... ...... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Excavation and grading activities will be scheduled for the dry season only(April 15 to October 15),to the extent possible.This will reduce the chance of severe erosion from intense rainfall and surface runoff,as well as the potential for soil saturation in swale areas. (2) If excavation occurs during the rainy season,storm runoff from the construction area will be regulated through a storm water management/erosion control plan that may include temporary onsite silt traps and/or basins with multiple discharge points to natural drainages and energy dissipaters.Stockpiles of loose material will be covered and runoff diverted away from exposed soil material. If work is stopped due to rain,a positive grading away from slopes will be provided to carry the surface runoff to areas where flow can be controlled,such as the temporary silt basins. Sediment basin/traps will be located and operated to minimize the amount of offsite sediment transport.Any trapped sediment will be removed from the basin or trap and placed at a suitable location onsite,away from concentrated flows,or removed to an approved disposal site. (3) Temporary erosion control measures will be provided until perennial revegetation or landscaping is established and can minimize discharge of sediment into nearby waterways.For construction within 500 feet of a water body,straw bales will be placed upstream adjacent to the water body. (4) After completion of grading,erosion protection will be provided on all cut-and-fill slopes. Revegetation will be facilitated by mulching,hydroseeding,or other methods and should be initiated as soon as possible after completion of grading and prior to the onset of the rainy season(by October 15). (5) Permanent revegetation/landscaping will emphasize drought-tolerant perennial ground coverings,shrubs,and trees to improve the probability of slope and soil stabilization without adverse impacts to slope stability due to irrigation infiltration and long-term root development. (6) Best Management Practices selected and implemented for the project will be in place and operational prior to the onset of major earthwork on the site.The construction phase facilities will be maintained regularly and cleared of accumulated sediment as necessary. (7) Hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents used on the construction sites will be stored in covered containers and protected from rainfall,runoff,and vandalism A stockpile of spill cleanup materials will be readily available at A construction sites. Employees will be trained in spill prevention and cleanup,and individuals will be designated as responsible for prevention and cleanup activities. (b) Proponents of individual projects proposed under the 2004 CTP Update or the local jurisdiction shall be responsible for incorporating in project-level analysis as appropriate and ensuring adherence to the above mitigation measure for proposed new transportation improvements prior to construction. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts on water quality associated with construction-related activities to a less-than-significant,level. Page 17 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ........................—........................................ ......,,.,.....,........<..,.,,...,.,.......,. FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Impact 2.7-2 Construction activities may discharge groundwater impacted with hazardous materials during dewatering. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Individual project proponents under the 2004 CTI'Update shall obtain a discharge permit from the appropriate regulatory agency prior to discharge of groundwater generated by excavation dewatering activities to storm drains or sewer systems. For projects located in areas where dewatering activities would require the discharge of groundwater generated by construction directly to a local water body,the project proponent shall obtain a permit from the appropriate RWQCB. Alternatively,the project applicant shall arrange for temporary storage of groundwater generated by dewatering on-site,and arrange for future transport of groundwater to an appropriate disposal facility. (b) The project proponent or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for incorporating in project- level analysis as appropriate and ensuring adherence to the above mitigation measure for proposed new transportation improvements prior to construction. This mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with discharge of contaminated groundwater during construction to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.7-3 Transportation facilities and programs constructed or operating in flood prone areas may subject people or structures to,,flood hazards, or could serve to redirect flood,flows. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Proponents of individual projects proposed under the 2004 CTP Update shall comply with Caltrans and local regulatory agency design standards for projects within a Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated 100-year flood zone. (b) The project proponent or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for assessing the effects of the project on flood flows,as appropriate,and ensuring adherence to the above mitigation measure for proposed new transportation improvements prior to construction.This mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with flooding to a less-than- significant level. Page 18 of 35 . ............. ........................... Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ....—.....I.............. .................___....._1............... ....... ........ .............. .......... .......... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Impact 2.7-4 Construction of transportation improvements would increase impervious surface areas causing an increase in storm water runoff volume and rate, and nonpoint-source pollutant levels and decreased rates ofgroundwater recharge. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The following measures shall be applied to mitigate the impacts of projects funded through the 2004 CTP Update and proposed Measure C Extension: (1) Proponents of individual projects under the 2004 CTP Update shall be required to meet the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act by submitting plans to eliminate and control potential pollutants in storm water discharge through incorporation of structural and treatment best management practices,in addition to minimizing increases in storm water runoff volumes and rates,in accordance with Contra Costa's Municipal NPDES permit,Caltrans NPDES permit,or,if applicable a NPDES permit specific to the project site. In order to minimize water quality impacts associated with proposed projects, existing pervious surfaces shall be preserved to minimize the amount of storm runoff to the greatest extent possible,in accordance the recommendations provided in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association's(BASMAA)Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection(BASMA, 1999).The project shall also incorporate appropriate water pollution and storm water runoff control measures recommended in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Hand- book for New Development and Redevelopment. (2) Projects shall be designed to allow lateral transmission of storm water flows across transportation corridors with no increased risk of upstream flooding.Culverts and bridges shall be designed to adequately carry drainage waters through project sites,in accordance with Caltrans design requirements. (b) The project proponent or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for incorporating in project- level analysis as appropriate and ensuring adherence to the above mitigation measures for proposed new transportation improvements prior to construction. Compliance with these mitigation measures would minimize newly created impervious surface areas associated with individual proposed projects,in addition to minimizing potential adverse water quality impacts associated with storm water runoff from newly created roadways.Overall,mitigation would reduce potential impacts associated with increased storm water runoff and decreased groundwater recharge to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.7-5 Population growth in the San Francisco Bay Area would result in additional vehicle usage in Contra Costa County, increasing automobile-related pollutant levels in storm water runoff generated from county roads. Page 19 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 ...................... ......... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Findings:The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The facts in support of findings related to impact 2.7-4 are hereby incorporated by reference. (b) The proposed Measure C Extension would not result in vehicle usage greater than that expected with the No Project alternative. Impact 2.8-2 Construction or expansion of certain transportation projects included in the 2004 CTP Update could adversely alter views in the county over the long-term by adding incongruous elements to the existing landscape, thereby blocking view or altering the scale, character, and quality of rural or open space areas, important vistas along roadways, and urban communities. Findings-.The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts In Support of Findings: (a) The Authority shall require project proponents to comply with CEQA(and NEPA,if appropriate)prior to project approval.Project proponents shall commit to mitigation measures as project conditions prior to project approval.These commitments obligate project proponents to implement measures that would minimize or eliminate any significant visual impacts.Visual impacts from new or expanded transportation facilities may be minimized to preserve sensitive scenic views through the careful design,siting(by avoiding major ridgelines,etc.),and landscaping of structures,roads,power lines,and storage tanks.Typical mitigation measures that could be considered by project proponents to minimize significant visual impacts include: (1) Design projects to minimize contrast in scale and massing between the project and surrounding natural forms and urban development. Site or design projects to minimize their intrusion into important view sheds. (2) Use natural landscaping to minimize contrasts between the projects and existing natural and human-made features.Where possible,develop interchanges and transit lines at the grade of the surrounding land to limit view blockage.Contour the edges of major cut and fill slopes to provide a more natural looking finished profile. (3) Design landscaping along highway corridors to add significant natural elements and visual interest to soften the hard edged,linear travel experience that would otherwise occur. (4) Complete design studies for projects in designated or eligible Scenic Highway corridors. Consider the"complete"highway system and develop mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the quality of the views or visual experience that originally qualified the highway for Scenic Highway designation. Page 20 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ..........— ...... ....I...I ... ...........—..—.............. ........... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (b) Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts to visual resources caused by the addition of incongruous elements to a less-than-significant level. NOISE Impact 2.9-1 Construction of the projects proposed in the 2004 CTP Update would have short-term noise impacts on surrounding areas. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The Authority should continue to advise project sponsors as to appropriate construction- related noise mitigation measures to include in their projects,such as requiring mufflers on heavy construction equipment and specifying time restrictions consistent with local noise ordinances and with the activities of sensitive land uses in the vicinity(limitations on allowable hours for construction,however,could have significant adverse impacts on traffic movement if construction is limited to the daylight hours and prohibited during nighttime hours).Further project level analysis conducted for individual projects shall determine the level of mitigation required.Mitigation measure could include,but not be limited to: (1) Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques(e.g.,improved mufflers,equipment redesign,use of intake silencers, ducts,engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds,wherever feasible); (2) Impact tools(e.g.,jack hammers,pavement breakers,and rock drills)used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However,where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable,an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used;this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA.External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible,and this could achieve a reduction of 5.0 dBA.Quieter procedures shall be used,such as drills rather than impact equipment,whenever feasible; (3) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible,and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds,incorporate insulation barriers,or other measures to the extent feasible; (4) To reduce the potential for noise impacts from pile driving,alternate methods of driving shall be used,if feasible.Altemate measures may include pre-drilling of piles,the use of more than one pile driver to lessen the total time required for driving piles,and other measures; Page 21 of 35 _..... Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ...................I__..........., ...........,.,.,................................,..................... ,. FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (5) Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the entire construction site,if necessary to buffer noise from sensitive land uses; (6) Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce noise emission from the site; (7) Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; (8) Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures with noise measurements;and (9) Establish a process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction noise with the following components: i. A procedure for notifying city and county police departments and building division staff throughout Contra Costa County; ii. A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to permitted construction days and hours and complaint procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem; iii. A listing of telephone numbers(during regular construction hours and off-hours); iv. The designation of construction complaint manger for the project; and v. Notify neighbors within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of pile-driving activities about the estimated duration of the activity. (b) This mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.9-2 Transportation improvements proposed as part of the 2004 CTP Update could result in noise levels that approach or exceed the Federal Highway Adminstration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration(FTA)Noise Abatement Criteria. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts In Support of Findings: (a) Noise mitigation measures should respond to the land use compatibility criteria included in the General flans of the applicable jurisdictions. If federal funding is used for the project, mitigation measures should also conform to applicable FHWA and FTA noise abatement criteria.These commitments obligate project sponsors to implement measures that would minimize or eliminate any significant impacts.Depending on the type of project,typical mitigation measures that should be considered by project sponsors shall include but not be limited to: Page 22 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ............. ....... ..........1.1-1.... ....._....I.... ....—.....____................... ...... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Construction of sound walls adjacent to new or modified roads or transit lines,especially when projects are located in the vicinity of sensitive receptors.Noise level increases could,in most cases,be mitigated to levels at or below existing levels if soundwalls were constructed along the rights-of-way.A determination of the specific heights,lengths and feasibility of soundwalls must be part of the project-level environmental assessment. (2) Adjustments to proposed roadway or transit alignment to reduce noise levels in noise sensitive areas.Depressed roadway alignments are effective at mitigating roadside noise levels. (3) Insulation of buildings or construction of noise barriers around sensitive receptors. (4) Vibration isolation of track segments. (5) The Authority will encourage local jurisdictions to establish development standards and land use policies that limit the exposure of sensitive receptors to noise generated by new or expanded transportation facilities.Such policies could include guiding commercial, industrial,and other similar uses to sites adjacent to major roadways or rail lines and requiring noise mitigation measures when residential,educational and other similar uses are to be developed near major transportation facilities. (b) This mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 2.10-1 Construction of new transportation projects supported by the Project has the potential to adversely affect historic architectural resources through demolition or significant changes to the historical setting. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) To reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level,proponents of individual projects under the 2004 CTP Update would be required to implement,as a condition of project approval, mitigation measures(1)(identification)and(2)(avoidance).If it is not feasible to avoid direct and indirect impacts on historically significant buildings,implementation of mitigation measure(3)would lessen impacts,but not to a less-than-significant level. (b) It shall be the responsibility of individual project proponents to ensure that adequate measures to identify and mitigate impacts on cultural resources are implemented. Such mitigation measures shall include,but not be limited to the following: (1) Inventory and Evaluate Cultural Resources. A complete cultural resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources shall be conducted for all projects Page 23 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 FINDINGSo FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS that have the potential to impact cultural resources.Minimally,a cultural resources inventory shall consist of a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the Northwest Information of the California Historical Resources Information System located at Sonoma State University;consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC;a field survey(if one has not previously been conducted);recordation of all identified archaeological sites and historic buildings and structures on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Site Record forms; and preparation of a cultural resources inventory report describing the project setting,methods used in the investigation,results of the investigation,and recommendations for management of identified resources.Certain agencies,such as the FHWA and Caltrans,have specific requirements for inventory areas and documentation format. Avoid Impacts on Cultural Resources. If feasible,impacts on identified cultural resources including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, human remains,and historical buildings and structures should be avoided.Methods of avoidance may include,but not be limited to,project re-route or re-design,project cancellation,or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. (2) Follow the Secretary of the Interior's Stand arils, the Treatment offfistoric Properties. In the event that impact avoidance is not feasible,any alterations,including relocation,to historic buildings or structures shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving,Rehabilitating, Restoring,and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.This mitigation measure will reduce impacts on significant historic buildings and structures,but would not reduce it to a less- than-significant level. impacts on significant historic buildings are considered significant and unavoidable. Where such treatment is not feasible,a qualified cultural resource specialist shall be retained to document the impacted historical architectural resource to Historic American Buildings Survey(HAGS)and Historic American Engineering Record(HAER) standards.NABS and HAER documentation packages shall be entered into the Library of Congress as well as the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. (c) Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts on historic architectural resources to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.10-2 Construction of new transportation projects supported by the Project has the potential to adversely affect archaeological remains or buried human remains through damage or destruction of those remains. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) To reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level,sponsors of individual projects under the 2004 CTP Update shall be required to implement mitigation measures(b)(1) (identification)and(b)(2) (avoidance)from the Facts in Support of Findings for Impact 2.10- Page 24 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ......."..__.............. ......_._.....I..... ...... ......... ................. ......... ............. FINDINGSo FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1,as a condition of project approval. Some locations may be designated as archaeological sensitive locations even though specific archaeological sites have not been identified. In these areas,project sponsors shall be required to implement mitigation measure(b)(3)(conduct monitoring)from the Facts in Support of Findings for Impact 2.10. If archaeological remains are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities,mitigation measure(a)(2), from this section,below)(Stop Work)shall be implemented. If significant archaeological remains cannot be avoided through project design specifications,project sponsors shall implement mitigation measure(a)(3),from this section, below)(Conduct Archaeological Data Recovery).To further reduce impacts on archaeological remains,project sponsors shall implement the following mitigation measures, as appropriate: (1) Conduct Archaeological Monitoring. If ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact archaeological remains will occur in an area that has been determined by a qualified archaeologist to be an area that is sensitive for the presence of buried archaeological remains,a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor those activities.Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted in areas where there is a likelihood that archaeological remains may be discovered but where those remains are not visible on the surface.Monitoring shall not be considered a substitute for efforts to identify and evaluate cultural resources prior to the project initiation. (2) Stop Work ifArchaeological Remains are Discovered During Project Construction. If potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with project preparation,construction,or completion,work shall halt in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find,and,if necessary,develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with appropriate agencies and interested parties. (3) Conduct Archaeological Data Recovery. If it is infeasible to avoid impacts on archaeological sites that have been determined to be eligible for listing on the CRHR or the NRHP(significant resources),additional research including,but not necessarily limited to,archaeological excavation shall be conducted.This work shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist and shall include preparation of a research design,additional archival and historical research,archaeological excavation,analysis of artifacts,features, and other attributes of the resource,and preparation of a technical report documenting the methods and results of the investigation.The purpose of this work is to recover a sufficient quantity of data to compensate for damage to or destruction of the resource. The procedures to be employed in this data recovery program will be determined in consultation with responsible agencies and interested parties,as appropriate. (b) linplementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts on archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level. Page 25 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 ......................................... ........... ...... ........... ............ FINDINGSs FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS POPULATION AND LAND USE Impact 2.11-2 Construction-related activities associated with projects comprising the 2004 CTP Update are likely to significantly disrupt adjoining land uses in the short-term. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) The Authority will require project sponsors to commit to the following mitigation measure to reduce construction-related traffic disruption impacts: (1) Construction operations on existing facilities will be regulated to minimize traffic disruptions and detours,and to maintain safe traffic operations. (b) This mitigation measure is expected to reduce the potentially significant adverse impact of individual projects to a less-than-significant level countywide. Impact 2.11-3 The construction of new or expanded transportation facilities proposed by the 2004 CTP Update could result in the displacement or division of existing housing, businesses, and neighborhoods. Findings: The Board hereby makes findings(1)and(2). Facts in Support of Findings: (a) Require project sponsors of eBART,SR 4 East(Loveridge Road to SR 160),Martinez intermodal Facility,Vasco Road Widening,Byron Highway Widening,Brentwood Boulevard Corridor Improvements,SR 4 Bypass(Lone Tree Way to Vasco Road),SR 242/Clayton Road,South 1-680 HOV Direct Access,and various local arterial projects to commit to preparation and execution of relocation assistance plans as a mitigation measure for displacement impacts as a condition of Measure C Extension funding.As a minimum, relocation assistance plans will include: (1) Criteria for replacement housing; (2) Reimbursement levels for moving costs and differential housing costs to those eligible for displacement; (3) Construction schedules that allow adequate time for all commercial and industrial businesses to find and relocate to adequate substitute sites,and Page 26 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.20041354 .............................................................................................................. FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (4) Reimbursement levels for the costs associated with relocating a business to an acceptable facility,including search costs and criteria for payment in lieu of relocation if a business cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of existing patronage. (b) These mitigation measures are expected to reduce this potentially significant adverse impact to a less-than-significant level. (c) (a) Page 27 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 .......... ....I................... .....—....... ...... ....... ............ FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4. Findings Regarding Alternatives INTRODUCTION CEQA requires an EIR to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project or to the location of the proposed project. These alternatives must "feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project(CEQA Guidelines, §15126(a))." "Feasible"means that the alternatives "are capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,environmental,legal,social,and technological factors(CEQA Guidelines,§15364)." In the EIR for the 2004 CTP Update and Proposed Measure,C Extension,the Authority considered the No Project alternative and three alternative projects,rather than alternatives to the project.This approach to project and alternatives definition allowed the Authority to consider the environmental impacts of alternative approaches as an integral part of developing the final project,rather than as a subsequent step.The alternatives included three different proposed expenditure plans. In response to the many comments received on the alternatives analyzed in the EIR,the Authority developed a final Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan(TEP)to include in the proposed Measure C Extension(the project analyzed in these findings)that refines and improves on the alternatives analyzed in the EIR. The alternatives are described in greater detail below. The EIR also analyzes three growth management options that would affect the process of growth management efforts within Contra Costa presently required under Measure C. In response to the many comments received on the options analyzed in the EIR,the Authority prepared a final Draft Growth Management Program to include in the final Draft TEP as part of the project analyzed in these findings.These requirements would not result in specific changes to land use or development within the county. GOALS OF THE PROJECT The Board hereby finds that the Authority has established following goals for the 2004 CTP Update: 1. Reduce future congestion on highways and arterial roads. 1.1 Increase the operational capacity of the existing highway and arterial roads systems through capital and operating enhancements. 1.2 Define and close gaps in the existing highway and arterial system. 1.3 Improve the highway and arterial system consistent with a countywide plan to influence the location and nature of anticipated growth. 2. Manage the Impacts of growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy and preserve its environment. 2.1 Require cooperative transportation and land use planning among Contra Costa County, cities,towns,and transportation agencies. 2.2 Work to maintain and expand partnerships to achieve the Authority's goals. 2.3 Participate in a regional cooperative land use planning process with agencies both within and outside of Contra Costa. 2.4 Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of the transportation system,consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions. Page 28 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2004/354 .................................................................................................... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 2.5 Require local jurisdictions to(i)establish standards for necessary public capital improvements,(ii)have new growth pay its fair share of the cost of such improvements, and(iii)link land use decisions to the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided. 2.6 Link transportation investments to(i)support of an urban limit line jointly endorsed by the County,cities and towns,once it is established,(ii)new developments which enhance transportation efficiency and economic vitality,and(iii)infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfields areas. 2.7 .Respect community character and the environment when considering proposed new transportation projects. 3. Provide and expand safe,convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. 3.1 Help fund the expansion of existing transit services,and maintenance of existing operations,including BART,bus transit,school buses,and paratransit. 3.2 Link transit investments to increased coordination and integration of public transit services,and improved connections between travel modes. 3.3 Require local jurisdictions to incorporate policies and standards that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments. 3.4 Support transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly developments. 3.5 Invest in trails,walkways,and pedestrian-oriented improvements. 3.6 Promote formation of more carpools and vanpools,and greater use of transit,bicycling, and walking. 3.7 Support the expansion of a coordinated system of transit and paratransit service to address the mobility needs of low-income,elderly,young and disabled travelers. 3.8 Encourage local jurisdictions to develop bicycle facilities and to connect those facilities into a coordinated network. 4. Maintain the transportation system. 4.1 Advocate for stable sources of funds for transit operations. 4.2 Require programs for effective preventive maintenance and rehabilitation of the transportation system. 4.3 Provide funding to reduce the backlog of transportation rehabilitation and maintenance needs. 4.4 Once the backlog has been addressed,promote stable funding and preventative maintenance programs that will maintain the long-term health of the transportation system. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED BY THE EIR The EIR analyzes three alternative Expenditure flans.While all three include the same$1.6 billion revenue Brom the proposed Measure C Extension,each proposes to distribute the money differently; one alternative emphasizes projects,another balances projects and programs,and a third emphasizes programs over projects. Page 29 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ...I............. ..._............ ..........I............I...... ....__..... ......... ........ ................... ...... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Alternative A — "Project Focus" Alternative A represents a continuation of the current Measure C funding approach. Alternative A emphasizes major regional projects and will facilitate the delivery of major capital projects in the Fiscal Year(FY)2010 to FY 2015 period. Since this alternative is proposed to reflect how current Measure C funds are distributed,all programs would be distributed using formulas currently in use. Alternative S — "Local Focus" Alternative B divides expected revenues evenly between programs and projects.Of the three Expenditure Plan Alternatives,it reflects most closely the requests for projects and program funding made by the RTPCs. Since this alternative is proposed to reflect RTPCs needs,all programs except for Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvements("Return to Source")and TDM are distributed proportional to the amounts requested by the RTPCs.The Loral Transportation Maintenance and Improvements("Return to Source")and TDM funds would be distributed using formulas currently in use. Alternative C — "Program Focus" Alternative C emphasizes programs over major regional projects.The majority of program funding would be for transit operating subsidies and local grants,which have traditionally been difficult to obtain from other sources.The Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvements("Return to Source"),TDM,and Transportation Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities programs would be distributed using formulas currently in use,CC-TLC Incentive Program and Ped/Bike program are distributed proportional to 2020 population.Bus Operations,Ferries,and Transportation for Children are distributed proportional to the amounts requested by the RTPCs because the amounts varied dramatically(e.g.,no ferries in SWAT or TRANSPLAN sub-areas).The Express Bus Service funds would be distributed proportional to what the Authority's Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee suggested for various corridors. No Project Alternative CEQA guidelines advise that when the project is the revision of a plan,policy or ongoing operation, the"No Project"Alternative would continue the existing plan,policy or operation into the future (CEQA Guidelines§15126.6(e)(3)(A)).Under the No Project Alternative for this EIR,the Authority would not adopt the proposed 2004 CTP Update,leaving in place the adopted 2000 CTP.The No Project Alternative includes projects either identified in MTC's,2001 RTP Track 1 or programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP),thereby incorporating regional-and state-level policy directives that have taken effect since the 2000 CTP was adopted. FINDINGS OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS As shown in Table 3.1-15 of the EIR,there are tradeoffs among the various issue areas.In several cases,the overall difference between the alternatives is very minor.Because the No Project and the Expenditure Plan Alternatives share many of the same improvements,their impacts are also similar Page 30 of 35 - Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ................... ....................<..,....n...............,.,..,,.,.,..................,......... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS for many of the issue areas.Nonetheless,because the No Project Alternative has fewer improvements (roadway and rail),it would have the least direct physical impacts. However,it would also result in less favorable transportation(and increased energy)impacts than Alternatives A and B.Conversely, Alternative A would result in the greatest transportation benefits,but given that it includes several regional improvements--such as eBART and Vasco Road and Byron highway widenings--it would also have greater direct physical impacts. In the areas of cultural resources,geology/seismicity, hazardous materials,noise,and visual impacts,many of the impacts include short-term construction effects that are localized and temporary.Also,construction of several major projects will still occur under the No Project scenario. Focusing on long-term effects,it appears that Alternative A offers the most environmental advantages, as it performs the best in key issue areas of transportation,air quality,and energy. The impacts of Alternative B are comparable to those of Alternative A,except in areas of transportation,air quality,and energy,where it performs slightly inferior in comparison.However,it results in slightly greater transit ridership(primarily due to bus ridership; BART ridership will actually be lower)than Alternative A.Alternative C performs better in visual quality,and population and land use because of reduced emphasis on regional improvements than Alternatives A and B,but it has worse or similar impacts in all of the remaining issue areas(except for Geology and Seismicity and Socioeconomic Environment,where the No Project Alternative has greater adverse impacts) compared to the No Project and other Expenditure Plan alternatives.Most impacts on visual resources can be mitigated by proper site design,screening,and revegetation. For these reasons,Alternative A is considered the environmentally superior alternative overall,with Alternative B a very close second.This finding is based on that alternative's superior performance in the areas of transportation,energy and air quality,despite significant impacts on population and land use. The other two alternatives performed better than Alternative A in some areas,and the Authority has incorporated components from those alternatives into the Proposed Project to minimize environmental impacts.The Authority now refers to the Proposed Project as the final Draft TEP. Overall,the final Draft TEP is closest to Alternative B("Local Focus"),which balanced the emphasis on regional projects in Alternative A and the emphasis on transportation programs in Alternative C,and added funding for more local transportation improvements.The final Draft TEP,however,also draws from the other two alternatives to enhance the environmental benefits of the project while creating the balanced transportation approach called for in the Authority's vision and goals. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED 2004 CTP UPDATE AND FINAL DRAFT TEP The Authority,as Lead Agency,prepared and certified a FEIR for the 2004 CTP Update/Proposed Measure C Extension,and prepared an Addendum to the FEIR for the final Draft TEP(collectively, the EIR). Based on the evaluation of the proposed 2004 CTP Update/Proposed Measure C Extension and final Draft TEP in the Addendum to the Final EIR,the Board finds that: 1. While Alternative A was identified in the EIR as the environmentally superior alternative,the final Draft TEP better meets the Authority's vision,goals and strategies.The final Draft TEP outlines a more balanced approach to achieving the goals of reducing future congestion, expanding alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle,and maintaining the transportation system by: Page 31 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 .... .................................................. FINDINGS; FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS a. Expanding express bus service and HOV facilities to encourage transit use and carpooling and thereby reduce future congestion b. Increasing funding for the Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities program, safe transportation for children, and bicycle-pedestrian facilities to encourage alternatives to driving alone in a single-occupant vehicle c. Boosting funding for paratransit to serve forecast increases in demand d. Refining the TEP to emphasize regional differences such as increased system capacity in East County and increased operational improvements in West and Central County 2. The mix of project and programs in the final Draft TEP most closely resembles that in Alternative B "Local Focus" and, thus, the impacts of the proposed 2004 CTP Update and final Draft TEP would most closely resemble those of Alternative B, and the mitigation measures recommended for Alternative B should be included as mitigation measures for the proposed 2004 CTP Update and final Draft TEP. 3. While the proposed 2004 CTP Update and final Draft TEP most closely resemble Alternative B,the final Draft TEP would change the mix of projects and programs in Alternative B. These changes would further reduce VMT and vehicle hours traveled at congested levels,and further increase transit boardings and transit ridership and thus improve on the environmental performance of Alternative B.These changes include: a. Advancing the construction of the Caldecott Tunnel to reduce delay and improve air quality b. Reducing funding for the East County Corridor projects(compared to Alternative A) which would reduce land use impacts c. Significantly increasing funding for HOV facilities and express bus service to increase the attractiveness of carpooling and transit for commuting d. Increasing the amount of funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities,projects that help the region meet the region's adopted TCMs,and projects that encourage alternative modes of travel e. Expanding support for programs to encourage more walkable communities and districts so that people need not rely as much on use of private automobiles 4. As summarized in the following table(based on Table 3.1-15 in the EIR),the final Draft TEP incorporates measures that would reduce impacts on transportation, air quality,and energy to an extent comparable to Alternative A, the alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR, and would result in reduced impacts on land use compared to Alternative A. The mix of projects and programs in the final Draft TEP are expected to increase transit ridership compared to Alternative A. Combined with improvements to the HOV system and increased funding for express service, the final Draft TEP is also expected to result in VHT and VMT at congested levels close to those in Alternative A.Together,these changes would result in transportation, air quality and energy impacts comparable to the impacts of Alternative A. By allocating fewer funds to East County Corridor projects, the final Draft TEP would likely have fewer impacts than Alternative A on the conversion of agricultural land. By focusing more funding on transit, carpools and other alternatives to the Page 32 of 35 _ _ _ _... _ Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 20041354 . ............--..............---..........................,...............,.....,....................... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS single-occupant vehicle, the final Draft TEP would have fewer impacts on land use patterns and would better serve lower-income communities. Comparison of Alternatives to Proposed Project Alternative Proposed A Alternative B Alternative C Project 'r�i..... r. �.� �s��s-,av a�`vur-�z x..�`.�� 2'.a':a �-�..,.�::'' .3i,.:. :. .�.�+3•✓✓ :t.. .N.„# .. .. ..... r.. :... _'. Air Quality . .. ..,s�?`k��'�" w �u«-s,: � .a'.fry`s�,��.,���✓.�}= �,��-�`..�`'..: E..,, .?f �?mzu� . ., zt �. z.,'�,`t� ��,. .. Geology!Seismicity ++ ++ + ++ Hazardous Materials + w Visual Resources - - � ,. Cultural Resourem ces - - . ,..,c .. 4 xi v. . T .. W, �`miSocioeconoc Environment + + t ff ++More favorable +Favorable -Comparable -Unfavorable --More Unfavorable The record thus establishes that the project has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives in order to reduce environmental effects while meeting project objectives. Page 33 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ..................__....r... ....I—..... ..._....I.............. ...._ ........... .......... ............ FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS S. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires the Board to balance the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project.Because the EIR identifies significant impacts of the Project that cannot feasibly be mitigated to below a level of significance,the Board must state in writing its specific reasons for approving the Project. (§15093,CEQA Guidelines)This Statement of Overriding Considerations sets forth the specific reasons supporting the Board's action in approving the Project,based on this EIR and other information in the record. The 2004 CTP Update and Proposed Measure C Extension is intended to address the transportation impacts of existing and projected growth in Contra Costa and meet the goals of the Authority: ■ Reduce future congestion on highways and arterial roads. • Manage the impacts of growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy and preserve its environment. • Provide and expand safe,convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. ■ Maintain the transportation system. This EIR examined the environmental impacts of the 2004 CTP Update in the areas of transportation and circulation, air quality,energy, geology and seismicity,biological resources,hazardous materials, hydrology and water resources, visual resources, noise, cultural resources, population and land use, and socioeconomic environment. The Board has identified significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated if the Project is adopted. While Alternative A(project-focus)may have significant impacts to agricultural resources,it was found to have the least environmental impact overall of any Expenditure Plan Alternative.This determination was in part due to the fact that Alternatives B and C were found to potentially have significant impacts to air quality,as well. In addition,Alternative A performed better than Alternatives B and C and the No Project Alternative in the key issue areas of transportation,air quality,and energy. The Board's decision to formulate a final preferred project that incorporates components from each of the proposed alternatives was based on a balancing of Project objectives and environmental effects, both of the Project and of the various alternatives considered. Specifically,the Board considered the following in making its decision: 1. The proposed 2004 CTP Update and final Draft TEP best helps further the achievement of the Authority's adopted vision,goals and strategies: a. By improving accessibility throughout Contra Costa through focused improvements in capacity and projects and programs to encourage alternatives to commuting alone in the single-occupant vehicle,the final Draft TEP would help"preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy,strong economy"consistent with the Authority's vision. Page 34 of 35 Exhibit A to Board of Supervisors Resolution No.2004/354 ..................... .......1. ................... ...... .......I......... FINDINGS, FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS b. The final Draft TEP helps reduce future congestion,one of the Authority's adopted goals,by reducing UHT and VMT at congested levels,and by increasing transit ridership. c. The proposed refinements of the GMP would help further the Authority's goal of managing the impacts of growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy and preserving its environment. d. The final Draft TEP supports the Authority's goal of expanding safe,convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle by expanding funding for transit and programs that would help create more walkable communities within Contra Costa. e. The final Draft TEP would continue providing funding for the maintenance and improvement of local roadways,consistent with the Authority's goal of maintaining the transportation system. 1 The final Draft TEP would reduce the overall level of energy used for transportation in Contra Costa and improve air quality. 3. The 2004 CTP Update and final Draft TEP would support the implementation Of the TCMs in adopted State and federal air quality plans,as well as the goals of the Regional Transportation Plan. 4. The proposed 2004 CTP Update and final Draft TEP reflect and balances the recommendations and concerns of communities,groups and citizens throughout Contra Costa. 5. The final Draft TEP builds on the cooperative,local planning recommendations of the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance.These subarea Action Plans are a key element of the cooperative,multi jurisdictional planning process called for by the current Measure C Growth Management Program. 6. The project's impacts on air quality result from growth patterns in Contra Costa and the Bay Area.Under any alternative,including the No Project alternative,emissions will decrease compared to current conditions,but all alternatives also take into account the fact that land use changes and population increases will result in emissions from increased VMT.After balancing the benefits of this Project compared to the unavoidable air quality impacts,the Board has determined that the Project should be approved despite impacts on air quality,for all of the reasons set forth in paragraphs 1-5 above. 7. The Project's impacts on agricultural land conversion result primarily from the need to maintain and improve transportation systems in East County.The Project reduces these impacts to the extent feasible by reducing the funding allocated to projects in East County. After balancing the benefits of this Project compared to the unavoidable impacts on agricultural land conversion,the Board has determined that the Project should be approved despite these impacts,for all of the reasons set forth in paragraphs 1-5 above. g:\transportation\twic\board orders\20041measurec.7.exhibita.attach#1.doc Page 35 of 35 .............I., I ''I'll'', . ..... . . ....................................... . . .. . .... ..................... ATTACHMENT#2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 2004/354 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: 2004 Update to the Conga Costa Countywide Comprehensive Trans- portation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) Mitigation Monitoring Report May 19, 2004 1 . INTRODUCTION This Mitigation Monitoring.and Reporting Program outlines the actions proposed to ensure that the mitigation measures outlined in the environmental impact report (1rIR) on the 2004 Update to the Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan (2004 CTP Update) and Meas- ure C Extension are implemented. It has been prepared to fulfill the requirements of Public Re- source Code Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), which re- quire public agencies to establish mitigation monitoring and reporting programs for projects where they have identified significant impacts and measures that would mitigate those impacts. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (the Authority) is the lead agency responsible for CEQA compliance for the 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension EIR. Copies of the documents and reports relevant to this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are available at the office of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority,3475 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100, Pleasant Hill, California,94523,during normal business hours. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 2004 CTP Update The 2004 CTP Update focuses on refining the Authority's vision and identifying priorities for making future transportation improvements. It also includes a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) and refinements to the existing Growth Management Program (GMP) for a proposed extension of Measure C. In 1988, the voters of Contra Costa approved a half-percent sales tax to fund transportation improvements and growth management efforts in Contra Costa.This sales tax will expire in 2009 and the proposed extension would extend it for another 25 years. To prepare the draft 2004 CTP Update, as well as the TEP and GMP,the Authority considered comments from local jurisdictions and agencies,from the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs)—representing the eastern,western, central and southwestern parts of Contra Costa—and from other stakeholders.The 2004 CTP Update builds on the analysis and recommendations of year 2000 Action Plans,which were not updated as part of this proposed project. The proposed 2004 CTP Update establishes four goals: Reduce future congestion on highways and arterial roads. 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT ■ Manage the impacts of growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy and preserve its en- vironment. • Provide and expand safe,convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. ■ Maintain the transportation system. These goals, and the strategies established to help achieve them, are designed to realize the Au- thority's vision for Contra Costa: Strive to preserve and enhance the duality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy to benefit the people and areas of Contra Costa that is sustained by 1)a balanced, safe and efficient transportation network; 2)cooperative plan- ning,and 3)growth management. The transportation network should integrate highways, local streets and roads, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle fa- cilities to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa. The Measure C Extension The 2004 CTP Update outlines a new TEP and refined GMP to be placed before Contra Costa voters on the November 2004 ballot as part of a proposed extension of Measure C. If ap- proved,the proposed extension could raise an estimated$2 billion to fund transportation pro- jects and growth management efforts throughout Contra Costa over the 25-year period (from 2009 to 2034) it would be in effect. Expenditure Plan Alternatives and Growth Management Program Options The EIR analyzed three expenditure plan alternatives in addition to the CEQA-required No Project alternative. • Alternative A"Project Focus" would have continued the current Measure C funding approach: 69 percent for projects and 27 percent for countywide programs with the remainder for administration and contingencies. It emphasized major regional projects and facilitates the early delivery of regionally significant capital improvements such as the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel and eBART. • Alternative B "Local Focus"would have divided expected sales tax revenues about evenly between programs and projects. It reflects requests for projects and program funding received from the Regional Transportation Planning Committees. This alterna- tive added funding for transit and paratransit operations, transportation for children and Transportation for Livable Communities grants, as well as increasing funding for major arterials. May 19,2004 1 Page 2 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SOH NO. 2003062128) ............ MITIGATIOM MOMITORIMG REPORT ■ Alternative B "Program Focus" would have emphasized transportation programs rather than major capital improvements.The increased funding for countywide programs would have gone mainly for transit operating subsidies and local transportation grants, while capital improvements would have focused on eBART and HOV gap closures rather than freeway widening. The EIR also considered three sets of GMP options: (1) keeping the current GMP with refine- ments to exempt transit-or pedestrian-oriented districts and traffic management corridors from LOS standards, (2) streamlining the current program while expanding the housing options component and adding a requirement for jurisdictions to comply with the County's urban limit line, and (3)streamlining the program, by eliminating the requirements for local LOS and pub- lic standards, to focus more on cooperative planning,including development of a mutually agreeable urban limit line. The EIR found that,because it establishes a process for managing growth and encouraging co- operative planning among Contra Costa jurisdictions with unspecified outcomes, the GMP would not have significant environmental impacts. Proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan and Growth Management Program After considering the comments on the draft 2004 CTP Update, the expenditure plan alterna- tives and GMP options,and the analysis in the draft EIR, the Authority developed a proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) and GMP.The proposed TEP assumes funding from a 25-year extension of Measure C (rather than the 20 years assumed for the alternatives in the draft CTP), which is forecast to generate $2 billion for new transportation improvements and continued growth management efforts.The proposed TEP divides this expected funding among major capital improvement projects such as the Caldecott Tunnel,eBART, and HOV improve- ments;countywide capital and maintenance programs,such as the local street maintenance and improvement and CC-TLC programs; support for other countywide programs,including bus and paratransit operations,TDM, and planning and congestion management;subregional pro- jects and programs including safe transportation for children, ferry service in Richmond, and supplemental funding for countywide programs in specific parts of Contra Costa; and admini- stration. The proposed refinements to the GMP would eliminate the requirements for locally adopted level-of-service and public facility standards and would eliminate the conflict resolution com- ponent of the cooperative planning requirement.The proposed GMP would also revise the housing options component to focus on local efforts and adopted policies,rather than on HCD compliance. Finally, the new GMP would include a requirement for jurisdictions to adopt a mutually agreed upon urban limit line. The effects of the adoption of the 2004 CTP Update, including the proposed TEP and GMP refinements, were analyzed in the Addendum to the Final EIR.The Addendum established that the TEP and GMP would not result in any significant impacts on the environment that were not analyzed in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures included in this report are those from May 19,2004 1 Page 3 of 36 ............... ...... ....................................... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT the FEIR that apply to the mix of projects and programs incorporated into the 2004 CTP Up- date. PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM To ensure that mitigation measures established for significant environmental impacts identified through the CEQA process are carried through, the Public Resources Code was amended in 1988 to require a reporting or monitoring program"designed to ensure compliance during pro- ject implementation."Every time a Lead Agency—such as the Authority for the 2004 CTP Up- date and Measure C Extension—approves a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR that iden- tifies significant impacts and measures to mitigate them, it must also prepare a mitigation moni- toring program. ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT Section 2 of this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program describes the basic program components and outlines the proposed process and responsibilities for implementing it. Section 3 summarizes the actions to be taken to implement the mitigation measures prescribed for the 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Draft EIR and to monitor and report on their effectiveness. For each measure,the summary tables indicate: (1) who is responsible for implementation and for monitoring of implementation, (2) what specific actions are required for implementation and monitoring compliance, and (3) the timing for the action. May 19,2004 1 Page 4 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ...,...,.,,>.................<..........,.,,.......,..,.,.,.,..,.,...,... MITIGATIOM MONITORING REPORT 2. Components of the Monitoring Program The EIR on the proposed 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension identified significant environmental impacts and measures that would mitigate those impacts. This document out- lines the responsibilities, actions required and timing for monitoring and reporting on the im- plementation of those mitigation measures. While the Authority has the primary responsibility for implementing and monitoring the im- plementation of mitigation measures established in the 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Ex- tension EIR,it must rely on the efforts of other agencies in implementing and monitoring miti- gation measures for the projects in the 2004 CTP Update. These agencies include both project sponsors—local jurisdictions,transit agencies,the State Route 4 Bypass Authority and Cal- trans-rand agencies responsible for the conservation of natural resources. These latter agencies include the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Environmental Protection Agency,the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. BASIC STRUCTURE OF MONITORING AND REPORT PROGRAM The mitigation measures identified in the EIR on the 2004 CTP Update and proposed Measure C Extension fall into two general categories: (1) project-level measures and (2) program-or planning-level measures. The project-level measures include those to be carried out during envi- ronmental review, design and construction of specific projects. The program-or planning-level impacts would be carried out through the Authority's ongoing planning and programming ac- tivities. Almost all of the mitigation measures would apply to projects that the TEP would fund,and would be the responsibility of project proponents. As part of the existing Measure C program, the Authority has established a process for reviewing and approving projects that receive Meas- ure C funding.This process is outlined in Authority Resolution 92-02-P "Management of Measure C Projects".A summary of this process, focusing on how the implementation of iden- tified mitigation measures,follows. Mitigating Project-Level Impacts The Strategic Plan outlines the Authority's financial plan for carrying out the transportation improvements identified in the current Measure C and would continue to serve that role for the proposed extension of Measure C. It estimates expected revenues from the sales tax, establishes policies for allocating those revenues and the responsibilities of project proponents, and out- lines a program for allocating expected revenues to specific projects and programs.The Author- ity adopted its first Strategic Plan in 1991 and has updated it periodically to reflect changing revenue forecasts and the development of projects.The most recent update was adopted in February 2004. To receive Measure C funding, a project must first be included in the Strategic Plan. Once in the Strategic Plan,the project proponent and the Authority must enter into a cooperative May 19,2004 1 Page 5 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO, 2003062128) ky64%Efitlx MITIGATIOM MONITORIMG REPORT agreement that details the responsibilities,requirements, and roles of both parties. Before re- ceiving any Measure C funds, the Authority must approve a funding resolution for the project. This resolution summarizes expected Measure C and other funding, the anticipated scope of work, and any conditions required of the project or project proponent. Resolution 92-02-P requires project proponents to involve the Authority in the environmental review,design and construction of any Measure C-funded project to ensure that the project is consistent with Authority policies and guidelines,as well as to ensure that the mitigation meas- ures outlined in the EIR are carried out. • Environmental Review. Because the Authority is a "Responsible Agency" under CEQA, it must be involved in the CEQA process for all Measure C-funded projects. The Authority's project coordinator is expected to be involved in the scoping of the project and in the review of measures proposed to mitigate any significant impacts iden- tified. As a Responsible Agency, the Authority must rely on the project proponent's en- vironmental analysis and mitigation measures identified therein. • Project Design and Permitting. Authority staff is involved throughout the process of designing the project. Resolution 92-02-P also requires projects to undergo a peer review at major milestones in the process. A subcommittee of the Authority's Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)conducts this peer review at the conceptual design, Phase 1, Phase 11, and final review stages.This peer review is not required for major highway projects,which are overseen and reviewed in detail by Caltrans, or for trails projects,which are done solely using Authority staff. • Project Construction. The Authority will assign an Authority staff person to serve as Construction Liaison to track the project throughout construction. Project proponents will report on implementation of the mitigation measures as part of regular meetings with the contractor and project manager. Authority staff reports on the progress of developing Measure C-funded projects, using infor- mation provided by project proponents, as part of updates of project status pages in the Strate- gic Plan and the monthly Project Status Reports prepared for the TCC. For some projects,the Authority may be the project proponent, serving as lead agency for the CEQA process,overseeing the design and specification of the project, and managing its con- struction. In those cases, the Authority will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on im- plementation of the mitigation measures. Mitigating Program- and Planning-Level Impacts The. EIR identified mitigation measures requiring the Authority to work with local, regional and State agencies to reduce the overall impacts of the program of projects outlined in the TER The Authority will carry out those measures as part of its roles as the implementing agency for Measure C and the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Contra Costa.The Authority carries out its responsibilities under Measure C through various actions, including: May 19,2004 1 Page 6 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT • Establishing a vision,goals and implementing strategies as part of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, • Programming projects that receive Measure C funding through the Strategic Plan, ■ Monitoring compliance with the Growth Management Program,and • Providing technical support to local agencies to evaluate and help improve the connec- tion between land use and transportation planning. As the CMA for Contra Costa,the Authority addresses these impacts by,among other things: • Identifying priorities for State and federal funding programs, • Working with MTC,ABAG and BAAQMD to support the efficient implementation of adopted Transportation Control Measures (TCM} for improving air quality, ■ Preparing and updating a Congestion Management Program, and ■ Developing and updating its Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. As part of these activities,the Authority works to minimize environmental impacts as well as carry out the Authority's goals. RESPONSIBILITIES As noted above, both the Authority and other agencies,including project sponsors,have roles in the implementation and monitoring of the mitigation measures outlined in the 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension EIR.The following summary outlines the roles in this process that the various agencies will play. Project Proponents One of the basic premises of the Authority's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is that agencies responsible for carrying out projects included in the TEP are also responsible for mitigating their impacts.As project sponsors,these agencies are responsible for complying with CEQA.A project sponsor—acting as a lead agency for the project under CEQA—would comply with this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program through the preparation of a mitiga- tion monitoring and reporting program when its own CEQA analysis identifies significant im- pacts. Many of the projects now contained in the TEP have not yet gone through CEQA re- view, because they have not yet been programmed or sufficiently defined to have a meaningful CEQA review. The project sponsors' role in the implementation of the 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Ex- tension EIR mitigation measures include: May 19,2004 1 Page 7 of 36 __ 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATIOM MOMITORIM+G REPORT • Conducting CEQA analysis where a project would be likely to have a significant impact on the environment; ■ Responding to written comments on impacts and mitigation measures from the Author- ity and others; ■ Adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for those projects with sig- nificant impacts; and ■ Forwarding to the Authority the recommendations of the EIR or mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for those CEQA documents. TCC Peer Review The Authority has established a peer review process for the projects in the Strategic Plan. In this process, members of the Authority's TCC,which is made up of technical staff from local juris- dictions, review the proposed design for projects in the Strategic Plan.To implement the miti- gation measures identified in the 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension EIR, the Author- ity would continue the TCC's peer review process,which requires that TCC members look at changes in the design,construction or operation of the proposed project that could mitigate certain environmental impacts. The TCC review would look at those aspects of the projects that would not necessarily be covered by other agencies and that would result directly from the projects'construction and operation. Cumulative impacts and impacts on other areas of the environment (such as biological resources)would be addressed in other forums. The Authority As the primary agency responsible for implementing the 2004 CTI'Update and Measure C Ex- tension EIR, the Authority has the most significant role in this process. This role includes: • Direct implementation of some mitigation measures including review and revision of the Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan, ■ Use of the peer review process for projects in the Strategic Plan to consider project changes and incorporation of best practices that would reduce their environmental im- pacts, ■ As part of comments on EIRs and other CEQA documents, recommend as appropriate, that project sponsors and lead agencies incorporate mitigation measures identified in this EIR, ■ Reporting on mitigation measures proposed or implemented for Strategic Plan projects in the periodic Project Status Reports, and May 19,2004 1 Page 8 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT ■ Working with regional agencies (such as the hay Area Air Quality Management Dis- trict) and other bodies to implement other actions that would minimize the environ- mental impacts of the 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension. One of the methods for developing more environmentally sensitive projects is the compilation of best practices for mitigation.The Authority will work with sponsors of projects that will re- ceive Measure C funding to incorporate design changes and best practices, as described below. Resource Agencies Agencies charged with the protection and conservation of natural resources would be involved through comments on project CEQA compliance and permit issuance. DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING In designing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, three questions were consid- ered: ■ Who is the responsible agency? • What action is required? ■ When is the action required? The tables in Section 3 answer those questions for both implementations of the mitigation measures and the monitoring and reporting of their implementation. They distinguish between the implementation of the mitigation measures and the monitoring and reporting on their im- plementation, because these two actions are distinct.The first set of actions describes who will implement the measure and how they will do it.The second set of actions describes how they will measure the success of the implementation measure and inform the Authority (and thus the public) of the results of the mitigation program. To verify that the mitigation measures adopted by the Authority are fully implemented, the Au- thority shall review information submitted that is relevant to the proposed mitigation measures for the 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension. The review shall be conducted as required by CEQA Section 21081.6. May 19,2004 1 Page 9 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (5CH No. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT 3. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF MITIGATION MEASURES This section summarizes which agencies are responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Contra Costa Countywide 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Exten- sion EIR and the actions required for implementation, monitoring and reporting on these measures. In the tables, the term "Project Sponsor" means the lead agency responsible for environmental clearance, design, right-of-way procurement and construction of the project. While the Project Sponsor will usually be a local jurisdiction, transit operator, Caltrans or other agency, the Au- thority may serve as Project Sponsor or co-sponsor for certain projects. In those cases, the term "Project Sponsor"will refer to the Authority, which would be responsible for implementing and reporting on the mitigation measures outlined below. Reference to local jurisdictions includes Contra Costa County and all cities within Contra Costa. The Authority will support agencies in carrying out the implementation, monitoring and reporting procedures outlined below for each impact. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements 2.2 Alii QUALITY Irrptt 1 h6t onstr urtlon r�I prnpbzd prrrje tri thio tlr'at ZOI14 CTP'Update ccsiald result iii sl�nili rxt%tior t*1 rrri m direct impar arttlUlity:»yaw r:onstructl�n. it�� Mitigation Appropriate dust abatement programs,patterned after the BAAQMD approach, , Measure 2.2-1 a shall be implemented by the sponsor for individual projects under the proposed Ex- penditure Plan.The BAAQMD approach calls for"basic"control measures that should be implemented at all construction sites,"enhanced"control measures that should be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area,and "optional"control measures that should be implemented on a case-by-case basis at construction sites that are large in area,located near sensitive receptors or which, for any other reason, may warrant additional emissions reductions(BAAQMD, 1999). _..................................................................................... IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................................................................._...,.................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction 1111111111111-1-1-1 ......................................._..................................._....._......_....,......................._............_..,....._..,..._...................,...... REPORTING ...................................................................._.............................,.,....._...........,.................... ...._......... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports May 19,2004 1 Page €0 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Mitigation measures included in the Caltrans' Highway Design Manual that are de- Measure 2.2-1 b signed to limit air quality impacts from construction should be used by the project sponsor,as appropriate,during the design phase of projects and written into con- struction documents.Caltrans has several policies for dust abatement during con- struction that may serve as a model for dust control at construction sites.There are far-reaching measures such as the use of special contract provisions to require that burrow pits and temporary haul roads be restored to a condition such that their potential as sources of blowing dust or other pollution is no greater than that of their original condition.The checklist of on-site measures includes provisions for temporary erosion protection with mulches,fiber mats, dust palliatives,etc,and for timely planting of slopes to permanently abate wind erosion,etc. ... ... . ... ..............................................._........:..,.,.,..,...,,.:............,..........:,.,.,.......,...:........:,.,.,...:,..,.... IMPLEMENTATION ........................._.......................................................................,......,.........,.._.._......,....... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ...................................................... REPORTING _,....__.............................................,...,.............................._................_ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation If a specific project under the Expenditure Pian would entail the demolition of a Measure 2.2-1 c building containing asbestos materials,the Authority shall require that the project sponsor consult with BAAQMD staff concerning the specific requirements of Regu- lation 11,Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition,Renovation and Manufacturing)of BAAQMD's regulations. ...................-....................,.............,..........,..............................................,.................,.......... IMPLEMENTATION ............................................._....................,......,.....,.....,,.,.....,.,.................................,.................,.:..,...................................................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Consult with BAAQMD staff,Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing Consultation:before construction. Measure:During project con- struction _.........................,......................................,.............,..,........................_.........__.............,,..........._.....,............,..................................._ REPORTING ..._...,,....._,_.........___,............................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison May 19, 2004 1 Page I I of 36 _. _...._ 2044 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2403062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Irrtp��t��2�2 It»plet►i+�rttat�urt of pr�je�t�u�d�r'th,��,tS�4+r7�Upcl����rrt�ulc�f°wstrlt jri sash 1 O lw++lt 1F «1 tf a t tipi d t+s the>N w io, Mitigation The Authority should work with local, regional and State agencies to implement Measure 2.2-2a TCMs effectively as a way to reduce the number and length of trips made in Contra Costa County and the region.These measures could include: ■ Support or require the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of the widening and extension of arterials where feasible and consistent with coun- tywide or local bicycle pedestrian and facilities plan; ■ Seek funding priority for TCM projects in the 2004 CTP Update from State and regional agencies; ■ Follow requirements of regionally adopted particulate attainment plans when such a plan is prepared and adopted; ■ Continue to support or expand Transportation Demand Management to en- courage drivers to reduce motor vehicle use;and ■ Support local jurisdiction efforts to modify land use patterns and implement development projects that reduce VMT,consistent with Measure C Growth Management Program. IMPLEMENTATION .,......._.._.....__......................._._.. Responsible Party Authority Action Required As part of Authority's responsibilities as implementing agency for Measure C and as the Congestion Management Agency(CMA)in Contra Costa,various actions to support implementation of adopted TCMs,including: o Establishing a vision,goals and imple- menting strategies as part of the Coun- tywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, o Programming projects that receive Measure C funding through the Strategic Plan, o Monitoring compliance with the Growth Management Program, and o Providing technical support to local agencies to evaluate and help improve the connection between land use and transportation planning. Timing Ongoing Measure C and CMA activities _........................................................ REPORTING ......................................................................._....._.........,,................ Responsible Party Authority Action Required Identify role of Authority actions in supporting and implementing TCMs as part of documentation May 19, 2004 1 Page 12 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Timing Ongoing Mitigation Use cleaner fuels such as electricity,instead of diesel for the eBART project.The Measure 2.2-2b increased use of electricity,however,depending on the method of production,could have secondary and potentially significant impacts where the electricity is produced. The cost of substituting electricity for diesel could make its use infeasible. ..............................................................._........... IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party BART and Authority Action Required Evaluate economic feasibility and environmental impacts of using electricity instead of diesel for the eBART project Timing During environmental review -1....1-1-........................._.,......_......._..................,............................................_.......,.. REPORTING .......... ..............................................................................._.................,................,................. Responsible Party BART and Authority Action Required Report as part of environmental review Timing Environmental review 2.4 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY lrr►pact 141 SMt bviiri� quidd m e prrs 3q�ed ttxNs Ss r tl t ;�t�fi astructutr Afoug, surfa �t'u#5tu ,g punsl shaki ]igt�elY t�tl r►, 77, I cls#%d��and>t u n wnls. f�ut+ nti I rrtp itt zst j sip lr y n Publ�� att�v##y wguld b>�lrbnaid�t'ed s#grtitt�Btr Mitigation Potential seismic hazards associated with projects located within tsunami inundation Measure 2.4-1a areas shall be minimized through designs to diminish wave inundation and associated damage. For example,precautionary measures such as specifying final foundation or roadbed elevations greater than the expected height of a tsunami with a given return frequency would be effective. ........................... IMPLEMENTATION _............................._,...,........,..................,........,.................,.......... ......................,........................ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ......................................_..,......,................._...,...,........_,.........................,............................._...,......._..,..........,............... Reporting _................................................................................................................................ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison May 19,2004 1 Page 13 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ..........................................„...,. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation{and Monitoring Requirements El il6 Li �1''' A'1 '! maid Gets. ur#t pirojetts�ca�tutd itir�a# hrlt kirtm grid Itsngr+enyo%t erosion a.nd the piJt Mitigation Sponsors of individual projects proposed under the 2004 CTP Update shall be re Measure 2.4-2a quired to comply with Mitigation Measure 2.7-1 a,as discussed in Water Resources Section 2.7,to reduce potential erosion during construction activities. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing [luring project construction ............................................. REPORTING 1-11--....”.. .......... ............. .............. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation The project proponent shall ensure that all construction activities and design criteria Measure 2.4-2b comply with applicable codes and requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code with California additions(Title 22),and applicable Caltrans construction and grading specifications.In addition,the project proponent shall ensure that project designs provide adequate slope drainage and appropriate landscaping to minimize potential future occurrences of slope instability and erosion. .................... ..................... ......., IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................ ...............................,............ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction _....._................_.....,....................,......,,........_.......................................................,............,.........._.......,.......... REPORTING .............-, .,............_.................,........,...............,..._..........,,.._.......,........,...................,..,...,........,,..,........,.....,...............,...,......... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison rr Erripa+��t -3 Esroj i:t ibrtilt �n,highli ccrrripressiE le t�r,exp$rtsive st:iE 'ei ulyd be+:om damaged sink weakened over time: . Mitigation The project proponent shall require that a site-specific geotechnicat investigation be Measure 2.4-3a conducted by qualified professionals(registered civil and geotechnical engineers, registered engineering geologists)to identify potential geologic hazards associated with surficial soils and subsurface sediments.Recommended corrective measures, such as structural reinforcement,soil treatment,or replacing existing soil with engi- neered fill shall be incorporated into project designs. May 19,2004 Page 14 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NOt 2003062128)t 4946y pkyk ,...s.. 6Prt MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction REPORTING vResponsible Party Project Sponsors Acton Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ftnp ct 5�1 f�rojetpts fn:luded itt tft �Of `° "U cfat + u c v 00ffe t tr t "A"i I, i' lairtt i d anlrint��ndtheit^ aEsatt itxcficllrtg potrttlif nt+ rFrenir frith rne�+� meriitt i vii fditf spy +cle . Mitigation Select alignments to avoid areas of resource sensitivity and to minimize the need for Measure 2.5-1 a large areas of cut and fill that would remove vegetation and habitat Stabilize cut and fill slopes and revegetate immediately following construction.To the extent possible, use native vegetation to landscape project sites to provide some wildlife habitat and minimize the need for fertilizers and pesticides.Avoid introducing invasive species and monitor and control pampas grass,broom and other weedy plants. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction REPORTING Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Avoid construction in wetland areas.Wherever possible,place above ground struc- Measure 2.5-1 b tures along an alignment to avoid shading of wetland or riparian vegetation.Control discharges from facilities so that pollutants in runoff do not affect wetland habitats. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements May 19,2004 1 Page IS of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 200305212$) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Timing [luring project construction REPORTING ...........................................,.....,._...................._..............................,...............,....,.......................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Where wetland disturbance is necessary,require restoration.The new vegetation Measure 2.5-1 c should consist of plants that are of similar species to those that were removed,such as cattail,rush,and willows. Restoration requirements would be determined on a project by project basis depending upon the value of the habitat.At a minimum there should be no net loss of wetlands. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction _......,.....r.................................._._......,...._,.._......_.........,.,......................._._.....,...,.............................................................----............. REPORTING ........................_............,.-..,.,,...,.,.................................... ......._,,._..,.,......,..........,..............._,.,......., Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Preserve existing and mature trees and snags as nesting and roosting habitat to the Measure 2.5-Id extent feasible,except when trees are diseased,over-aged,or otherwise constitute a hazard to persons or property.Remove topsoil,stockpile and respread to preserve natural vegetation. IMPLEMENTATION ............................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ............................................................,..,.....,......................,....,........,............,,...,.......,...........,,. REPORTING ...-................................................_.................... ,.,.......,...........................................,...................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Keep disruption of soils within streambeds to a minimum and implement stabilisation Measure 2.5-1e efforts around support pillars. ...... IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors May 19, 2004 1 Page 16 of 36 2004 Update tnthe Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation'Plan^and'Proposed'Measure'C.Extension,�CB.N0..2003O6I120),,.,.,,,.,,.~_,MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements _Timing __Ou�ng.pr�wctcons�ucton ___________________________ _REP{JRT|NG ______ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action&myukaJ Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetingswith Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Conduct field surveys for rare and endangered plants,as well as candidate species as Measure 2.5-If part of the environmental review process for proposed projects,where suitable habitat exists.Such surveys are not mitigation in themselves,but provide critical in- formation for assessing impacts and determining if effective mitigation is possible. _IMPLEMENTATION ____ ... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements _ Timing ______ 8u ___.___..... _REP[>RT|NG_________________________________________________ Responsible Party Project Sponsors ' Action Required Provide the information for required Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Protect rare and endangered animal species through controlling or eliminating de- Measure 2.5-1 g velopment in primary habitat areas.Where wildlife habitat is disturbed,undertake relocation efforts where feasible. _IMPLEMENTATION __._. _�_________ _____________________�_.____� Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ____________________�____ _REPORTING __________________________________.................... ______ -------_ Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Avoid known animal movement corridors where possible when designing new road Measure 2.5-1 h and rail alignments,pedestrian/bike paths,and other transportation facilities;design lighting to be responsive to wildlife sensitivities.Place pass through-culverts under highways to allow wildlife movement. Fencing should be used to prevent wildlife from entering highways. May 19.%UO4 | Page |7oY36 2001 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATiON MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction REPORTING Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction liaison Mitigation Schedule construction activities to avoid disturbance to wildlife; require appropriate Measure 2.5-1 i erosion control measures in conjunction with new development to minimize wildlife habitat destruction. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ..............................................._..,........,..........,...............................,..........._...........,...,.................. REPORTING ....................................._..,...................,......,_.,....,,.....,...,..,..........,,..........,......,.........,.................r.....,......,........._._,...............,..........,............................... .......... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction liaison Mitigation The project proponents,as a condition of project approval shall work with agencies Measure 2.5-1 j involved in the development of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP and determine whether the Plan could incorporate the Project into its list of covered activities.The January 2003 draft list of activities covered in the HCP/NCCP in- cludes road and highway construction and maintenance.Because projects and pro- grams included in the Project involve these types of activities,it is likely that the final list of activities covered by the HCP/NCCP could cover potential impacts of the Project.If the Authority and other agencies determine the HCP approach would provide such benefits for Project activities,the CCTA will work to support the de- velopment of the Plan.OCTA also may need to develop an HCP to address impacts of Project activities on biological resources located in Western and Central Contra Costa outside the East County HCP/NCCP coverage area. Upon completion of CEQA/NEPA documentation and finalization,the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP will provide an effective way to achieve local goals for preserving habitat and maintaining environmental quality within Eastern Contra Costa while balancing other development goals,This HCP/NCCP would have the effect of preserving key habitat in a systematic fashion,and would allow for a"taking"of listed plants and animals in a way that would still ensure no net loss of the region's ability to maintain populations of listed species. May 19, 2004 1 Page 18 of 36 2004 Update mthe Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Mcumucc C Extension (SCBNO. 2003062128) '^^'~~'`^'^^^—'^^^^^~^^'''^^^^'~^^'^^'^~^^~^^'^''~`''^~^'^''`'~ MKTUGATIOM MOMUTORUMG REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements IMPLEMENTATION ���_��������_������ _� ...._��� ._������_ Responsible Party Project Sponsors and Authority Action Required Work with H[PYNCCP agencies; participate inHCPYNCCP process ifappropriate and beneficial. Timing Project sponsor: Prior mmproject construction.Authority:During HCRNCCP6ev�|opmen� ���������`^�.'�������������������`�^..... ������������ REPORTING ----_-_-_-_-.........-..... ..... ---___-_-_-'_-_-_---_-_-_-- ............_-'_- ................. � Responsible Party Project Sponsor and Authority � Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports.Au- thority:Measure C Cooperative agreements and funding resolu- � tinns.asapprophata;motabUshmextofonate0'6orimplementa- tion, ifdetermined to6ebeneficial. � Timing As partof regular meetingswith Authority's Construction Liaison | her ind Mitigation Prior to project implementation,project proponents shall obtain applicable permits Measure 2.5-2a from the appropriate agencies(Corps,Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], Bay Conservation and Development Commission [BCDC],and CDFG) and agree to comply with permit conditions to protect jurisdictional waters and other sensitive habitat.This requirement obligates project proponents moimplement � measures that avoid,minimize,and compensate for significant impacts on jurisdic- tional wetlands and other aquatic resources within oradjacent oothe project area. � |naccordance with guidelines ofthe Corps,RVV{JC8.BCDC.and C[)FG.a goal of � "no net loss"of wetland acreage and value will be implemented,wherever possible, � through avoidance of the resource. Mitigation for wetlands impacts due to proposed � transportation projects would 6mbased onproject-specific wetland mitigation plans, � subject to approval by the Corps and commenting agencies.Mitigation for placing 5U in wetlands would be partially achieved by avoiding wetlands and by minimizing fill | where avoidance|anot feasible. | Avoidance,compensatory restoration,nrcreation ofnew wetland commu- nities too8soc6`ecunve,sinnofv*adao6s6o,yropoye6transpnrtationimprove- | mmnrsnmo|d ........_ .......... IMPLEMENTATION ' ___ ___________ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Obtain permits aa necessary;incorporate measures into project | specifications and construction requirements Timing Permits:prior to construction. Measures: During puiectcun- strucdon ����_���.���������..........��.............. .......... ............ ��� ................. � REPORTING ' ---'------~--'-----~-------------'~_-_.~__ ! Responsible Party Project Sponsors May |9. IO04 { Page 19nf36 | __. 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062228) MITIGATIOM MOMITORIMG REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison IM 0,.21-54 Pr+ojfs itrtitiid�ti it+;khe # +LTi tol 01 x w� nol of , trees proe�# by IEotl tst�iihattte . Mitigation Project-level analysis will determine whether the Project will result in the removal of Measure 2.5-3a trees protected by Contra Costa County or City Ordinance.The project propo- nents will avoid work activities within the drip-line of protected or heritage trees. In the event that it is infeasible to avoid the drip-line of protected or heritage trees,the project proponents would apply for any applicable permits and comply with local City or County replacement mitigation guidelines for impacts to protected trees specified in the permits. o ........... ......- IMPLEMENTATION ........._......... ........................................................................................................... .__........:.. Responsible Forty Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction u......_......................... REPORTING "l'.11-11-..",".....,,......,............ ............. Responsible Forty Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 2.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS [rpt6 ! Hazaril�Us mat+biriails iasec ,csn�slt �#urtn icranstritctiart acti�rit# ; {e f;F; w WS,arils aid aEv alts}�cctuld bue reteas tc►khe'An Ir ,irnn [rrrcr��r:h,�ndin����t[r�atl�e Mitigation The project proponent or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for ensuring utiliza- Measure 2.6-[a tion of construction best management practices that are typically implemented as part of construction.The use of construction best management practices would minimize the potential negative effects on groundwater and soils. Best management practices could include the following: ■ Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use,storage and disposal of chemi- cal products used in construction; ■ Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; • During routine maintenance of construction equipment,properly contain and remove grease and oils;and ■ Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors May 19, 2004 1 Page 20 of 36 _. 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ................„...,..,.....,.,............,..,.>.a,,,,,,.,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,...,....,,.,,<.,,,..,.......,...,.,,,,...,..,.,,...,.......,.,, MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ...................................,...........,.....,...._......_._....._.....,......._...,.............n...................,...........................,,........... REPORTING ............._.......,.,.,....,..........._._......_................_...................._,..........__......._..............,._.................................................... Responsible Parry Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison tmp�����« �is>w ��►��;���ti'�� ��! ����o���triR���l��" ��uir;g`�5��,�t>k 1�r��f�tic3n i 3 Mitigation A soil sampling plan shall be prepared and implemented along construction corridors Measure 2.6-2a to determine the presence or absence of soil contamination. If soil contamination is found,the contaminated soil shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. ................ .............,...._.................. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ........................................_................_...............,..........,,........,.....,............................._.................... REPORTING ................._...................................w..............._......._.............,....,....,..,..,...,.............................. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation In the event that soil contamination is encountered,project sponsors shall insure Measure 2.6-2b that one competent professional is onsite at all times during construction phases to perform soil analyses.All construction shall cease until the contaminated soil is re- used or removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory re- quirements.A competent professional shall collect verification soil samples to en- sure complete removal of contaminated soil. ..................................................,......_........,..........,.........................._..................... IMPLEMENTATION _......................................._............................................................ Responsible Parry Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ......................................_.......,......_......,.....,,.,_..,...,........................_....,..........,......_..._......,,,..,_...................,,..,..,......... REPORTING ........_............................._.._.,................,................................,..... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports May 19, 20041 Page 21 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ...<,,,<................11,,,,,,,.1.1,,,,,,,,.,.,,.,.,. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation If any underground storage tanks are discovered during construction,all construc- Measure 2.6-2c tion in the immediate area shall stop until the UST is removed under the guidance of the Contra Costa Environmental Health(CCEH)or other regulatory agency.If re- quired by the regulatory agency, removal may include the over-excavation and dis- posal of any impacted soil that may be associated with such tanks to a degree con- sidered sufficient by the CCEH. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ................_........................,...,.....,...,......_....................,......,......_......................,._..........,.........,...,.............,......._,.........,........... .......,..............,..._.. REPORTING ............................................................................._................_....._......................................._.............................._........,.....__....._.....,............... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Im G-3 Ca►: Eui k$nt s��'uctur lend bt�i t#Iln ar ern is(i �' tsbes os;I d �'�Bs,�,ntl I��1-�§��tiitld expt�s�+bbrst�lcC��n�vol�k�rsy t��pt�b�+���r the e�nvlt�e►i�rn�nl~ter Ih�ztt�dou��onaltia�r�s Mitigation Prior to the demolition of any building,a pre-demolition asbestos containing material Measure 2.6-3a (ACM)and lead-based paint(LBP)survey shall be performed by the project propo- nent.Abatement of known or suspected AGMs and loose or peeling LBP shall occur prior to demolition or construction activities that would disturb those materials. .......................................... IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction _....................._........._........................................._..........,.....................................,...............,...,....,...............w....... REPORTING .............................,...,.,.,..,..._,...._......._.._............,...,..,._................ .1...1.,.,._.... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation In the event that PCB-containing materials are identified prior to demolition activi- Measure 2.6-3b ties they shall be removed,and shall be disposed of by a licensed transportation and disposal facility in Class 1 hazardous waste landfill cells. ........... IMPLEMENTATION .................................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors May 19, 2004 1 Page 22 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) LITIGATION MONITORING REPORT ..,,....,.,.'..<.<.<.,,,...,<,.<<,<.,,,.,<................„d„.,.., Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing Curing project construction ................................................................................._....................,......_.............._..,,.....,......................,..........................._......._........,....... REPORTING Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 1rr p ct xp sums rbtr �f» l± i � a ' alt ul iii rc��f62 M ot1,Ans �� K u � r» rrjearlri� ib rrt diic�rr�►. , E Mitigation In the event of an inadvertent release of hazardous materials during project opera- Measure 2.6-4a tions,cleanup shall occur in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. ................. ......................._........._..... IMPLEMENTATION u................................................................................................................................................................................................... Responsible Parry Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing Curing project construction .............._...........,...,,,._........,....._.......w......................................_....,_....,,,...................,..... REPORTING ...1.1_1..........-.1111111-1.111.....................-........... ........................... ........... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Spent oil and other solvents used during maintenance of transportation facilities and Measure 2.6-4b equipment shall be recycled or disposed of in accordance with all applicable regula- tory requirements.All hazardous materials shall be transported,handled,and dis- posed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. IMPLEMENTATION ..........................................................._.....,....._..,,.....................,...........,.....,....,......,,...,,.,..,...,........,.,..,......,.....,............ ......... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing Curing project construction _......._.......................... ........... REPORTING ............................................. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison May 19,2004 1 Page 23 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (5CH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements 2.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES I�p�c�2r7�1 �aris��u+tflr#t����i�it# ���rritr#��est�l iYt�c�si�t�s��+d,� ll��'���� �i#:r►is sec#�r�r�snt��ierr> i�f,sEc��i°��wt�lc�e�r�t�nr�#fs o�inl~ra�t#1� ��tiili�#xn#s�#ru►���' .. fir$i�� ���t;<#`t�u�olrrmoti��s ftiaid arse�����ui3,)�r�t�ria#±i� Mitigation Construction-related grading and other activities shall be required to comply with Measure 2.7-1a ABAG's Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures(ABAG, 1995)and with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA),Stormwa- ter Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction (CASQA,2003a).The project proponent shall also apply for coverage under the SWRCB NPDES(general Construction Permit for construction projects that incorporate over one acre,as required by the SWRCB. Under NPDES permit regulations,the project proponent would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP.The SWPPP shall be consis- tent with the State Construction Storm Water General Permit,the Manual of Stan- dards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control by the Association of Bay Area Gov- ernments,policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff program (city and/or county),and the recommendations of the applicable RWQCB.Implementa- tion of the SWPPP shall be enforced by inspecting agencies during the construction period.Typical elements of a SWPPP include: ■ Excavation and grading activities will be scheduled for the dry season only(April I5 to October 15),to the extent possible.This will reduce the chance of severe erosion from intense rainfall and surface runoff,as well as the potential for soil saturation in swaie areas. ■ If excavation occurs during the rainy season,storm runoff from the construction area will be regulated through a storm water management/erosion control plan that may include temporary onsite silt traps and/or basins with multiple dis- charge points to natural drainages and energy dissipaters.Stockpiles of loose material will be covered and runoff diverted away from exposed soil material. If work is stopped due to rain,a positive grading away from slopes will be pro- vided to carry the surface runoff to areas where flow can be controlled,such as the temporary silt basins.Sediment basin/traps will be located and operated to minimize the amount of offsite sediment transport.Any trapped sediment will be removed from the basin or trap and placed at a suitable location onsite,away from concentrated flows,or removed to an approved disposal site. ■ Temporary erosion control measures will be provided until perennial revegeta- tion or landscaping is established and can minimize discharge of sediment into nearby waterways. For construction within 500 feet of a water body,straw bales will be placed upstream adjacent to the water body. ■ After completion of grading,erosion protection will be provided on all cut-and- fill slopes. Revegetation will be facilitated by mulching,hydroseeding,or other methods and should be initiated as soon as possible after completion of grading and prior to the onset of the rainy season(by October 15). ■ Permanent revegetation/landscaping will emphasize drought-tolerant perennial ground coverings,shrubs,and trees to improve the probability of slope and soil stabilization without adverse impacts to slope stability due to irrigation infiltra- May 19,2004 1 Page 24 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements tion and long-term root development. • BMPs selected and implemented for the project will be in place and operational prior to the onset of major earthwork on the site.The construction phase facili- ties will be maintained regularly and cleared of accumulated sediment as neces- sary. ■ Hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents used on the construction sites will be stored in covered containers and protected from rainfall,runoff,and vandalism. A stockpile of spill cleanup materials will be readily available at all construction sites.Employees will be trained in spill prevention and cleanup,and individuals will be designated as responsible for prevention and cleanup activities. IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Obtain any permit coverage required and incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing Permit:prior to construction.Measures:during project construc- tion .................................._......,........,........................................................,...._.......,......................... ...._................................. REPORTING __._..._....,..__......................................................_......._.__.............._....,...................._..._..........._....._.... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 1mpi�t 21. Constructitsn activities ma�:drsthaa gr~grqund titer trripact d with haz- ardc�us mater€ais during iiewat�ring Mitigation Individual project proponents under the 2004 CTP Update shall obtain a discharge Measure 2.7-2a permit from the appropriate regulatory agency prior to discharge of groundwater generated by excavation dewatering activities to storm drains or sewer systems. For projects located in areas where dewatering activities would require the discharge of groundwater generated by construction directly to a local water body,the project proponent shall obtain a permit from the appropriate RWQCB. Alternatively,the project applicant shall arrange for temporary storage of groundwa- ter generated by dewatering on-site,and arrange for future transport of groundwa- ter to an appropriate disposal facility. ..... . ........... IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Obtain relevant permit(s)and/or incorporate measures into pro- ject specifications and construction requirements Timing Permits:prior to construction. Measures:during project con- struction ................._..............._........._............,........................,...,....,......................._..... REPORTING ............................................................................................................. Responsible Party Project Sponsors May 19, 2004 1 Page 25 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH lett). 2003 062 12 8) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison impa 2.7 3 `Cranspbrta#itfn is 'rtiibliar anti programs d6iji%ructed ar,operathij in pod pro 1o6ri . r ccsuild seirve t+ redirt.flbbd fiaWs, Mitigation Proponents of individual projects proposed under the 2004 CTP Update shall com- Measure 2.7-3a ply with Caltrans and local regulatory agency design standards for projects within a FEMA-designated 100-year flood zone. IMPLEMENTATION ............. ... Responsible Parry Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction REPORTING ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison JIM 4K*14 �- y ,+�r��ts�ru�#i+�r�;oi�t�ilessperrt�#ion wrr,�re��er»ents.WbWd irrtwwiMperr t.11 c�Nac aroA$ attsirti airi increase in start rw;t#erg ro +�f�v�l4MO . r ", and n+arrpapntk s_ r. a p�liut rr#iev l ai i�d+:creaseci rake o grssunciin a#er recharge Mitigation Proponents of individual projects under the 2004 CTP Update shall be required to Measure 2.7-4a meet the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act by submitting plans to eliminate and control potential pollutants in storm water discharge through incorporation of structural and treatment BMPs, in addition to minimizing increases in storm water runoff volumes and rates,in accordance with Contra Costa's Municipal NPDES per- mit,Caltrans NPDES permit,or,if applicable a NPDES permit specific to the project site. In order to minimize water quality impacts associated with proposed projects, existing pervious surfaces shall be preserved to minimize the amount of storm runoff to the greatest extent possible,in accordance the recommendations provided in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association's(BASMAA)Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection (BASMA, 1999). The project shall also incorporate appropriate water pollution and storm water run- off control measures recommended in the California Storm Water Best Manage- ment Practice}-land-book for New Development and Redevelopment(CASQA, 2003b). IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Obtain any necessary permits and incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements May 19,2004 1 Page 26 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 200306212$} ............. ..................... ........ ...... MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Timing Permits:prior to construction. Measures:during project con- struction ................................... ....................................... .................................................... REPORTING 1111-1--l"'.."1111111........................................................... ............................................................................................................................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Projects shall be designed to allow lateral transmission of storm water flows across Measure 2.7-4b transportation corridors with no increased risk of upstream flooding.Culverts and bridges shall be designed to adequately carry drainage waters through project sites, in accordance with Caltrans design requirements. ................. ....................................... .......... IMPLEMENTATION ............ .......... ................. .................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction 1-111.1"..",.......... ...... ............... ..................... REPORTING ................ ......... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 2.8 VISUAL RESOURCES - i Impact I il.V 1--c'ohttiruct onor',expansionv OftainA ft':tilon prpJe66lhthidiidjn t.66.40"04, thW.-CO un' tY-b'vdr ' Lang,1111.r _b y,4ddffi"1 I eent's.t0 I �I,0' J1ki nd. th; teikbe46antc erl an qua i-of Oww' oroeas, : thereby,b1qJd ewbtg t6flb :1 11' dwiay'� d ' b h", r pen,�Spa,'' , 0 i�. t. ed rn nines, ............ Mitigation Design projects to minimize contrast in scale and massing between the project and Measure 2.8-2a surrounding natural forms and urban development.Site or design projects to mini- mize their intrusion into important view sheds. .............. ...................... ................. IMPLEMENTATION ................. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ................. .................... ............. REPORTING ............... Responsible Party Project Sponsors May 19,2004 1 Page 27 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Use natural landscaping to minimize contrasts between the projects and existing Measure 2.8-2b natural and human-made features.Where possible,develop interchanges and transit lines at the grade of the surrounding land to limit view blockage.Contour the edges of major cut and fill slopes to provide a more natural looking finished profile. . . ... ..... .... .. IMPLEMENTATION _......................................................_......................................_.._............................... ............... Responsible Parry Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing [luring project construction REPORTING ........................_..............................................................._............,..._............................._...................................................................................................... .. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Design landscaping along highway corridors to add significant natural elements and Measure 2.8-2c visual interest to soften the hard edged,linear travel experience that would other- wise occur. IMPLEMENTATION .........................................._..................w........... .................. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing during project construction ...................... REPORTING ....................................................................................................................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Complete design studies for projects in designated or eligible Scenic Highway corri- Measure 2.8-2d dors.Consider the"complete"highway system and develop mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the quality of the views or visual experience that originally qualified the highway for Scenic Highway designation. _............._........_.. IMPLEMENTATION ...................._......................................................................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction .................................................. May 19, 2004 1 Page 28 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (5CH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements REPORTING ...................................................................................................................................._................................_............_............ Responsible Parry Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 2.9 NOISE Meri!Adt 2,9 II Ccrns�r xi~ittirt=ntth p>rtt��tb prrs i ed t the 2004 CTPiUpd ►te wnrifli - F► vfht�rt teirrt r�sis )r npr an surrunir�; � 3 Mitigation OCTA should continue to advise project sponsors as to appropriate construction- Measure 2.9-1a related noise mitigation measures to include in their projects,such as requiring muf- flers on heavy construction equipment and specifying time restrictions consistent with local noise ordinances and with the activities of sensitive land uses in the vicin- ity(limitations on allowable hours for construction,however, could have significant adverse impacts on traffic movement if construction is limited to the daylight hours and prohibited during nighttime hours). Further project level analysis conducted for individual projects shall determine the level of mitigation required. Mitigation meas- ure could include,but not be limited to: Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques(e.g.,improved mufflers,equipment redesign,use of intake silencers,ducts,engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible); ■ Impact tools(e.g.,jack hammers,pavement breakers,and rock drills)used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumati- cally powered tools. However,where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable,an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used;this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible,and this could achieve a re- duction of 5.0 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used,such as drills rather than impact equipment,whenever feasible; ■ Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as pos- sible,and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds,incorpo- rate insulation barriers,or other measures to the extent feasible; ■ To reduce the potential for noise impacts from pile driving,alternate methods of driving shall be used, if feasible.Alternate measures may include pre-drilling of piles,the use of more than one pile driver to lessen the total time required for driving piles,and other measures; ■ Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the entire construction site,if necessary to buffer noise from sensitive land uses; ■ Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce noise emission from the site; • Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improv- May 19,2004 1 Page 29 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ........................................>.....,.,.,...........,..............,............, ,,.,.,..,.,......,,.... MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements ing the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; • Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures with noise measure- ments;and • Establish a process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to con- struction noise with the following components: ■ A procedure for notifying city and county police departments and building divi- sion staff throughout Contra Costa County; ■ A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to permitted construction days and hours and complaint procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem; • A listing of telephone numbers(during regular construction hours and off- hours) ■ The designation of a construction complaint manger for the project;and ■ Notify neighbors within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of pile-driving activities about the estimated duration of the ac- tivity. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................._..............................................._............,_.......................................................,.................................................... ..........__..........,... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ...................................................................................................................-............................................................................................,., REPORTING _....._............._,...................................................... .................,......,......_..,.... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Ir»paet 2,9»;t 7'ranspxtr�aluon innpirovarx�ents prc+0cssed. s#5ari~,ofthe 3004,G�"� .fpd�#, COU id' esutt.ir nos :l+eve#s thatppr..r�ai Pr exceed the01 iWA and Flo#fir Abatement fir#ter#a Mitigation Noise mitigation measures should respond to the land use compatibility criteria in- Measure 2.9-2a cluded in the General Plans of the applicable jurisdictions.If federal funding is used for the project, mitigation measures should also conform to applicable FHWA and FTA noise abatement criteria.These commitments obligate project sponsors to im- plement measures that would minimize or eliminate any significant impacts. Depend- ing on the type of project,typical mitigation measures that should be considered by project sponsors shall include but not be limited to: ■ Construction of sound walls adjacent to new or modified roads or transit lines, especially when projects are located in the vicinity of sensitive receptors.Noise level increases could,in most cases,be mitigated to levels at or below existing levels if soundwalls were constructed along the rights-of-way.A determination of the specific heights,lengths and feasibility of soundwalls must be part of the project-level environmental assessment. • Adjustments to proposed roadway or transit alignment to reduce noise levels in May 19,2004 1 Page 30 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (sCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements noise sensitive areas.Depressed roadway alignments are effective at mitigating roadside noise levels. • Insulation of buildings or construction of noise barriers around sensitive recep- tors. • Vibration isolation of track segments. ■ The CCTA will encourage local jurisdictions to establish development standards and land use policies that limit the exposure of sensitive receptors to noise gen- erated by new or expanded transportation facilities.Such policies could include guiding commercial,industrial,and other similar uses to sites adjacent to major roadways or rail lines and requiring noise mitigation measures when residential, educational and other similar uses are to be developed near major transporta- tion facilities. IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................................................................. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction REPORTING Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 2. 10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ltinp t Z 101. Cis's wuetQan of new transjsortatian projocts supported by the proposed Pojjt has xhe po>t6ptlal#o adversely ialct hYs#o arl��te+ tur�cl re- sources tl�rciu�h dOM it tlrrn csiw' igtniRcant th inges to tl a 1t[st rlcal-s+i:t�.<: ting Mitigation Inventory and Evaluate Cultural Resources. A complete cultural resources inventory Measure designed to identify potentially significant resources shall be conducted for all pro- 2.10-1a jects that have the potential to impact cultural resources. Minimally,a cultural re- sources inventory shall consist of a cultural resources records search to be con- ducted at the Northwest Information of the California Historical Resources Informa- tion System located at Sonoma State University;consultation with the Native Ameri- can Heritage Commission (NAHC)and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC;a field survey(if one has not previously been conducted);recordation of all identified archaeological sites and historic buildings and structures on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Site Record forms;and preparation of a cultural resources inventory report describing the project setting,methods used in the investigation,results of the investigation,and recommendations for management of identified resources.Certain agencies,such as the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans,have specific requirements for inventory areas and May 19,2004 1 Page 31 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra, Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements documentation format. Identified cultural resources that may be impacted by a proposed project shall be evaluated for eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).Cultural resources that are eligible for the CRHR are considered to be significant cultural resources.Cultural resources that are identified within project areas subject to federal approval,permits,or funding shall also be evaluated for eligi- bility for listing on the NRNP.Cultural resources determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP are automatically eligible for listing on the CRHR and are considered to be significant cultural resources. IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................._,..........................,................._..............................................._.................. ........ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ........._.................... REPORTING .............-.............................................................................................................,..................-.................................................................................................. ... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Avoid Impacts on Cultural Resources. If feasible,impacts on identified cultural re- Measure sources including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, human remains,and 2.10-Ib historical buildings and structures should be avoided.Methods of avoidance may include,but not be limited to,project re-route or re-design,project cancellation,or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. IMPLEMENTATION ................................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ........................................................................_......._......,...._.................................................................................................................. REPORTING Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Measure In the event that impact avoidance is not feasible,any alterations,including reloca- 2.10-I c tion,to historic buildings or structures shall conform to the Secretary of the inte- rior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,Restoring,and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.This mitigation Measure will reduce impacts on significant historic buildings and strucures, but would not reduce it to a less-than-significant level. Impacts on significant historic buildings are considered significant and unavoidable. May 19, 2004 1 Page 32 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (5CH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Where such treatment is not feasible,a qualified cultural resource specialist shall be retained to document the impacted historical architectural resource to Historic American Buildings Survey(NABS)and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)standards. HAGS and HAER documentation packages shall be entered into the Library of Congress as well as the Northwest Information Center of the Califor- nia Historical Resources Information System. 1.111-.11-11-1111111 IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction REPORTING Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison irr paet 2.1 Q- C+ nstruttigin�t n+irW tr�tts}3�rta<ti »,pr�,� etsupperrtec by'the pr�pnsd;, �rtij"ct the,1 6tontiai.to a- Yee'-ft y aI'ioct air IhAedlog tw.rema<i burli ill.;ifutin irertiains thri UPi� rna ar d, w utt oil 0 those rem..i s� Mitigation Conduct Archaeological Monitoring. If ground-disturbing activities that have the poten- Measure tial to impact archaeological remains will occur in an area that has been determined 2.10-2a by a qualified archaeologist to be an area that is sensitive for the presence of buried archaeological remains,a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor those activities.Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted in areas where there is a likelihood that archaeological remains may be discovered but where those remains are not visible on the surface.Monitoring shall not be considered a substitute for efforts to identify and evaluate cultural resources prior to the project initiation. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................w......................W....................................................................................... ...... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction ..........._.........................................._.............................. REPORTING .._........................_...........,.............._..........................,..........................,.................,..........,.. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Stop Work if Archaeological Remains are Discovered During Project Construction. If po- Measure tentially significant cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activi- 2.10-2b ties associated with project preparation,construction,or completion,work shall halt in that area until a qualified archaeologist can access the significance of the find,and, May 19, 2004 1 Page 33 of 36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements if necessary,develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with Contra Costa and other appropriate agencies and interested parties. IMPLEMENTATION _.....................................................................__..,...................._ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction -.........._........................................_.........,.._..............................._....,.........,.,........,........................................_......... REPORTING Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Conduct Archaeological Data Recovery. If it is infeasible to avoid impacts on archaeo- Measure logical sites that have been determined to be eligible for listing on the CRHR or the 2.10-2c NRHP(significant resources),additional research including,but not necessarily lim- ited to,archaeological excavation shall be conducted.This work shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist and shall include preparation of a research design,addi- tional archival and historical research,archaeological excavation,analysis of artifacts, features,and other attributes of the resource,and preparation of a technical report documenting the methods and results of the investigation.The purpose of this work is to recover a sufficient quantity of data to compensate for damage to or destruc- tion of the resource.The procedures to be employed in this data recovery program will be determined in consultation with responsible agencies and interested parties, as appropriate. IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................,......_..............._,..................................................................................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction _................................................................................,............................................................ ........,.... REPORTING Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 2. 11 POPULATION AND LAND USE Impact 2 1 I-1 The construction.of new or expanded transportation facilities proposed by the'20p4 CTP Up datecould result in the eon4o-rsiots of agrieultural lands to transportation usos. Mitigation Corridor realignment,where feasible,to avoid agricultural land areas. May 19, 2004 1 Page 34 of 36 2004 Update ,othe Contra Costa Countywide Conqpzokcumme Transportation^Plan'and'Proposed'Measure C^Extension.(6CB.NO.,20O3O62128) ' ,,.^.,_'^,..,.,.,,..MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements Measure IMPLEMENTATION � _�_______ ....................... l|(-lu -------------------------------'--�- Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project m»nstrucdon_______________________________ _REP{]RT|NG_____________________________________________________ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As partmJregular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison Mitigation Buffer zones and setbacks to protect the functional aspects of agricultural land areas. Measure IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements _Thn�B___________D�Mn��pr'�e��consuoc�on.............................________. ______... _REPORTIwQ...........______...........____________.......... ___________________________ Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status nmpnns LiaisonTiming As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Mitigation Berms and fencing to reduce conflicts between transportation uses and agricultural Measure land uses. 2.||'|c IMPLEMENTATION ----~-.................------'---- .................. ............... --.............. ...................................... ...............' ........... '~---' Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements _Timing During project consuoobov __________________ REPORTING -11111-11................1111.1-11.1- - �����_������_����������� ........... .............. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As partof regular meetingswith Authority's Construction Liaison at6d with, 0 is Mitigation Construction operations on existing facilities will be regulated to minimize traffic Measure disruptions and detours,and tomaintain safe traffic operations. May |9,2OO4 | Page ]Sof36 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO, 2003062128) MITIGATIOM MOMITORIMG REPORT Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements 2.11-2a IMPLEMENTATION ,""..",...................... ................ ..................... ............. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Incorporate measures into project specifications and construction requirements Timing During project construction .................................. ....................... REPORTING .................... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison 6 two e dW s by�- U1, SU 9,1 U n. g., us nft' 't4imil n+clgfTbcrhobds , Mitigation Require project sponsors of eBART,SR 4 East(Loveridge Road to SR 160),Martinez Measure Intermodal Facility,Vasco Road Widening,Byron Highway Widening,Brentwood 2.11-3a Boulevard Corridor Improvements,SR 4 Bypass(Lone Tree Way to Vasco Road), SR 242/Clayton Road,South 1-680 HOV Direct Access,and various local arterial projects to commit to preparation and execution of relocation assistance plans as a mitigation measure for displacement impacts as a condition of Measure C Extension funding,As a minimum,relocation assistance plans will include. % Criteria for replacement housing; ■ Reimbursement levels for moving costs and differential housing costs to those eligible for displacement; ■ Construction schedules that allow adequate time for all commercial and indus- trial businesses to find and relocate to adequate substitute sites;and Reimbursement levels for the costs associated with relocating a business to an acceptable facility,including search costs and criteria for payment in lieu of relo- cation if a business cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of existing pa- tronage. .....................-............ ................ ....................... .......... ............ ........... IMPLEMENTATION .......... Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Preparation and execution of relocation assistance plans. Timing Prior to project construction 1-11-1-1111111.111111-1............ ...................... .................-.............. .............. REPORTING ................. .......... ................ ........................ ................. ............. Responsible Party Project Sponsors Action Required Provide the information required for Project Status reports Timing As part of regular meetings with Authority's Construction Liaison May 19, 20104 1 Page 36 of 36 EXHIBIT C ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Proposal for Adoption May 19, 2004 Table of Contents 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 2 Revisions to the Draft EIR...............................................................................................3 OverallChanges ..................................................................................................................3 ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................3 ProjectDescription..............................................................................................................6 Section 2.1 Transportation and Circulation..........................................................................6 Section2.2: Air Quality.......................................................................................................9 Section2.3: Energy..............................................................................................................9 Section 2.10: Cultural Resources .........................................................................................9 Section 2.11: Population and Land Use..............................................................................10 Appendices........................................................................................................................11 3 List of Comments Received on the Draft EIR.................................................................12 4 Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR.............................................13 1 TRANSPLAN Committee...........................................................................................21 2 Contra Costa County Employment& Human Services...............................................24 3 Debbie Toth,Mt. Diablo Center, Senior and Disabled Stakeholders............................26 4 Department of Transportation (Caltrans)....................................................................27 5 TRANSPAC—Transportation Partnership and Cooperation.......................................28 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District ($AAQMD)..............................................32 7 Edward Franzen .........................................................................................................35 8 Michael Flake.............................................................................................................37 9 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF).........................41 10 Sierra Club..............................................................................................................50 11 AC Transit..............................................................................................................57 5 Copies of DEIR Comment Letters and Transcript of Oral Comment..............................60 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I Introduction This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR or FEIR) is intended to aid the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (the Authority) as it considers adoption of the 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (CTP 2004 Update), as well as comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).This Final EIR amends, and includes by reference, the Draft EIR (DEIR) published January 20, 2004, which is available as a separately bound document from the Authority or at http://www.ccta.net/GNV2004-�UpdateDEIR.htm. The main purpose of a Final EIR is to revise and refine the environmental analysis and mitigation measures in the DEIR in response to written and oral comments and recommendations received during the 45-day public review period. This review period of the Draft EIR(State Clearinghouse No. 2003062128) was from January 20, 2004 through March 8, 2004.A list of individuals, agencies, and organizations that commented on the Draft EIR is included in Section 3 of this document. Copies of written comments and transcript of oral comment, along with responses, are in Sections 4. Some cornmentors raised points regarding both the CTP 2004 Update and its Draft EIR.This Final EIR responds to comments on the latter; for comments on the former, see the Final 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension. This document includes four sections,as follows. Section Contents I Introduction Introduces the Final EIR and summarizes the contents of the document 2 Revisions to the Draft EIR Lists revisions to the Draft EIR by topic in the order in which they are arranged in the Draft 3 List of Comments Received Lists all persons and organizations from whom comments on the on the Draft EIR Draft EIR were received 4 Comments and Responses to Comments,numbered accordingly,and responses to comments. Comments on the Draft EIR Also,copies of comments,with numbers added in the margins The only significant unavoidable impacts identified in either the Draft or Final EIR are in the issues areas of air quality (for Alternatives B and C) and conversion of agricultural lands to transportation uses. Development and associated increased vehicle travel under the CTP 2004 Update could lead to increased emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO under Alternative B and increased emissions of ROG,NOx, CO, and PM-10 in Alternative C. Also, the CTP 2004 Update would result in conversion of between 67 and 170 acres of agricultural land. All other potentially significant impacts can be avoided or reduced to levels that are not significant through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Upon issuance of this Final EIR, the Authority will hold public hearings to certify this EIR and to consider adoption of the proposed CTP 2004 Update. The Authority will determine the adequacy of this Final EIR, and, if determined adequate,will make findings and certify the document as compliant with CEQA. Separate CEQA findings will be prepared for the project 1 ........................ . . . . ............ 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) �l' ........................................ ................. and will be considered for adoption by the Authority. If the Authority recommends certification of the EIR and approval of the proposed CTP 2004 Update, the Authority will then consider both certification of the EIR and adoption of the Plan. 2 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) .......................... ...................... _,=.,,.. Ft�iAL ENYIFtONMFNTAL IMPACT REPORT 2 Revisions to the Craft EIR This section includes the revisions to the Draft EIR not included as part of the Responses to Comments (Section 3, below). Revisions in this section are based on the Authority staff and consultant review, and appear below by section in the order they appear in the Draft EIR. Additions to the Draft EIR are underlined, and deletions are shown as strleettfs. Note that these revisions do not constitute substantial new information or changes in the overall impact analysis presented in the DEIR. In addition, Section 5 contains a listing of the CTP 2004 Update project list revisions. Numerous comments on the CTP 2004 Update and the Draft EIR were made to revise project descriptions, status or to delete/add minor projects.Where revisions would not alter the findings and/or conclusions of the DEIR,we have made these changes, as shown in Section S. The revisions shown in Section 5 are intended to revise all project descriptions within the EIR document itself, wherever those projects are listed and/or described. OVERALL CHANGES The title of the project category"Focal Interchanges in Central County„ is modified to "Interchange Improvements on I-680 & State Route 242",wherever it appears. The title of the project category"Trip Reduction/TDM" is modified to "Commute Alternatives",wherever it appears. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page IHSS-3, second paragraph,third sentence: For the CTP 2004 Update EIR, the No Project scenario assumes that the 2000 CTP would continue to apply and that the projects and prejeets programs listed as committed or "Track 1" in MTC's 2001 RTP would still be developed. Revise Table S-1 on page ES-8 as follows: Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Significance after Impact Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation 2.2-2 Implementation of Less than Significant Mitigation Measure 2.2-2b[for Significant projects under the CTP for Alternative A; Alternatives B and C] Unavoidable for 2004 Update would Significant Use cleaner fuels such as electricity, Alternatives B and result in more than five Unavoidable for instead of diesel for the eBART C percent increase in Alternatives B and C project.The increased use of emissions of regional air electricity however depending on the pollutants such as method of pr duc io .rnu#d haves ROG,NOX,CO,and secondary and potentially significant PM-10 compared to the impacts where the electricity li No Project Alternative. produced The cost of subs itutin 3 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) �I'N>~1�#- �hl�littC1�1+1Nl�i+i'fAL IMPACT ,,,>,....,...,a..„o,o,o..,.>,,,,,,a.,,,„............... �I ri i for diesel could make its use infeasible. Revise Mitigation Measure 2.9-1a on page ES-22 in Table S-1 as follows: Mitigation Measure 2.9-l0 * Establish a process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction noise with the following components: A procedure for notifying Gky Budding flT��ta Sanies city and county ppolice Ddepartments and building division staff throughout Contra Costa County; Change Mitigation 2.4-2b on Table S-1 and on page 2-79 as follows: Mitigation Measure 2.4-2b The project proponent shall ensure that all construction activities and design criteria comply with applicable codes and requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code with California additions (Title 22), and applicable Caltrans construction and grading eranees specifications. In addition,the project proponent shall ensure that project designs provide adequate slope drainage and appropriate landscaping to minimize potential future occurrences of slope instability and erosion. Change Mitigation 2.5-1b in Table S-1 and on page 2-93 as follows: Mitigation Measure 2.5-1b Avoid construction in wetland areas. Wherever possible, place above ground structures along an alignment to avoid shading of wetland or riparian vegetation. Control rufle€f discharges from sures facilities above-weds so that litie , _e l: ' .-.the -'~em -'- pollutants in runoff do not pe4ufe-dtesee affect wetland habitats. The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S- 1): Mitigation Measure 2.5-1e Keep disruption of soils within streambeds to a minimum and implement ert�si earths stabilization efforts around support pillars. The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S- 1): Mitigation Measure 2.5-1h Avoid known animal movement corridors where possible when designing new road and rail alignments pedestrian/bike aths and other transportation facilities; design lighting to be responsive to wildlife sensitivities. Place pass through-culverts under highways to 4 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) .............. ...... ............. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT allow wildlife movement. Fencing should be used to prevent wildlife from entering highways. Comment noted.The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S-1): Mitigation Measure 2.6-2a: A&soil sampleain plan shall be ta4en at equal intervals prepared and implemented along construction corridors to determine the presence or absence of soil contamination. If soil contamination is found, the contaminated soil shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Comment noted. The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S-1): Mitigation Measure 2.6-2b: In the event that soil contamination is encountered,project sponsors shall insure that one competent professional is onsite at all times during construction phases to perform soil analyses.All construction shall cease until the contaminated soil is reused or removed and disposed off in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements.A competent professional shall collect verification soil samples to ensure complete removal of contaminated soil. Comment noted.The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S-1): Mitigation Measure 2.6-2c. If any underground storage tanks are discovered during construction, all construction in the immediate area shall stop until the UST is removed under the guidance of the Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH) or other regulatory agency. If required the regulatgry_agency,Stteh removal 4ta4-May include the over-excavation and disposal of any impacted soil that may be associated with such tanks to a degree considered sufficient by the CCEH. The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S-1): Mitigation Measure 2.7-4a Proponents of individual projects under the CTP 2004 Update shall be required to meet the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act by submitting plans to eliminate and control potential pollutants in storm water discharge through incorporation of structural and treatment BMPs, in addition to minimizing increases in storm water runoff volumes and rates, in accordance with Contra Costa's Municipal NPDES permit,, Caltrans NPDES permit, or, if applicable a NPDES hermit specific to the project site. 5 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ....... FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION Revise the description of Alternative B on page 1-15: Under Alternative B, projects would receive roughly 47 percent ($746 million) of expected funds. Major capital projects such as the Caldecott Tunnel 4th bore ($100 million, 6.3 percent), State Route 4 (Loveridge to SR1601 0125 million, 7.8 percent East County Corridors ($50 million,3.1 percent), and eBART($150 million,9.4 percent) are included in Alternative B, but at reduced levels compared to Alternative A. In addition, funds for completing 1-680 HOV gaps ($40 million,2.5 percent), as well as BART Improvements ($15 million, 0.9 percent), decline in this alternative; Change the description on page 1-22 to read: The proposed project would eliminate the-gyral-existing gaps in the 1-680 HOV lane system and provide an uninterrupted HOV facility bet...een G-ent-Fal Gentra Gesta-,mwi-kom-the-MAdna)(isuinttrdian" Dublin. Revise the description of Transportation Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities on page 1-25 as follows: Funding for-A-b-i-S-F-e-g— tew in.Expendkuwe Plan Alternative A-at--a*d4� I- MU3 percent-Qfu_ture-revenues, would U! e-Bu-5 percent,WDMW increase currentItyels-of funding-by two-thirds.an+A-1ternative-C,-at-13 percent of tax measure revenues),,woutd-more-than triple-funding,for-Paratransit-services.A r-eduee !eye!"n&ig sueh--as in the first two alterna6yes may-netigew Ati"Wa n md-expan-sle-of euFrentl T+an_spertatien C-A-r__the Elderly and 1"'I"Wes-sep,0ke te-the ean SECTION 2. 1 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Page 2-9-2-10: Delete the section on"Shaping Our Future" Change the first paragraph on page 2-15 as follows: The stab VMT-iq a reself of-ft�nttmber of different faeters.A-9-6_- J--b-4-tou balattee iff-entra Geffa- � I011afteed i"202s, as- fer for work. However, dis�4er work as eire -Ihe marginal differences in VMT among the alternatives reflects the marginal enhancements to the assumed,network these improvements would represent-she improvements proposed while significantwould be added to an already mature.transportation infrastructure-combined with a fixed land use base. 6 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062120 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following change will be made in the DEIR on page 2-16: Table-24-7-akse4h*ws-the 4d take for-a Yehk4e���� average4 Modify the text on page 2-17 of the Draft EIR as follows: In 2000, there were about 1.04,000 daily transit hoardings in Contra Costa. Under the No Project condition,this number is projected to climb to almost 244,500 daily transit hoardings in 2025. " -. ' in "Under Alternative A, as shown in Table 2.1- ._thy-w&gLansitboardings are forecast to dr�lbnearly 2,000 .ps i t the-county when compared to the 2025 No Project condition,although this change would reduce hoardings by preper6on-is-less than one percent. iar&it The Al drop in transit hoardings reflects the Igger'_ '- �' b _ a ,I- —f , is t alter"ftfive with the highest number of highway prejeefsjmprovements in Alternative A which make driving along more attractive.;- The only transit improvements in the-this alternative are the addition of eBART and increased frequency of epez -to"the Capitol Corridor service during the AM and PM peak periods. Other local or express bus service is the same in both Alternative A and the No Project scenario. Transit hoardings are forecast to be four percent greater under Alternative B than the 2025 No Project condition. This increase in total hoardings results from both the addition of eBART and increased express and local bus services. Transit hoardings are forecast to`v'- in 'this alvematiye increase 18 percent over the 2025 No Project condition in response to-the significantly enhanced local and express bus services included in Alternative C and the addition of eBART. Decreases in BART and eBART boardino are forecast for all three alternatives.despite the inclusion of new eBART service Under Alternative A it appears that more travelers are choosing to drive alone—the drive alone share increases only with this alternative— in response to the highway improvements proposed Under Alternatives B and C, funding for both local and express bus service would be increased. The increase in bus service supported by that increase in fundjng`apgears to encourage more travelers to take the bus at the expense of the shares of both BARTJeBART and driving alone. All three alternatives include express bus service within the State Route 4-East-corridor following current routes As the frequengy of this service increases from Alternative A to Alternative C the number of BART and eBART boardings go down. 7 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128 ...............*.........*........... ........... Page 2-19: Add the following: Shaping Our Future In 2001, representatives of local governments began working with stakeholder groups, the public and transportation and land use experts to develop a common,community- based vision for the future of Contra Costa and strategies to achieve it. The result of this effort,Shaping Our Future, outlines a vision that focuses development in defined urban centers,encourage redevelopment and infill, and preserves open space through a defined Urban Limit Line. The transportation approach outlined in the final report "calls for a strong network of transportation choices that improves accessibility and mobility for all Contra Costans." (p. 23) As part of this process, a land use scenario different from that developed by ABAG was developed. This scenario increased the number of households in 2020 by 4.7 percent and decreased the number of jobs by 4.2 percent,compared to the ABAG-based forecasts used in this EIR. (See Section page 2-200 and Table 2.11-5)The SOF land use scenario directed more development towards existing urban centers and areas that have, or would have, greater levels of transit service. It also encouraged more mixing of housing and jobs and the location of more jobs closer to concentrations of housing as well as design changes that would encourage more walking,bicycling and transit use. While the transportation analysis of the SOF land use scenario started with the results from the Authority's earlier travel demand models,it made numerous manual adjustments (also known as"post-processing") in an attempt to incorporate the effects of the land use mixing, increased density, and changes in community design recommended.This analysis began by using the Authority's four sub-area models to estimate trip generation in 2020. This information was aggregated into the Authority's countywide model to develop countywide trip exchanges. Using this information,the Authority's model was run through the trip distribution and mode choice steps. Before assigning trips to the network, several manual adjustments were made. Adjustments were made in response to assumed increases in density, design and diversity where transit-oriented development (TOD)projects had been assumed in the SOF scenario to reduce the number of vehicle trips made for zones.The final step was to assign the adjusted trip tables to the network using the Authority's model. This SOF transportation analysis found improvements in all indicators reported compared to the "trend" conditions. Vehicle trips,vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled all fell and transit trips increased.Miles of freeway and arterial streets over capacity also dropped. Several caveats about the analysis should be noted, however,before comparing it to the analysis outlined in this FIR. First, the manual adjustments made are not yet well accepted among transportation planners, and concerns have been raised about double- counting of the effects considered in the adjustments.Additional research will be needed to confirm their accuracy. Second,the SOF transportation analysis assumed a much more extensive set of transportation improvements than are considered in this EIR. Because SOF was not constrained by expected funding, the improvements 8 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed M.e'asure.C..Extension (SCH NCS. 200306 2,12,8,) ........................ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT included a more extensive transit and roadway system than assumed in any of the alternatives. Besides projects such as the Caldecott Tunnel and eBART that are included in this EIR,SOF included the widening of State Route 4 from Antioch to Tracy and Bus Rapid Transit from Concord to Martinez,which are not included in this EIR. Nonetheless,land use changes would likely affect model results.MTC, as part of the evaluation of projects for the 2005 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP),known as Transportation 2030, ran their travel model using the 2001 RTP network combined with Projections 2000 and Projections 2003. The comparison showed that with Projections 2003,which incorporates land use changes similar to (but less extensive than) SOF, the share of transit, walk and bicycle trips would increase while drive-alone and carpool trips would drop. Similar effects could be expected with any of the alternatives analyzed in this EIR if the assumed land use forecasts are changed.There is not enough information from either the SOF analysis or the MTC comparison to determine whether using either the SOF land use or Projections 2003 would alter the conclusions of this EIR. SECTION 2.2: AIR QUALITY Revise the Mitigation Measure 2.2-2b on page 2-44 as follows: Mitigation Measure 2.2-2b [for Alternatives B and C] Use cleaner fuels such as electricity, instead of diesel for the eBART project. The increased use of electricity, however, depending on the method of production,could have secondary and potentially significant impacts where the electricity is produced. The cost of substituting electricity for diesel could make its use infeasible. SECTION 2.3.- ENERGY Revise the last sentence under"Alternative Fuels"on page 2-48 as follows: Current technologies for electric vehicles include lead acid and nickel metal hydride batteries. The increased use of clectricily, however,depending on the method of production, could have secondary and potentially significant irm)acts where the electricity is produced. The cost of substituting-electricity for diesel could make its use infeasible. SECTION 2. 10. CULTURAL RESOURCES Revise Table 2.10-1 on page 2-177 as follows: Potential Potential Project impacts on Impacts on Mitigation Project Name Limits Description Archaeological Historical measures, Capitol CorrWor: !`Martinez Includes acquisition of warehouse yes NO Yes No 1444-Ja,-b-, 9 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) FlNAt Ei�ViFtC?NMEt+IT�,L IMPAGT �t�#'�J�tT .>„..,...>.>s,........,,.,.,,,.=,r,z..f.._..=,..,a„.,. Martinez Intermodal property north of existing Intermodal 2'2z-10 2 ia; Intermodal Facility, Facility Facility,demolition of existing b E}None Phase Ill structures,construction of parking lot providing an additional 425 parking spaces,along with improved roadway access from Ferry Street, construction of pedestrian overcrossing over the Union pacific Railroad facilities,and construction of a vehicle bridge over Alhambra Creek. SUCTION 2. 11: POPULATION AND LAND USE Page 2214, second paragraph,first sentence: In addition to local General Plan compliance, the proposed project includes a Growth Management Program that requires local governments to comply with four criteria discussed in Section 1.2,Project Description, and Table 1.2-43. Replace the text under the heading of"Consistency of CTP 2004 Update Projects with Local Plans” with the following: The proiects included in the three alternatives were primarily generated by local jurisdictions and agencies working through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees.The RTPCs, which are made up of local elected officials with representation from transit agencies work to further and coordinate the adopted policies of the Jurisdictions within their regions It can be fairly assumed that the projects proposed by the RTPCs reflect ado2ted general plans or other local plans Any projects proposed for fundin through-proposed transportation improvement programs, such as the CC-TLC-and bicycle and pedestrian facilities programs would need to be scrutinized by the Authority or the RTPCs to ensure that consistency between the project and local plans The Authority's current process for reviewing proiects,which the Authority would continue with the extension of Measure C would allow for RTPC review of projects for such consistency. 10 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128)„q f"Ih1AL �NYlPtC1NMENTAL IMPACT ��PORT<. APPENDICES Change Appendix A,Part 1 on page A-4, as follows: Lane Con figuration Changes No Interchange Projec Comm j g Alta C encs Project Original New Detail t Alt.A Alt.B Change Appendix A,Part 3 on page A-10,as follows: Number of Lanes Without With No Alternaa Alternativ Ahernativ Project Description Project Project Project tine A e B e C Comments Somersviile Between t + 1 2+2 0 x x 0 Rd seefUM-A Bypass James Cfonkon and Buchanan Road 77 . .. .......... ... .......................... . ............. ..................... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ....................................... 3 List of Comments Received on the Draft EIR The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP 2004 Update), which assesses the potential environmental impacts of the Plan and Measure C Extension,was released for public review on January 20, 2004 and circulated until March 8,2004. During the CEQA-required 45-day review period, 12 comments (11 letters and one oral comment) were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals: Date Type From Comment made by nFe►3t1 t y ftW ,tJ4 loh' 6 1l" Lem TRA February 25,2004 Letter Contra Costa County Paul S.Branson, Employment&Human Transportation Manager Services Ila, Mt ak iJ March 1,2004 Fax Department of Timothy C.Sable,District Transportation Branch Chief 4C3rant fir P, 4 ra0%p*rl:W64P4rr ship C.... March 5,2004 Letter Governor's Office of Terry Roberts,Director Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit o Jack P1,Bi6all Atanag ont Dlowla axe ueTs, '1� March 8,2004 E-mail Ed Franzen,City of Ed Franzen Antioch Mare 6,2004' k March 8,2004 Letter Transportation Solutions David Schonbrunn, Defense and Education President Fund 'S kaihle'an `N imr' March 8,2004 Letter AC Transit Rick Fernandez,General Manager 12 .................................... . . ......... .. .. ................. 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003 062128) .................................. 4 Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Section 4.1 provides overall responses to comments made by several commentors. Section 4.2 . presented all of the comments on the DEIR received within the comment period by the Authority. These comments are type-written as they appear in their respective comment letters or transcript of oral comment, and are numbered using the same corresponding numbering scheme used in Section 4.3, where actual copies of comment letters or transcript of oral comment are reproduced. Where possible, the corrections suggested in these comments have been incorporated into the Final CTP 2004 Update EIR. These changes are also featured in Section 2 of this Final EIR, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 4. 1 GENERAL DEIR COMMENTS Four main topics were recurring themes in several of the comments received on the DEIR. These four topics include: Induced Travel, Land Use,Transit and Carpooling, and Shaping Our Future. Descriptions of the comments and responses are in this section,below. INDUCED TRAVEL Three commentors state that improvements resulting in increased roadway capacity will not relieve congestion because "latent demand" for new trips will use up the new capacity. • "Increased roadway capacity is quickly consumed by latent travel demand resulting in further congestion" (BAAQMD, comment letter 7); • "Increased capacity [is] 'used up' quickly, resulting in even higher future levels of congestion" (TRANSDEF,comment letter 10); and • "It appears your model makes the assumption that widening roads decreases congestion, even though more than 70 years of documented experience of road widening in the US contradicts this belief" (Sierra Club,comment letter 11). While transportation research on induced travel does indicate that latent demand can affect the level of congestion relief afforded by increased roadway capacity,these comments do not accurately represent the findings of that research. Furthermore,the model used in the EIR does take latent demand into account in assigning trips among routes and modes of travel. What is Induced Travel? The term "induced travel" is applied to two separate but related phenomena: shifts in existing trips, and the creation of new trips,in response to changes in system capacity. Under the first phenomenon,which Anthony Downs refers to as the"triple 13 ............... . . . .......................... ... .......................... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ...............—.........................*.............. convergence",' travelers shift the time they travel, the route they take, and the mode of travel they use. For example, a freeway widening, by making travel on that roadway faster during rush hour,would likely encourage people to shift from nearby arterials, from before or after rush hour,and from transit or carpools. At least some of the new capacity would be "used up" by the shift of these trips. Under the second phenomenon, people would make entirely new (and presumably lower value) trips after the increase in capacity because they could now do so within their "travel time budget" (see the response to comment 10-9). (These shifts also occur in the opposite direction as congestion increases: more travelers choose to drive on parallel routes, drive before or after the periods of greatest congestion, or take transit or carpool. And some travelers will choose to forgo trips they are already making, which would explain, in part, the 40 percent increase in working at home in Contra Costa between 1990 and 2000, far above the 10 percent increase overall in commuting.) What Does the Evidence Say? Despite the significant work done over the last 30 years, much remains unknown about induced travel. One study notes that, "all that can be said with certainty is that induced-demand effects exist...and they generally accumulate with time."2 Recent studies have found elasticities that ranged widely: from 0.1 to nearly 1.0. (That is, for each percent increase in capacity, the studies found that vehicle miles traveled would increase by from 0.1 percent to one percent.) Opponents of roadway expansion have used the upper range of these studies to contend that "we can't build our way out of congestion"or that"new capacity is quickly used up creating even greater congestion."A closer look at the evidence suggests that such contentions are simplistic. Studies of induced travel face a number of hurdles.The most obvious one is that the data necessary to fully understand traveler responses to changes in capacity is not generally available. Most studies have focused on changes on specific roadways (usually freeways, since that's where the most consistent and detailed data is available) and have ignored changes on other parts of the roadway system. Looking at the effect of capacity increases on only one facility within a larger corridor, however, may exclude benefits to the system as a whole of those improvements and may overestimate the induced travel effect. One of the difficulties of studying induced travel is the difficulty of separating out the effects of other causes of growth in trips. The growth in VMT can be linked to the growth in female participation in the labor force, changes in gasoline prices, shifts in land use, and increases in personal income as well as general growth in population and employment. One study, for example, found that over three-quarters of the growth in vehicle miles traveled resulted from "exogenous factors" such as gasoline prices and changing demographics, rather than road expansion.'And there is a study' from the Chicago area that found a stronger correlation Downs,Anthony,Stuck in Traffic.Brookings Institution/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992. Cervero, Robert. "Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis",journal of the American Planning Association,Vol.69,No. 2,Spring 2003.American Planning Association,Chicago IL. Heanue, K. 1997. Highway Capacity and Induced Travel: Issues, Evidence and Implications. Transportation Researcb Circular,481: 33-4S Urban Transportation Center, 1999. "Highways and Urban Decentralization". University of Illinois at Chicago,Urban Transportation Center. 14 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ........................ ......... between increased vehicle miles traveled and the subsequent construction of new roadway capacity than vice versa. Most studies have looked at the correlation between increased lane miles and new travel on the roadway. These studies,however, leave out an intervening (assumed)step between these two occurrences. Travelers do not respond to increased lane miles per se,but to the travel time benefit they confer. That benefit can differ considerably depending on where the roadway is located,existing travel times on the facility,the length of the improvement and other factors. Those considerations are not always addressed in the studies. Recent Studies in California Two recent studies in California have tried to address some of these methodological shortcomings. The first study looked at the effects of highway improvements throughout California.' It found that, in the long-term,only about 40 percent of new VMT was "induced", either by changes in travel behavior(31 percent) or land use shifts (nine percent).This level is much lower than was found in most earlier studies. Of the remaining 60 percent, about 40 percent was "used up" by population and employment growth and other exogenous factors,while about 20 percent was preserved. The second study,'which looked at changes in countywide tripmaking in response to capacity increases, found a somewhat higher upper end for elasticities, about 0.55. The induced travel effect,at least for improvements in urban counties in California,is likely to be somewhere between 40 and 55 percent of a new facility that benefits drivers. Or, to put it another way,some but not all of the new capacity is"used up"by induced travel, and because a portion of the capacity was preserved,congestion is better than it would have been without the improvement—that is, it does not result in"future congestion", as asserted by the commentors. The Travel Demand Model Addresses Induced Travel Effects to the Greatest Extent Feasible and Supportable,Based on Current Data and Modeling Capabilities Travel demand models are recognized to fully address two of the three parts of the "triple convergence" described above—shifts in route and mode—as part of the mode choice and trip assignment steps. Models can address the third shift if additional modeling steps are included. (These additional steps, however, can create additional variables that generate further uncertainties in the model forecasts.) It is unclear how much of truly new trips (as opposed to redistributed trips) models capture.A recent study published by the Mineta Transportation Institute' found, in a study of a transportation model used in Sacramento, California,that,while the 1991 model underestimated induced demand, that underestimation was"swamped" by the model's overestimation of vehicle miles traveled,vehicle hours traveled,and vehicle hours of delay. (Interestingly,the study found that the observed level of induced travel had an elasticity of 0.22, much lower than that found in other studies. The author hypothesized that it was lower ' Cervero,Robert."Ant Induced Travel Studies Inducing Bad Investments?"Access,Number 22,Spring 2003. ' Cervero,Robert and Mark Hansen. "Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment.A Simultaneous Equation Analysis",journal of Transport Economics and Policy,36(3): 469-490. ' Rodier, Caroline. "Verifying the Accuracy of Regional Models Used in Transportation and Air Quality Planning",MTI Report 02-03.June 2003. 15 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 20030621,28) ............... ......... ........ ...... FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT because the study did not separate out the effect of improvements to transit and HOV systems during the study period.) The Federal Highway Administration notes on its website (http-//www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning /itfaq.htm#q9) that"it is very difficult to measure how much of the induced travel implied by a demand elasticity is actually accounted for by travel forecasts," and cautions that "indiscriminate application of demand elasticities can significantly over-estimate induced travel impacts."The study of the Sacramento model lends credence to that caution. Finally, the Authority's travel demand model projects that vehicle miles traveled would increase about 56 percent for all four 2025 scenarios,and vehicle hours traveled would increase between 195 and 218 percent.The population in the county is forecast to increase by only 31 percent during that same period. These increases are comparable to observed increases in vehicle hours and vehicle miles traveled over the preceding decade. Rather than understating the increase in vehicle miles traveled, as the commenters suggest, the assumptions used by the model lead to it forecasting substantial increases in vehicle miles traveled in the future. Consequences of Not Building New Facilities To further assess the impacts of the construction of new transportation facilities on vehicle miles and vehicle hours traveled, the Authority conducted a model run that used the same 2025 land use as the alternatives but assumed that no transportation improvements beyond those currently programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program.That model run found that vehicle miles traveled would increase slightly (less than one percent) compared to the No Project scenario and that vehicle hours traveled would increase by eight percent.This increase in VMT and VHT, and decrease in overall average speeds,would result from travelers using more circuitous routes to avoid congestion and delay. It is likely that more VHT and lower speeds would result in worsening air quality, though this might be offset somewhat by likely shifts to transit. The increase in VMT and VHT and the drop in overall average speeds were worse under this "minimal transportation improvement" scenario than any of the three alternatives considered in the Draft EIR. Researchers have found that the growth in congestion and delay are significantly correlated with the construction of new transportation facilities,a phenomenon referred to as "induced investment".'The Urban Transportation Center at the University of Illinois at Chicago, for example, found that the construction of highways and expressways were more strongly correlated with past growth than later growth was correlated with earlier investments in highways and expressways.' LAND USE Several commenters suggested that the FIR should use an alternative land use database instead of"following now-obsolete auto-oriented county development trends" (TRANSDEF, comment ' Cervero,Robert.Ibid. 'Urban Transportation Center. Highways and Urban Development(Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 1999). 16 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCHNO. 2003062128) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 9-2) and that alternatives that emphasize transit should assume that those investments would reshape the pattern of land use within Contra Costa. The DEIR acknowledges that the SOF land use may offer transportation benefits (see the discussion of Shaping Our Future below).The Authority supports local and countywide efforts for efficient land use strategies; among the strategies included in the Draft CTP (Vol. 1, p.27) are: "Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make efficient use of the transportation system consistent with the general plans of local jurisdictions" and "Link transportation investments to (i) support of an urban limit line jointly endorsed by the County, cities, and towns, once it is established ... (iii) infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfield areas." The database used for modeling complies with state-of-the-art modeling practices and with State law.The Authority, as a Congestion Management Agency under State law, is required to be consistent with the modeling guidelines of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (FITC), the transportation planning, coordinating,and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay area. MTC's modeling guidelines require consistency with land use forecasts prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).The Authority used the most detailed land use database available when the modeling for the FIR was begun.This database is built on ABAG's Projections 2000 and Projections 2002.1°Only minor adjustments suggested by local jurisdiction staff were made to forecasts within cities to reflect approved developments and adopted local general plans. Changes were kept within one percent for each jurisdiction. The significant changes identified in the SOF process would have made the Authority's land use database inconsistent with the MTC modeling guidelines. The methodology that ABAG uses to develop its forecasts recognizes and responds to relative future accessibility when allocating future jobs and households to areas within the region,including the changes in accessibility created by planned transportation improvements. The response to comment 9-3 discusses the fact that an integrated land use-transportation model for the region is not available, and that the model used in the EIR incorporates state-of- the-art modeling techniques Even if an "integrated"model were available,it might not be the right tool for assessing this project, Using a constant land use data set allows more direct comparison of the three alternatives analyzed. The purpose of this EIR is to analyze and inform decision-makers about the environmental impacts of the Countywide Transportation Plan at a programmatic level. Because of its broad scope and lengthy time horizon, the EIR must make long-term assumptions based on supportable existing data. Any number of alternative land use scenarios may be adopted in the County over the life of the project. These scenarios could affect the implementation of projects within the program evaluated within this EIR. If this is the case, CEQA requires subsequent review of these environmental effects. This review would take place at a time when impacts would be identifiable, not speculative. Neither the Shaping Our Future land use database nor ABAG's Projections 2003 were available in the form needed by the model when modeling for the EIR began. 17 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003 06212 8) .......... ...... FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT As the CMA for Contra Costa, the Authority is required to maintain a land use database that is consistent with ABAG Projections and a model that is consistent with guidelines for modeling and data set by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). In compliance with these obligations,the changes in the transportation network in the No Project alternative and Alternatives A, B,and C were evaluated using uniform, CMP-consistent land use data. SHAPING OUR FUTURE Several comments suggested that the EIR"made no use of the County's million-dollar plus investment in Shaping Our Future" (TRANSDEF, comment 9-4) and does not use the model used in Shaping Our Future (Sierra Club, comment 10-2), The DEIR (p. 2-10) acknowledges that the land use recommended in SOF may offer transportation benefits.The following changes to the EIR will more fully discuss the effects of Shaping Our Future: Page 2-9-2-10- Delete the section on"Shaping Our Future" Page 2-19: Add the following: Shaping Our Future In 2001, representatives of local governments began working with stakeholder groups, the public and transportation and land use experts to develop a common,community- based vision for the future of Contra Costa and strategies to achieve it. The result of this effort,Shaping Our Future,outlines a vision that focuses development in defined urban centers,encourage redevelopment and infill, and preserves open space through a defined Urban Limit Line. The transportation approach outlined in the final report "calls for a strong network of transportation choices that improves accessibility and mobility for all Contra Costans." (p. 23) As part of this process, a land use scenario different from that developed by ABAG was developed. This scenario increased the number of households in 2020 by 4.7 percent and decreased the number of jobs by 4.2 percent,compared to the ABAG-based forecasts used in this EIR. (See Section page 2-200 and Table 2.11-5)The SOF land use scenario directed more development towards existing urban centers and areas that have, or would have, greater levels of transit service. It also encouraged more mixing of housing and jobs and the location of more jobs closer to concentrations of housing as well as design changes that would encourage more walking,bicycling and transit use. While the transportation analysis of the SOF land use scenario started with the results from the Authority's earlier travel demand models,it made numerous manual adjustments (also known as "post-processing") in an attempt to incorporate the effects of the land use mixing, increased density, and changes in community design recommended. This analysis began by using the Authority's four sub-area models to estimate trip generation in 2020.This information was aggregated into the Authority's countywide model to develop countywide trip exchanges. Using this information,the Authority's model was run through the trip distribution and mode choice steps. Before assigning trips to the network, several manual adjustments were made.Adjustments were made in response to assumed increases in density, design and diversity where 2.004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ........... ...... ........... ......... FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT transit-oriented development (TOD) projects had been assumed in the SOF scenario to reduce the number of vehicle trips made for zones.The final step was to assign the adjusted trip tables to the network using the Authority's model. This SOF transportation analysis found improvements in all indicators reported compared to the "trend" conditions.Vehicle trips,vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled all fell and transit trips increased. Miles of freeway and arterial streets over capacity also dropped. Several caveats about the analysis should be noted, however,before comparing it to the analysis outlined in this EIR. First, the manual adjustments made are not universally accepted among transportation planners, and concerns have been raised about the over- amplification of the effects of"density, design and diversity" in the adjustments. Additional research will be needed to confirm their accuracy. Second, the SOF transportation analysis assumed a much more extensive set of transportation improvements than are considered in this EIR. Because SOF was not constrained by expected funding,the improvements included a more extensive transit and roadway system than assumed in any of the alternatives. Besides projects such as the Caldecott Tunnel and eBART that are included in this EIR,SOF included the widening of State Route 4 from Antioch to Tracy and Bus Rapid Transit from Concord to Martinez, which are not included in this EIR. Nonetheless,land use changes would likely affect model results. Recently,MTC, as part of the evaluation of projects for the 2005 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), known as Transportation 2030, ran their travel model using the 2001 RTP network combined with Projections 2000 and Projections 2003. (The results, which were not widely publicized,were contained in a report on short-and longer-term modifications to the MTC model to better evaluate the effects of"smart growth"land use changes.) The comparison showed that with Projections 2003,which incorporates land use changes similar to (but less extensive than) SOF, the share of transit,walk and bicycle trips would increase while drive-alone and carpool trips would drop. Similar effects could be expected with any of the alternatives analyzed in this EIR if the assumed land use forecasts are changed. While the SOF analysis and the MTC comparison support the conclusion that transit use,walking, and bicycle use would increase for all alternatives under the SOF land use scenario,they do not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether these effects would vary among the alternatives or whether the effects would be affect the impacts of the alternatives. It should also be noted that all three alternatives analyzed show gains in transit ridership that are comparable to or exceed those projected by SOF,even while allowing for manual adjustments to the model trip table for development in Transit Oriented Development projects that were made as part of SOF. Details are noted below under the Transit subheading. TRANSIT SHARE Several commentors questioned why the modeling results did not show a greater shift to transit ridership,given the increased transit investment in some of the alternatives (most notably, Alternative Q, This is a mischaracterization of the results in the DEIR.The DEIR shows(Table 19 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) �INAkG ENYIRC�►t�lMEhlTAL iM1~+AC'1" R�PC}RT 2.1-9,page 2-18)that daily transit ridership is projected to be 79, 84, and 96 percent higher than existing conditions for Alternatives A, B, and C respectively. By way of comparison, SOF reports a peak-hour transit ridership increase of 50 percent over existing conditions (SOF Report,June 2003, p. 23). Even if one were to extrapolate the SOF forecasts to 2025 —the SOF only went out to 2020—the increase in transit trips would still be likely to be less than under any of the alternatives studied in the EIR.For all three alternatives,transit is projected to have the greatest percentage increase in daily trips of all travel modes. However, these increases are coating off of a low current share,so transit would continue to represent a small share of the overall trips. The analysis tool used to evaluate each alternative is a state-of-the-art mode choice model for all trip purposes prepared by the Authority.The design of this mode choice model is based on projecting the current ridership and mode choice levels into the future. Overall, the model analysis shows that increasing congestion in Contra Costa County will reduce the share of drive-alone vehicles as some persons seek other alternatives to avoid congestion by 2025,no matter what alternative is chosen. For this EIR,the travel demand model represented different funding levels for transit through changes in the frequency on the existing route system. Modifying the existing system of bus routes to maximize ridership require a separate,comprehensive planning study by each bus operator, and is outside the scope and purpose of this ETR. These route alignment studies are a normal part of local operators' transit planning activities and take into factors (such as actual, rather than forecast, land use and street design). Funds to for optimizing transit system productivity would be available through the sales talc renewal,if approved by the voters;and elements such as transit priority and fare collection systems will be eligible programs that can receive revenue. Furthermore,if future development in Contra Costa were to be more transit- oriented than forecast by ABAG,transit ridership might be higher still. AIR QUALITY AND TRANSIT Some commentors have wondered how Alternative A,which is more focused on roadway projects,could show superior air quality results compared to Alternative C, which has the greatest level of transit investment. There are several reasons for this result: • The DEIR reports that,while they will make up a smaller share,drive-alone trips will continue to represent the greatest share of total trips in Contra Costa,regardless of which alternative is chosen.This analysis is consistent with other transportation analyses. Even SOF,which had increased transit ridership as one of its major objectives and assumed significant changes in land use, predicted that Contra Costa would have 326,200 peak-hour drive-alone trips but only 24,000 peak-hour transit trips in 2020. Given the predominance of drive-alone trips, the EIR found that projected reductions in congestion would improve air quality more than increased transit ridership. In addition, even with the near doubling of transit ridership from year 2000 levels resulting from the $824 million larger investment in transit in Alternative C,the share of trips made using transit would still be small—less than 10 percent. • In Contra Costa, as in the rest of the Bay Area,carpooling makes up the largest share of non-drive-alone trips, not transit. In 2000,shared-ride trips accounted for 23.4 percent 20 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (Sai No. 2003062128) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT of daily trips,while transit accounted for only 4.1 percent. The share of carpooling trips is forecast to increase in the future, and relieving transportation bottlenecks and closing gaps in the system of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes-which Alternative B would provide-would allow carpoolers to travel at higher speeds. Consequently,these shared-ride vehicles would operate at speeds that would result in more optimal engine operation and fewer emissions. A majority of transit trips currently are, and are projected to continue to be in the future,made by buses rather than rail (BART/e-BART or AMTRAK).These buses use the same roadways (110V and non-HOV) that cars use. Decreased congestion on those roadways would mean that buses could also operate at more optimal speeds, thereby reducing the growth in emissions. Putting buses on separate rights-of-way, as rail transit systems often have,would help buses avoid roadway congestion. The creation of new, separate busways would,however, require much more funding than would be available through Measure C. Right-of-way purchase is one of the most expensive components of transportation improvements and funding the purchase of separate busways would require eliminating funding for other improvements. 4.2 SPECIFIC DEIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Each DEIR comment and corresponding response is listed in this section. I TRANSPLAN Committee Comment I-I An erroneous reference on page 2-16 should be corrected. On page 2-16,the first sentence appears to contain an erroneous reference to Table 2.1-7.The sentence states Table 2.1-7"also shows the average time" it would take for vehicles to make trips under each future scenario. However,the table only shows average vehicle speeds, not trip times. The commentor is correct. Table 2.1-7 only shows average speed,not average time. The paragraph on 2-16 was inadvertently included. Because travel time is not used as a performance measure in this EIR, this paragraph should be deleted. The following change will be made in the DEIR on page 2-16: also 940WS_�L_ f-1- 4- L. Table 2.4-:7 _e.-r avehiele under each alter-ftoiY_. , ..ese averar,, F ...... ."iffer th --er-st-1-1-p-ee-6i for the three alternative8.Alternatiye A shows the greftfe9t red i i I i. 4_-, ,ereeft sherter compare d....At. XT T) -:. L-A L, age ift "erage spee&Under Aker-nati-.—, iffies would fell 811f P ereen- eampared to the No Project Aherne GuAA4414 1401 at trip tiffieS to tl-- N1_ T)--;-- A I Comment 1-2 On-page -9 _2J-J,the_dderiWpJore ule-mrg-th-oraugh-explanation. For example,the table shows that projected ridership for year 2025 on BART and eBART would be less under all three scenarios than for the"No Project"scenario which doesn't even include eBART. 21 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Evidently the model forecasts these results because in Alternative A,the high degree of highway improvements would lead more people to use buses and fewer to use BART and eBART;and in Alternatives B and C the enhanced bus services are projected to draw more people to use buses and fewer to use BART and eBART. The narrative on page 2-17 doesn't fully explain this and could thus lead to confusion on the part of the reader.It would help if CCTA would explain the way that express bus services were represented in the model,so reviewers can determine the degree to which express bus service was represented as redundant or duplicative of the eBART line.This in turn would help us understand the transit ridership forecasts mentioned above. Modify the text on page 2-17 of the Draft EIR as follows: In 2000,there were about 104,000 daily transit boardings in Contra Costa. Under the No Project condition, this number is projected to climb to almost 244,500 daily transit boardings in 2025.As detailed in -ble-2.4 9, Under Alternative A,as shown in Table 2.1- early 2,000 fewet-traftsit trips ift the-e&tifft-y-when compared to the 2025 No Project condition,although but-this change would reduce boarding:by, less than one percent.As transi boardings-fittemate ott any g."fk day,, The dry in transit boardings reflects.the larger it shettid be noted thett AlternatiYe A is the Afemative with the highest-number of highway prim a�rovements in Alternative A which make driving alone more attractive.;the t --heonly transit improvements in 4-hthisalternative are the addition of eBART and increased frequency of e*tr*-tr*im g aleng the Capitol Corridor service during the AM and PM peak periods. 6ther local or express bus service is thesamein both Alternative A-and the No Project scenario. Transit boardings are forecast to be four percent greater under Alternative B than the 2025 No Project condition. This increase in total boardings results from both the addition of' BART and increased express and local bus services.Transit boardings are forecast to With the signifiearitly enhaneed leeal and express b"g serviees ineltided itt ARer the tratisif ridership in this aftentative-increase 18 percent over the 2025 No Project condition in response tc�-the significantly enhanced local and express bus services included in Alternative C and the addition of eBART. Decreases in BART and eBART boardings are forecast for all three alternatives, desl2ite the inclusion of new eBART service. Under Alternative A.-more travelers choose to drive alone—the drive alone share increases only with this alternative—in response to the highway improvements proposed. Under Alternatives B and C. funding for both local and express bus service would he increased.The increase in bus service supported bythat increase in funding encourages more travelers to take the bus, at the ex2ense o the shares of both BAB.TZeBART and driving alone.All three alternatives include express bus service within the State Route 4 East corridor following current routes. As the frequency of this service increases,from Alternative A to Alternative-C, thenumber of BART and eBART boardings go down. 22 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ........... .............. ................ Comment 1-3 Explana 01n is-rie,,eded for transit ri.dershivfor%asts-on-page-,248. On page 2-18, there is a substantial difference in the transit ridership forecasts between the two tables on the page.The total transit boardings shown in Table 2.1-9 indicate totals Delta Rd. Tree BRENTWOOD Wour San DISCOVERY i. Creek ft BAY 4 Joaquin BYRON ontra Costa County 'V f C County Ahunvda Couwy of 244,300 to 288,300 daily boardings,depending on the scenario. But in Table 2.1- 10, .1-10,the total transit trips are substantially fewer, ranging only from 177,000 to 192,000 each day. Explanation is warranted. Boardings and ridership are separate,but related, criteria. When transit passengers transfer from one route/mode to another one,those passengers make two transit boardings but only one transit trip. For example, a person commuting from Antioch to Walnut Creek could take a Tri Delta bus to eBART and then BART to his or her job.This would be counted as three transit boardings but one transit trip. Comment 1-4 Figures 1.2-2 and Figure 1.2-3 should be revised to accurately reflect the Byron Highway shoulder widening project submitted by TRANSPLAN and shown in the Countywide Transportation Plan,The Draft EIR assumes the widening would only extend as far south as Camino Diablo. However,the highway improvements in this project extend all the way south to the Alameda County line. This southern segment of the road is where the problems addressed by the project are most serious.The project is accurately described and shown in CCTA's Public Review Draft,Countywide Transportation Plan (December 15,2003)on Page A-14. The author is correct that Figures 1.2-2 and 1.2-3 in the DEIR do not accurately reflect the Byron Highway Widening project.The Byron Highway Widening project should extend all the way down to the Alameda County line in project maps of Alternatives A and B (figures 1.2-2 and 1.2-3). The map on page A-1.4 of the CTP Vol. 11 is correct (see below),while figures 1.2-2 and 1.2-3 in the EIR and Figures 6 and 7 in the CTP Vol. 11 are incorrect. However, note that the modeling and analysis was correctly performed in the DEIR. 23 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ................................................... Comment 1-5 Traffic safety should be a criterion for evaluating the environmental 'impacts of the alternatives.Traffic safety is one of the foremost concerns in East County,and is one of the main factors in TRANSPLAN's desire to see improvements to the Byron Highway,Vasco Road,and non-freeway State Route 4,and the construction of State Route 239.All of these desired projects result from safety concerns as well as capacity concerns. While safety is an important concern throughout Contra Costa and the region,it is extremely difficult to analyze in a program EIR, and would require assumptions that would be likely to make any attempt at quantification meaningless. This is especially true since many of the projects that the new Expenditure Plan would fund are as yet undefined. Several examples may serve to illustrate the difficulties of using safety as a criterion. Collisions are generally reported as being so many collisions per 100 million miles traveled by facility type. It does not follow, however, that merely because one alternative would result in greater levels of vehicle miles traveled, it would necessarily result in higher collision levels.The EIR found that Alternative C would have the most vehicle miles traveled as well as the most transit ridership and bicycle use and the lowest speeds and drive alone share.A reasonable argument could be made that by lowering speeds and shifting travel to transit and bicycles, this alternative would increase safety, not decrease it. It is also not clear,absent specific designs,the relative benefits of the various projects and even with specific designs,it is hard to compare the safety benefits of an improved crosswalk to the benefits of removing a freeway bottleneck. Intersections are the most dangerous place for pedestrians while stop-and-go traffic at a freeway bottleneck can result in more frequent,though perhaps less serious, accidents. Many of the projects proposed in the alternatives are intended to improve safety as well as mobility,and the use of current design standards for new projects is intended to improve the safe operation of the transportation system. 2 Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Comment 2-1 This unprecedented demographic shift will cause extraordinary demand for services for the elderly and disabled population.Among these services is transportation. Considering the magnitude of the problem,the attention given to it in the DEIR borders on complete disregard and suggests an inherent bias towards capital projects and addressing peak hour commute issues. The Authority recognizes the shift in demographics that the commentor refers to in Chapter 2 of Volume I (pages 8 and 9),and acknowledges that the demand for paratransit service "Will grow as the population ages"on page 33. Each alternative includes funding for such service, including substantial increases in Alternatives B and C in funding from Measure C. The travel demand model used for the EIR analysis does recognize the changing demographics in Contra Costa.The trip generation formulas developed for the transportation model contain information on households, population and employed residents based on ABAG demographic age-cohort projections, and the expected growth in the percentage of retired people (that is, lower percentages of working residents) is considered in the forecast peak hour commutes in future years.The auto ownership component of the model also takes into account age and 24 2404 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) 1=1 income. As the percentage of employed residents falls,the formulas for home-based work trips will predict fewer trips per household. While it is true that some of the Expenditure flan alternatives are more focused on capital projects,Alternative C provides for the highest level of funding of transit services and programs, especially those that cater to senior and disabled persons. The DEIR analyzes all of the Expenditure Plan alternatives fully, and therefore,does address a full range of options, as required by CEQA. It should also he noted that the No Project alternative assumes that Measure C would not be extended and thus the funding for transportation services for seniors and the disabled now provided by Measure C would be discontinued. Because all three alternatives include funding for these transportation services, any of theta would be beneficial to the seniors and disabled people that use those services. Comment 2-2 A discussion of the health implications is warranted in the EIR given the language in the CCTA's Visions,Goals and Strategies document which mentions preserving and enhancing"quality of life",a"balanced,safe transportation network"and the need to meet the"diverse needs of Contra Costa". The EIR discusses the potential impacts of the project on health in the analyses of impacts of the project on air quality,water quality, and noise, all of which affect human health. Comment 2-3 A high percentage of senior citizens have retired from employment and as they get older, many will no longer drive their own automobiles.Their lifestyles and transportation destinations,needs and anodes will be significantly different from those of the worker/commuter who seems to be the primary focus of the DER. With 20*/ of the population falling into the 65+ age group by 2020,this DER and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan should take this into account in planning for the future of transportation in the county. Please see the response to comment 2-1, above. Information about mode shares is developed based on complex formulas for each trip purpose developed by MTC. Based on research of current travel needs and patterns,these are used to determine projected mode shares in future years for each trip purpose,taking into account changing demographics. Currently available and adopted forecasting;methods at the regional level do not support the assumption that that time-of-day changes to non-work trips would occur as a result of age status. Comment 2-4 On(sage 1-25 of the DER there is a statement that a"reduced" level of funding such as in alternatives A and B may not allow for continuation and expansion of current transportation services for the elderly&persons with disabilities.While this statement is correct,it is incomplete given the context.This statement would leave a reasonable person to assume that something above alternative B(5%) may allow for some"continuation and expansion"of these types of services.This is not the case.A good argument could be made that,given the large projected increase in demand for these services,even an increase in 13%as in alternative C,would not allow for sufficient growth in services to meet the impending demand. The statement on page 1-25 in the Draft EIR is not correct. As noted in the response to Comment 2-labove, all three alternatives would provide more funding for transportation 25 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ............................. ................... Iti1t+iAl. �ENVIRC3NM1'rNTAI. IMPACT RICPORT services for seniors and disabled people than the No Project alternative, under which all Measure C funding would cease. (The No Project alternative assumes that Measure C would "sunset" in 2009.) None of the three alternatives would reduce Measure C funding for these transportation services. The only reduction in Measure C funding would result from the "sunsetting"of Measure C that is assumed in the No Project alternative. The number of people in Contra Costa over 65,and especially over 85,will increase more rapidly than population generally.The growth in demand for these transportation services is not forecast to be as high as the growth in the senior population. Most seniors are forecast to continue driving after retirement, as they do today. The statement on page 1-25 that Alternatives A and B "may not allow continuation and expansion of current...services" is also misleading, since the opposite may be possible. Measure C funding now provides only about a quarter of the funding in Contra Costa for transportation services for seniors and disabled people. At a minimum, the new measure would maintain the current level of contribution from Measure C.Alternative B would increase the Measure C contribution by two-thirds while Alternative C would more than triple it. It is hard to predict the impact of any of these levels of funding. As noted above, Measure C provides only a piece of the funding for transportation services for seniors and disable people. It is possible, and perhaps likely, that the other sources of federal, State and local funding would be increased to meet increasing demand. It is also possible that increased productivity of service providers may reduce the cost per rider and thus slowing the rise in funding needs. (The Authority's recent paratransit study recommends several improvements to increase productivity.) In either case,Alternative A and B might allow these services to continue and expand. If neither occurs,these services would be continued,at a minimum, at current levels. Any of the three alternatives would provide more funding than the No Project alternative and would thus be beneficial. Revise the description of Transportation Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities on page 1-25 as follows: F.__ z _c r� Alternative A. at an-1 3 percent of future revenues,would continue the current level of Measure C fundin-g. (All such paratransit funding would cease under the No Proiect alternative.)Alternative B. at--5 percent,would increase current levels of funding by two-thirds.ate--Alternative C,—at 13 percent of tax measure revenues},would more than triple funding for paratransit services.A-retlueetl 3 Debbie Toth, Mt. Diablo Center, Senior and Disabled Stakeholders Comment 3-1 For Alternatives A and B,the€"JEIR says we may not be able to maintain today's level of service,and that needs to be addressed. 26 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ...................................................... The respondent was seeking clarification on the EIR statement that paratransit service for Alternatives A and B will be less than Alternative C. See response to comment 2-4. 4 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Comment 4-1 Add the State Route 4 Bypass East-West connector to figures 1.2-2 and 1.2-3. Because no Measure C revenues are proposed to fund the cast-west connectors between State Route 4 and the SR 4 Bypass—funds from the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority—, this project is not shown on maps in the ETR(figures 1.2-2 and 1.2-3). Comment 4-2 Briefly discuss the Interstate 841 San Pablo Dam Road improvement in the 1-80 HOV and Interchange Improvements"section on page 1-21. The 1-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Modifications project includes construction of modifications to the 1-80/,San Pablo Dam Road interchange to improve traffic operations,safety and the accommodation of both pedestrians and bicyclists. For more information,please refer to page A-23 of Vol. 11 of the Countywide Transportation Plan for a detailed description and map of the 1-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Modifications project.The Plan is available for download on the Authority's website: http://Nvww.ccta.net/GNV2004—tivdate.htm. Comment 4-3 Could the exclusive HOV on and off ramp work be included in the future 1-680 auxiliary lane project? While it is theoretically possible to include the HOV connectors in the 1-680 auxiliary lane project,it is unlikely that they could be included. First,the HOV direct connectors were not included in the project study report for the auxiliary lane project. Including them would require the revision of the PSR. As important,the auxiliary lane project is moving forward and is likely to be completed before funding from the extension of Measure C would be available. Finally, adding the HOV direct connectors would require amending the environmental documents for the auxiliary lanes which would delay the construction of the project. Comment 4-4 Note the uninterrupted HOV is southbound 1-680 only. Change the description on page 1-22 to read: The proposed project would eliminate tie several existing gaps in the 1-680 HOV lane system and provide an uninterrupted HOV facility southbound earrider betweeft Gentral Contra Costa and from the Marina Vista interchange to Dublin. Comment 4-5 Clarify the statement"add less additional HOV capacity." The funding for the 1-680 project is significantly less in Alternative B than Alternatives A and C, where$40 million is allocated rather than $1.00 million. For environmental evaluation, the travel model assumed only a southbound capacity increase in Alternative B,although the project description for the alternative does not limit the use of these funds. 27 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) FINAL ................................................. Change Appendix A,Part 1 to note that both the northbound and southbound HOV gap closures,but not the direct connectors, are included in Alternative B. Comment 4-6 This DEIR evaluates the impacts of the proposed Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan as a whole.Since no detailed trip generation analysis is provided in the document,we are not able to comment fully on the impacts to the State highway facilities at this time.We would expect to have the opportunity to review the trip generation data and environmental details for projects under the plan,as they are proposed. The CTP 2004 Update EIR is a program EIR,which under CEQA is only required to examine the overall effects of the proposed course of action and to take steps to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental effects. As a result, subsequent site-specific environmental analysis will be necessary to evaluate local impacts, as discussed in the "Approach to the EIR"on page ES-2. During site-specific analysis,agencies and the public will have the opportunity to assess the more localized effects of the proposed transportation projects. 5 TRANSPAC — Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Comment 5-1 Chart S-I on pages ES-6 and ES-29 should be labeled with the comparative evaluation information in the first full paragraph in the second column on page ES-3. The impact statements summarized in Table S-1 identify the evaluative criteria used. Impact 2.1-1, for example,states that, "A decrease in total vehicle hours traveled (VHT) would occur compared to the No Project condition." It is not clear what additional information is requested to be included in the table headings. Comment 5-2 Chart S-I on page ES-8 shows Mitigation Measures 2.2-2b for Alternatives B and C. The Mitigation Measure suggests using cleaner fuels such as electricity,instead of diesel,for the eBART project. The description of the Mitigation on page 2-44 and the text on page 2-48 should indicate that eBART electrification could significantly increase the cost of the project,and that electricity may be considered a"clean" fuel where it is used, but is not necessarily"clean"where it is generated. Comment noted. Revise Table S-1 on page ES-8 as follows: Table S-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Significance after Impact Significance Mitigation.Measures Mitigation 12-2 Implementation of Less than Mitigation Measure 2.2-2b[for Significant projects under the CTP Significant for Alternatives 8 and C] Unavoidable for 2004 Update would result Alternative A; Use cleaner fuels such as electricity, Alternatives B in more than five percent Significant instead of diesel for the eBART project. and C increase in emissions of Unavoidable fore increasedtf electricity regional air pollutants Alternatives 8 how-ever..4ependingon the.method.of such as ROG,NOX CO, and C production,could have secondary and 28 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCSI NO. 2003062128) �t1dAL ;EiVYIR+G►hIM�N'T'AL IMPAC-C REPC7R'l' and Ph1-ib compared to �ruslussinc3ssiuid have secandary`arid the No Projecttntial4X_ignisari:nsza �a#ere Alternative. ctriciiX i traduced The cast of make its use infeasible Revise the Mitigation Measure 2.2-2b on page 2-44 as follows: Mitigation Measure 2.2-2b [for Alternatives 8 and CJ * Use cleaner fuels such as electricity, instead of diesel for the eBART project.The increased use of electrics however depending on the method of Rroduction,could have secondar and nd Rotentially significant impacts where the electricity is produced. The cost of substituting electricity for diesel could make its use infeasible. Revise the last sentence under"Alternative Fuels"on page 2-48 as follows: Current technologies for electric vehicles include lead acid and nickel metal hydride batteries. The increased use of electricity,however,depending on the method of production could have secondary and potentially significant impacts where the electricity is produced.The cost of substituting electricity for diesel could make its use infeasible. Comment 5-3 Please explain the reference to the San Francisca Police Department on page ES-22 under Noise Mitigation Measures,under the first clear bullet under the last black bullet on that page. The reference to the San Francisco Police:Department is erroneous. Instead,it is the city and county police departments throughout Contra Costa County that may receive complaints about construction-related noise and it is with those agencies that procedures for dealing with complaints should be developed. Revise Mitigation Measure 2.9-1a on page ES-22 in Table S-1 as follows: Mitigation Measure 2.4-#o ■ Establish a process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction noise with the following components: A procedure for notifying City 110ding Divisien staff San Francis€e city and county Fpolice Odepartments and builder division_ # through_=C=ra__C —0-um; Comment 5-4 Can Tables 1.2-1,2.6-1,2.10-1, 3.1-1 (and anywhere else)the Authority's title of "Local" Interchanges in Central County" is used.As noted above,please revise the project and Alternatives description title to"Freeway" Interchanges in Central County. 29 2404 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The title of the project category"Local Interchanges in Central County" is modified to "Interchange Improvements on I-680&State Route 242",wherever it appears. Comment 5-5 On Page 1-25,second bullet,first column is the project description for"Trip Reduction/TDM," please see comment above regarding the name of this program. The project description indicates that"slight changes in the amount of funding will not significantly affect the TDM program."This section requires some revision to more fully describe the financial construct of the CC CAN program.Currently available TFCA funds,augmented by Measure C monies,fund the implementation of the CC CAN program.Given the State budget situation and the possibility of termination of the TFCA vehicle fee,it is unknown if TFCA funds will be available for the life of the reauthorized Measure.As a result,TRANSPAC believes that more stable funding is important,and supported a shift from using TFCA funds for these programs to the use of reauthorized Measure C funds.TFCA funds may be used then for BAAQMD eligible programs and projects assuming the funds are available. The EIR analyzes the effects of the alternative approaches for using the revenues from the extension of the current Measure C half-percent sales tax. For purposes of the EIR analysis,the Authority has made reasonable assumptions about future funding sources, including the assumed continuation of TFCA funding. The Authority has no reason to assume that TFCA or other State funding will be discontinued.Nonetheless,the EIR will be revised to clarify the role of Measure C funding in the support of TDM programs in Contra Costa. The title of the project category"Trip Reduction/TDM"is modified to"Commute Alternatives",wherever it appears. Revise the second bulleted paragraph on page 1-25,as follows. � taoftl �4-Commute Alternatives-T Transt}ortaticn_demand management CI'DM}programs,such as the current CC CAN program,increase the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce demand for road capacity during the peak hour,and otherwise affect travel behavior to minimize the need for capacity-, increasing capital projects. Consistent with the current GMP, aAll local jurisdictions in the eottrity�-Contra Costa have adopted T`M-ordinances or resolutions to support these TDM efforts. Existine Measure C revenues supplement funding;for current TUM programs and the extension of Measure C E r& -would --ffifflation an-' Potent.ft!ex-pffrtsieft-of these TOM continue or expand this su2plemental fundin . Fettding of thi ' - I iffiall in A!three proposed Expenditttre Alternatives-tA—would continue the current level of TDM funding{47-one percent, while Alternatives B and C would increase it to--2-two percent,and G -3-three percent of tax measure reVenuesj•:", re5rSectmVelV. Triosev-�veefittse there are tie'adireet i lelits to -1.1-1.6 Iogti Higher levels of funding could be used either to expand TDM program activities or to offset reductions in other funding sources. Comment 5-6 In the first full paragraph on page 3-2 in Chapter 3.1,an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the Growth Management Program{GMP}on coordinated transportation and land use planning is excluded as speculative.This sentence 30 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (Scli No. 2003062128) FINAL lli'454WiWiAC P'6 if..................................................... should be eliminated.Information should be included in the Chapter on the relative qualitative and/or quantitative (if possible) impacts of the Growth Management Program Alternatives. As stated in the DEIR on page 3-2, the Growth Management Program options evaluate different processes for reaching growth management decisions in the county and "would not result in specific changes to land use or development within the county." At this time,the jurisdictions' growth management programs,and the physical effects of these programs,cannot be predicted. As a result, they are not analyzed to the same extent in the DEIR as the three Expenditure Plan alternatives,which would have physical impacts that are sufficiently predictable to allow for meaningful analysis. Comment 5-7 On page 2-177,Table 2.10-1 "Analysis of Potential Impacts on Cultural Resources from Major CTP 2004 Update Project"indicates that there are potential impacts on archeological historical resources from the Martinez Intermodal Project.The Chart should be revised to eliminate potential impacts to historical resources that were analyzed in the Environment Assessment document prepared under NEPA and accepted by SHWA and Caltrans in May, 1996. No impacts on historical resources were found. The author is correct. The Martinez Intermodal Facility was found to have no potential impacts on archaeological or historic resources per its Environmental Assessment. Revise Table 2.10-1 on page 2-177 as follows: Potential Potential Project Impacts on Impacts on Mitigation Project Name omits Description Archaeological Historical Measures' Capitol Corridor. Martinez Includes acquisition of warehouse Yes N-o -Y-es NQ 2404-k&,-bz Martinez Intermodal property north of existing Intermodal Intermodal Facility, Facility Facility,demolition of existing Phase III structures,construction of parking lot providing an additional 425 parking spaces,along with improved roadway access from Ferry Street construction of pedestrian overcrossing over the Union Pacific Railroad facilities,and construction of a vehicle bridge over Alhambra Creek. Note that this change does not affect any of the conclusions reached in Section 3.1,Alternatives to the Project. Comment 5-8 Page 3-5,Table 3.1-2 is a Summary Comparison of No Project and Expenditure Plan Alternatives A, 8 and C.The No Project alternative includes all projects in MTC's 2001 RTP and Alternative C includes all projects in MTC's 2001 RTP except for the Caldecott Tunnel.if the Caldecott Tunnel can be delivered absent the reauthorization of Measure C in the No Project Alternative,why isn't it assumed in Alternative C. 31 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128)y -0 .....,..< ....:..............a. .,..,...., FINAL EtStYIR+�aNMENTAL 1�1�'ACT RE�l7RT The Authority excluded the proposed fourth bore at the Caldecott Tunnel from Alternative C in response to comments from BPAC members and other interested groups who asked that at least one alternative analyze the effect on the transportation system of not constructing the fourth bore. 6 Say Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Comment 6-1 We agree with the conclusion in the [HEIR that implementation of the CTP 2004 Update could result in significant impacts on air quality.The Bay Area is currently a nonattainment area for federal and state ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and state standards for particulate matter.The air quality standards are set at levels to protect public health and welfare. Motor vehicles constitute the largest source of air pollution in the Bay Area;therefore, promoting alternative less polluting erodes of transportation can significantly help reduce air pollution.We are concerned that this plan does not adequately consider alternative modes of transportation,and we request that another alternative be analyzed that emphasizes air quality beneficial projects and programs in the CTP. All three alternatives include significant levels of funding for "alternative less polluting modes of transportation", in almost all cases at the same or higher levels than are now provided in the current Measure C.About 37 percent of the funds in Alternative A would go to projects that would carry out the transportation control measures (TCMs) in regional clean air plans, and about 45 percent of funds in Alternative B would go to such projects. Alternative C would allocate the greatest share—about 85 percent—to such projects. (The TCMs addressed are those that call for improving express bus service, local bus service,bicycle and pedestrian access and mobility (including access to transit), transit station access,ferry service, interregional rail, youth transportation, and carpooling.)These percentages, however,underestimate the funds allocated since some projects include components such as HOV lanes which were not counted in the preceding shares,but that would nevertheless support the TCMs. Alternative C was designed to, among other things, emphasize projects intended to improve air quality, The Authority believes that Alternative C adequately "emphasizes air quality beneficial projects and programs" as requested by the commenter. Comment 6-2 We are especially concerned about the air quality impacts of increased vehicle miles traveled(VMT) due to land use patterns supported by highway expansion projects proposed in the CTP 2004 Update.We do not agree with the statement made in the Induced Growth section (page 3-37)that states transportation improvements do not induce growth in the County.We are concerned about the negative long- term impacts from travel induced by highway capacity expansion in corridors that connect high-growth areas,such as Eastern Contra Costa County,with more moderate-growth urban parts of the County, The pattern of land uses analyzed in the Draft IIR is based on forecasts prepared and adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority does not now have, and would not have in the future under any of the alternatives,the power to change land use policies within Contra Costa. Please also see the general responses to the induced travel and land use comments.Also,the Authority's modeling,as noted in the general 32 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) .......................................................... response to the induced travel comments,indicates that foregoing the construction of transportation improvements would increase VMT and VHT and decrease speeds, likely resulting in worsening air quality. Comment 6-3 The air quality analysis provided in the DER presents an aggregate of the emissions from the three alternatives making it difficult to determine the air quality impacts of the individual proposed projects and programs.The DEIR indicates that emissions from new vehicle trips under Alternative A will have a less than significant air quality impact while Alternatives B&C will have significant impacts. Please clarify why your agency made that determination when VMT is roughly the same amongst the three alternatives. As a programmatic EIR,the Draft EIR appropriately considers the air quality impacts of the whole program of transportation improvements proposed in the three alternatives.This approach is consistent with that outlined in the CEQA Guidelines(515168). Where the specific impacts of improvements funded by the proposed extension of Measure C could be significant, they would be analyzed in later CEQA documents,as discussed in the "Approach to the EIR" on page ES-2. Although VMT is approximately the same for Alternatives A, B, and C (Table 2.1-6), different levels of congestion mean that the vehicles hours traveled(VHT) is different between the three alternatives.Alternative A has more VMT at LOS A—D and fewer VMT at LOS F than either Alternatives B or C, and thus a higher overall average speed (Table 2.1-7) and lower VHT (Table 2.1-5)than Alternatives B and C.That means that congestion is lower in Alternative A, and therefore air quality impacts are generally less severe than the other alternatives,except for PM-10. Comment 6-4 We also request clarification on whether the emissions analyses include the impacts of induced travel for the alternatives that proposed additional roadway capacity. Please see the overall response to comments on induced travel above. It should also be noted that the travel demand model identifies shifts in route and mode choice that are frequently referred to as"induced travel".That is, to the extent that faster travel times encourage driving versus other modes (including walking,bicycling,transit and carpooling) or that transportation improvements make travel on one facility faster and easier (whether a roadway or a transit facility),the travel model will change where and how a trip is made. Furthermore, the model has been calibrated to be a reasonable representation of all potential mode choices. Comment 6-5 We recommend that the CCTA select an alternative which reduces congestion in Contra Costa County through air quality beneficial strategies such as improving transit service and pedestrian/bicycle access and facilities. Comment noted. Given the existing and forecast pattern of land uses, expected increases in auto ownership, and the continued reliance by most people on the private automobile, it is not clear that "air quality beneficial strategies such as improving transit service and pedestrian/bicycle access and facilities"would result in reduced congestion.The modeling done for the Draft EIR shows the opposite.While the Shaping Our Future plan forecast improvements in congestion compared the "trend" approach, it assumed substantial changes in 33 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C..Extension (SCH No. 2003 062128) �1NAL Eh1VIRt�►NMENTAL tNfPACT REf�C�I�T land use (far beyond that projected in Projections 2003,ABAG's new"policy-based"land use forecast) and robust transportation improvements (including significant transit and roadway improvements such as the Brentwood-Tracy Expressway and Bus Rapid Transit service in Central County).The manual adjustments used,as noted in the general response on SOF, may have over-amplified the benefits that changes in "density, design and diversity" would have on vehicular trips. None of the Measure C alternatives could fund the level of improvements assumed by SOF and,while the Authority supported the SOF effort, the authority to change land use patterns remains with local jurisdictions. The air quality superior alternative,Alternative A, which also results in the least amount of congestion, is designated the environmentally superior alternative. While the analysis in the Draft EIR found that that increased transit investments under Alternatives B and C would increase transit trips (see Table 2.2-11), those trips would still represent a very small share of the overall trips,and would not counteract the increased congestion that would result from less investment in new roadways. Moreover,it should be noted that car-and van-pooling are the predominant non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV). This transportation mode would continue to be the second most used mode of travel under all three alternatives (Table 2.1-10), rather than transit,and would also benefit from reduced roadway congestion. (See the general responses on air quality and transit share.)Also, while the alternatives would result in substantial percentage increases in transit ridership, they would represent slight increases in absolute terms given the relatively small number of trips now being made using transit. Lastly,please note that Alternative A has the highest level of funding for SR 4,1-80,and 1-680 improvements(I-680 projects receive same level of funding under Alternatives A and C),which are supportive of beneficial air quality strategy,State Transportation Control Measure (STCM) 8, discussed in the adopted Congestion Management Program (CMP) (available for download on the Authority's website: www.ccta.net). STCM 8 includes implementation of MTC's year 2005 HOV Lane Master Plan in cooperation with Caltrans and development of enhancements to the HOV lane plan via CMP Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects including additional HOV lanes on I-80, I- 680, and State Route 4. Comment 6-6 Finally,we support the Mitigation Measures listed under 2.2-2a for Alternatives B& C,and encourage the OCTA to implement these measures regardless of which alternative is selected for the CTP,and to mitigate the air quality impacts associated with the plan to the greatest extent possible. In order to avoid long-term adverse impacts to air quality,the CTP should emphasize the link between land use, transportation and air quality.While we recognize that the OCTA does not make local land use decisions,we believe your agency's transportation plan for the County can help local decislonmakers and the public make choices at the local level that would help to reduce automobile dependency. Strategies include encouraging transit-oriented development near existing and proposed transit stations,designing streets and infrastructure to be safe and convenient for pedestrians and bicyclists, and providing appropriate transit,bicycle and pedestrian links between shopping and services to housing and jobs.We support the CCTNs current and future effects to improve air quality through the promotion of transportation alternatives to driving alone. 34 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension(sCH No. 2003062128) FINAYL ENYIRONMEN"t`AL iMPA+CT REPORT Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 2.2-2a will be adopted as part of the approval of the project. 7 Edward Franzen Comment 7-€ pg 1-15 Should mention SR4 widening Alternate Bat$125 million The State Route 4 (Loveridge to SR160) project is included in Table 1.2-1. Revise the description of Alternative B on page 1-15: Under Alternative B, projects would receive roughly 47 percent($746 million) of expected funds. Major capital projects such as the Caldecott Tunnel 4th bore ($100 million, 6.3 percent), State Route 4 (Loveridge to SR1601($125 million, 7.8 percent), East County Corridors($50 million,3.1 percent), and eBART($150 million, 9.4 percent)are included in Alternative B, but at reduced levels compared to Alternative A. In addition,funds for completing1-680 HOV gaps ($40 trillion,2.5 percent), as well as BART Improvements ($15 million,0.9 percent),decline in this alternative; Comment 7-2 pg 1-26 Safe transportation for children should be available for School children in East County also. This comment is a comment on the flan,not on the EIR.As clarification: the Safe Transportation for Children program was added in response to a request mads;by the Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Committee (TRANSPAC) in Central County and the Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT),which includes both the Laorinda and Danville-San Ramon area.As such,the project was defined for school bus service.for children in southwest and central county areas only. East County did not request specific allocations for the program, and as a result,was not included; however, monies for school bus service for children could still be available under the Final Expenditure Plan program "Subregional Transportation Needs," for which East County has allocated $6.2 million (see Vol. 11 of Final CTP for more information on the Final Expenditure Plan). Comment 7-3 Pg 2-6 The EBMUD class 1 trail should be included especially since a bridge over the SR4 bypass will be needed. This comment is on the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP), not on the ETR. Comment 7-4 Pg 2-149 eBART noise should be discussed. eBART noise may be lower than a large train as there are only 2 or 3 cars per train. Comment noted. eBART noise is discussed under 2.9-2 on page 2-162 of the DETR. Comment 7-5 Pg 3-7 should discuss that not widening SR 4 east to 8 lanes results in slower traffic, more air pollution and higher impacts on the neighborhood streets in Antioch and Pittsburg as drivers leave the freeway and drive through neighborhoods to avoid the gridlock. 35 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) l~INAL r�NVlxRt�%t`diME1�ITAL Ii1+`iPACyT ftl`FORT The comentor is correct that not widening SR 4 would likely result in slower traffic, particularly on parallel arterials, which would result in greater air pollution. Because this EIR is programmatic in nature, however, assessing the impacts of individual projects is outside the scope of this EIR. Project-related concerns would become identifiable in a more detailed study of corridor traffic. Furthermore, even though the EIR does not singularly evaluate individual corridors like SR 4 East, it does discuss congestion if SR 4 East is not widened, and analyzes the measurement of speeds and how these contribute to the overall average speed. This analysis results in the conclusion that Alternative C has a worse overall air quality impact. It should also be noted,however, that the No Project scenario included the interim widening of State Route 4 east of Loveridge to seven lanes with a reversible HOV lane. Comment 7-6 Pg A-4 The wording is not correct on James Donlon to Hidden Ranch Rd could it be lone Tree Way widening from 4 to 6 lanes between James Donlon and Heldorn Ranch Rd? The comentor is correct; the table has a typographical error. However,the analysis was correctly performed in all alternatives identified. Change Appendix A,Part 1 on page A-4, as follows: Lane Configuration Changes No Interchange Projec Comm Project Original New Detail t Alt.A Alt 8 Alt.C ents an acid Heldr�i�►� Comment 7-7 Pg A-10 Somersville rd should be between James Donlon and Buchanan Rd 4 lanes Buchanan Rd 4 lanes between Somersville Rd and Standard Oil Ave.Standard Oil Ave new 2 lane between Buchanan Rd and Delta Fair Blvd. The cornentor has identified a more appropriate description for Somersville Road widening. Rather than beginning the project at the proposed but unfunded Buchanan Bypass,the the project should begin at James Donlon. However,the analysis was correctly performed in all alternatives. 36 ............ ...... .......... ........ ...... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCIA No. 2003062128) ............................................... Change Appendix A,Part 3 on page A-10,as follows: Number of Lanes Without With No Alternativ Afternativ Afternottv Project Description Project Project Project e A e B e C Comments Somersville Between 1 + 1 2+2 0 X X 0 Rd suehafkaft Bypass A= V_onlon and Buchanan Road The author also asks about two projects that are not in the table.As local projects already included in the No Project(Track 1 network),they were not analyzed as part of the alternatives or listed in the Appendix but are included in the Authority's CTPL: • Buchanan Road is to be widened from Somersville to Standard Oil. • Standard Oil Avenue from Buchanan Road to Delta Fair Blvd. The analysis was correctly performed in all alternatives. 8 Michael Flake Comment 8-1 The LEIS supports continuation of Measure C and Alternative A as the preferred alternative,which is essentially how Measure C exists now.Although I view Measure C as beneficial to the citizens of Contra Costa County,Alternative A should've allocated more proposed expenditures for the program areas for bicyclelpedestrian trail efforts,transportation for seniors citizens and disabled persons,and safe transportation for children.The program areas could be combined,as these program areas do share some commonality.Therefore,I'd recommend that Table 1.2-1 be modified to combine all of these programs into single program and provide an increase in potential expenditures for this program need. The Authority identified three Expenditure Plan alternatives for analysis in the EIR. These alternatives are outlined in Table 1.2-1 as adopted by the Authority.The Authority intended these alternatives to represent a reasonable range of different approaches that would further the Authority's adopted vision,goals and strategies. The EIR identified Alternative A as the environmentally superior alternative because of its superior performance on transportation, air quality and energy, despite having somewhat worse performance in other areas. While the EIR identified Alternative A as the environmentally superior alternative, the Authority may ultimately approve an Expenditure Plan that combines aspects of all three alternatives. In developing the proposed Expenditure Plan,the Authority will balance the environmental impacts and benefits of the alternatives evaluated in the FIR, but also how best to achieve the Authority's goals, including Goal 3: "Provide and expand safe, convenient and affordable alterriatives to the single-occupant vehicle."The Authority will also consider the comments and suggestions made by various jurisdictions, agencies and interest groups and by the general public. Many of those comments recommended that the new measure be more detailed and 37 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) FINAL �NYIRCt%NMENTAL IMPACT FtEPi�RRT explicit in allocating potential new revenues, rather than combining them into a single program. (While they may share some commonalities,these funding categories are sufficiently different—for example,some would fund operations while some would fund capital projects, and different types of projects would be developed by different types of sponsors—that it is probably better that they be kept separate.) In addition,although Alternative A would continue the roughly 70/30 split between capital investments and programs in the current Measure C,it would not simply be a continuation of the current measure. Both the projects and the programs are significantly different. (Alternative A would help fund the Caldecott Tunnel, for example,which was not funded in the current measure, and would not include a specific category for bicycle and pedestrian projects.) Comment 8-2 Although the DEIS evaluates growth management compliance through the Growth Management Flan (GMP) options,no single option contains a clarification on how GMPs are to be held accountable. If a GMP were found to be deficient,what actions would be taken by the CCTA to cause withhold or denial of funding? In the past, some cities have submitted GMPs that were found to be deficient by the CCTA's Citizen Advisory Committee or to have an uncertified housing element,yet the CCTA still awarded the city its allocation. I recommend that the means for defining the denial or withhold of funds be clearly explained in the renewal of Measure C. This will ensure that cities with an adequate GMP are rewarded for expending resources and efforts to develop an adequate and acceptable GMP. While the Citizen Advisory Committee reviews local jurisdiction compliance with the Measure C GMP,the Authority has the ultimate responsibility for determining it. Under the current GMP, a jurisdiction found out of compliance would not receive its share of local street maintenance and improvement funds, also known as 18 percent return-to-source funds. While no jurisdiction has,as of yet,been found out of compliance with the GMP, the periodic review of local efforts has kept a sharp focus on local growth management actions in Contra Costa. The Authority has discussed ways of improving the GMP many times over the last decade and has had vigorous debates over ways to improve its effectiveness as part of the development of the 2004 CTP Update and proposed extension of Measure C. As noted in the response to comment 5-6,however, this issue addresses the process for developing and implementing the GMP. The physical impacts cannot be predicted or evaluated at this time. Comment 8-3 2.2-1 Mitigation measure 2.2-1 c targets only buildings with asbestos,whereas the SAAQMD requires notification and controls for all structures regardless of the presence of asbestos.An asbestos survey is to be submitted as part of the notification procedures. if asbestos were found, it would cause the project sponsor to evaluate the controls needed and consult with the EIAAQMD if needed. Comment noted. BAAQMD requires notification of all demolition activities, regardless of the presence of asbestos. Asbestos is only likely to be found in structures constructed before 1980. Comment 8-4 2.4-2 Caltrans dues not have ordinances,but does have manuals,guidance and specifications for meeting the intent. 38 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Comment noted. Change Mitigation 2.4-2b on Table S-1 and on page 2-79 as follows: Mitigation Measure 2.4-2b The project proponent shall ensure that all construction activities and design criteria comply with applicable codes and requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code with California additions (Title 22), and applicable Caltrans construction and grading ordinsatees 52ecifications. In addition,the project proponent shall ensure that project designs provide adequate slope drainage and appropriate landscaping to minimize potential future occurrences of slope instability and erosion. Comment 8-5 2.5-1 Mitigation measure 2.5-1 b should not attempt to identify pollutants,nor infer that elevated structures are the sole problem. Recommend replacing statement with "Control discharges from facilities, so that pollutants in runoff do not affects wetland habitats." Comment noted. Change Mitigation 2.5-1b in Table S-1 and on page 2-93 as follows. Mitigation Measure 2.5-1 b Avoid construction in wetland areas. Wherever possible, place above ground structures along an alignment to avoid shading of wetland or riparian vegetation. Control fttfteg discharges from strtte".es facilities aboye wetlan so that'_ selvems greafts end ether ehefoieels pollutants in runoff do not pellete-4te"affect wetland habitats. Comment 8-6 2.5-1 Mitigation measure 2.5-1 e should be rephrased,so that stabilizations efforts are implemented for affected soils,which could be beyond the pillar location(e.g. abutments,access points,etc.).The use of"stabilization efforts"over"erosion controls,"should be preferred,as erosion controls are not inclusive of geotechnical design efforts to stabilize affected soils. The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S- 1): Mitigation Measure 2.5-le Keep disruption of soils within streambeds to a minimum and implement :sols stabilization efforts around support pillars. Comment 8-7 2.5-1 Mitigation measure 2.5-1 h is focused on roads. Shouldn't bike paths, rail structures,and other linear transportation facilities be included? 39 2004 Update to the Centra Costa Countywide Comprehensive'Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCHNO. 2003 062128) ...,,,,,,,.....,,..,........,. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S- 1)- Mitigation Measure 2.5-1h Avoid known animal movement corridors where possible when designing new road and Lail alignments,pedestrian/bike paths and other transportation facilities; design lighting to be responsive to wildlife sensitivities. Place pass through-culverts under highways to allow wildlife movement. Fencing should be used to prevent wildlife from entering highways. Cornment 8-8 2.6-2 Mitigation measure 2.6-2a is overly prescriptive at defining equal intervals for soil sampling. It is best to leave this to the judgment of the professionals tasked with conducting the assessment or investigation of contaminants. Continent noted.The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S-1)s Mitigation Measure 2.6-2a; A Ssoil samplesin plan shall be takeft at equal Vals prepared and imRlemented along construction corridors to determine the presence or absence of soil contamination. If soil contamination is found, the contaminated soil shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Comment 8-9 2.6-2 Mitigation measure 2.6-2b infers that material is required to be disposed off- site.Some material might be acceptable for reuse within the project,especially in location where the public exposure is limited.This is evident in the lead variance issued to Caltrans by the Department of Toxic Substances control that allows reuse of soils containing elevated lead concentrations, Comment noted.The fallowing change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S-1): Mitigation Measure 2.6-2b: In the event that soil contamination is encountered, project sponsors shall insure that one competent professional is onsite at all times during construction phases to perform soil analyses. All construction shall cease until the contaminated soil is reused or removed and disposed off in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. A competent professional shall collect verification soil samples to ensure complete removal of contaminated soil. Comment 8-i0 2.6-2 Mitigation measure 2.6-2c requires that"all construction shall stop."This statement is too bold,as only the operations affected by the tank may need to be stopped. Furthermore,why not just state that tank removal shall be done with the oversight of the appropriate regulatory agency and not name the County.We cannot predict if the County will continue to be the regulatory entity twenty years from now. 40 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO 2003062128) FINAL. ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT Comment noted.The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S-1): Mitigation Measure 2.6-2c: If any underground storage tanks are discovered during construction, all construction in the immediate area shall stop until the UST is removed under the guidance of the Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH) or other regulatory agency. If required the regulatory agency 4&*eh removal sheil-may include the over-excavation and disposal of any impacted soil that may be associated with such tanks to a degree considered sufficient by the CCEH. Comment 8-11 2.7-4 The impact is not only the impact to storm water from impervious surfaces, but also the presence of pollutants in storm water that are indicative of the use. The description provided is overly detailed and not entirely correct.The mitigation that should be performed is that contained in documents(i.e.Storm Water Management Plans) required under the applicable NPDES Permit for the projects. The applicable permit could include an individual NPLES Permit issued for the project,or be under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County NPLES Permit or the Caltrans NPLES Permit. Comment noted. It is unclear what the author is referring to by saying, "The impact is not only to storm water from impervious surfaces,but also the presence of pollutants in storm water that are indicative of the use."The adherence to the applicable NPLES permits, discussed in Mitigation Measure 2.7-4a requires the implementation of best management practices ($MPs) that would minimize the impacts of pollutants in stormwater at the project site.Additionally, it is unclear exactly what the author is referring to by saying"The description provided is overly detailed and not entirely correct." If this is in reference to the description of non-point source pollutants in the description of Impact 2.7-4,the discussion of these pollutants is warranted given the varying types of surrounding land uses (e.g., urban, agricultural, open space, industrial) of the project area. The following change will be made in the DEIR(note this change shall also apply to Table S-1): Mitigation Measure 2.7-4a Proponents of individual projects under the CTP 2004 Update shall be required to meet the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act by submitting plans to eliminate and control potential pollutants in storm water discharge through incorporation of structural and treatment BMPs, in addition to minimizing increases in storm water runoff volumes and rates, in accordance with Contra Costa's Municipal NPLES permit., Caltrans NPDE permit or, if applicable a NPDES permit specific to the sro ect site. 9 Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fuad (TRANSDEF) 41 . ......... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) .............*..........*............................ Comment 9-1 The modelling was based on a fixed 2025 land use,so that the distribution of transportation funding in each of the alternatives had no effect on location and development decisions of 2025 residents. Please see the general "Land Use" response.As discussed in that response,the land uses included in the model are based on ABAG forecasts.As discussed in the response to comment 9-3, the model used complies both with the state of the art in transportation modeling and with the requirement of consistency with MTC modeling guidelines. Comment 9-2 A massive investment in transit has little effect on ridership, due to development being assumed to following now-obsolete auto-oriented county development trends. The EIR indicates that as investment in transit services increases,ridership goes up. Alternative C,which would have the largest share of funding for transit, is forecast to increase ridership by 50 percent compared to existing conditions.Most trips,however,would continue to be made by private automobile. Even Shaping Our Future,which assumed significant changes in land use and more substantial increases in transit funding,and showed substantial increases in transit ridership, found that most trips would continue to be made by private automobile. Please also see the overall response to land use comments. Comment 9-3 More sophisticated modeling would be interactive between transportation and land use. The Authority's model is a sophisticated model that includes a state-of-the-art mode choice model,is fully consistent with MTC's modeling,and uses accepted regional travel demand models and methodology. Models that integrate land use and transportation are neither readily available nor generally accepted.This is because the cause-and-effect relationship between transportation and land use is complex,multi-factored,and difficult to capture in modeling without incorporating so many speculative assumptions that the model's predictive capability may be diminished, rather than improved. Finally,relying on such a model would put the Authority out of conformance with State CMP requirements,which requires use of ABAG forecasts. Comment 9-4 The planning process made no use of the County's million-dollar plus investment in Shaping Our Future.Given the current heightened recognition of the importance of land use in solving transportation problems and the utterly unsatisfactory performance of even the Preferred Alternative,it is unconscionable to not study one or more Smart Growth alternatives. The EIR does reference and discuss the Shaping Our Future effort. Shaping Our Future is presented in Section 2.1,Transportation, on pages 2-9 and 2-10 and in Section 2.11, Population and Land Use, on pages 2198, 2-200 and in Table 2.11-5. The Shaping Our Future report is also available at: www.shapingourfuture.org. Please also refer to the general Shaping Our Future response. It is also important to recognize that the Shaping Our Future effort did not result in an adopted land use plan, but rather a set of principles that"...encourages continuation of dialogue among 42 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) . FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT the jurisdictions" (SCSI~,Vision Summary,,June 2003, p.16). Therefore, the extent to which these land use concepts will be implemented is still uncertain, and the ultimate physical effects cannot be modeled with specificity, as discussed in the general response on Shaping Our Future. The Authority developed Alternative C to incorporate a strong emphasis on Smart Growth, Alternative C dedicates 15 percent($240 million) of funds to the CC-TLC Incentive Program. As a result, the DEIR does study an alternative that is highly focused on Smart Growth. Furthermore, proposed CMP Options 2 and 3 include an ULL,which is also proposed in SOF. Please also see the general land use response in Section 4.1. Comment 9-5 The failure of any of the 2025 alternatives to perform tolerably as transportation raises the bar for mitigation.Whether as TCMs to mitigate the rate of increase in VMT over the rate of population growth,to mitigate unacceptable levels of congestion,to mitigate the cumulative impacts of suburban growth,or for some other rationale,the DEIR needs to explore a variety of means to improve 2025 conditions. The EIR does not support the conclusion that none of the 2025 alternatives performs tolerably as transportation. All impacts in the transportation section of the EIR are less than significant and Alternatives A and B generally show improvements over the No Project Alternative (e.g. VMT is better under Alternatives A and B and VMT at LOS F is better in Alternative A compared to the No Project Alternative). Congestion, however,is still forecast to worsen in Contra Costa compared to existing conditions.That is,the number of households and people in Contra Costa are expected to grow faster than existing transportation capacity. The transportation improvements proposed in any of the alternatives are intended to mitigate the impacts of growth by removing bottlenecks,encouraging safe and convenient travel by foot or bicycle, and supporting the maintenance of the transportation system. The EIR does explore a variety of means to improve 2025 conditions. Each alternative incorporates a mix of transportation improvements intended to improve travel conditions and serve travelers within Contra Costa. As noted in the response to comment 6-1 above, all three of the alternatives include projects and programs that would implement TCMs established in regional clean air plans.Therefore,the EIR evaluates a reasonable range of feasible alternatives incorporating the use of TCM and other measures to reduce congestion. Comment 9-6 TRANSDEF believes that conditioning local receipt of regional and state funds on compliance with a series of measures is the most obvious method to make local jurisdictions responsible for minimizing the impact of their development decisions on neighboring jurisdictions. This approach is being studied by ABAG and MTC as part of the implementation of the Regional Agencies Smart Growth process. The Measure C GMP now uses the local street maintenance and improvement funds as the incentive to jurisdictions for "minimizing the impact of their development decisions on neighboring jurisdictions." The GMP requires jurisdictions to adopt local development mitigation programs and to work with other jurisdictions to develop regional mitigation programs, and requires jurisdictions to review General Plan amendments and major development projects they are considering with their neighboring jurisdictions. 43 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCHNO. 200306212,8)...0.,..,,...a.< ............................ 1=1NAL Et�iYIlItO#�11Wt�NTAL IMPACT i2�PC+aEt'T As part of its review of the GMP in the late 1990s, the Authority considered tying funding for major transportation improvements in a jurisdiction to that jurisdiction's compliance with the GMP. The Authority, however, decided that such an approach,while it might"punish" jurisdictions that didn't comply with the CMP would also punish neighboring jurisdictions that did comply as well as the general public.The Planning Committee and Authority reviewed potential changes to the GMP in September 2000,including a proposal to "increase the impacts of non-compliance by withholding project funding and removing regional projects," and decided not to add it because they could see no clear way to withhold project funding or remove regional projects without adversely impacting adjacent jurisdictions. Another possible mitigation would be the imposition of a regional transportation impact mitigation fee.This would mitigate impacts beyond the earlier Measure C fees,and would apply to trips leaving local jurisdictions for points within Contra Costa, as well as outside the county. The fee would be based on auto trips generated,and would be waived for any project adjacent to frequent(15 minute peals headway) transit. Such a fee would help level the playing field between infill and greenfield development. The Authority already has a regional transportation mitigation program in place,which is based on regional fee programs East County,West County, Lamorinda,and Tri-Valley, and a mitigation program based on the CEQA review process in Central County. The current requirement in Measure C to "consider such issues as jobs/housing balance, carpool and vanpool programs and proximity to transit service in the establishment of the regional traffic mitigation program" is proposed to be continued in the new measure. Comment 9-7 Something is very wrong in the assumptions about transit expansion for Alternatives B and C.Mode share outputs are unreasonable. Despite the expenditure of vast sums of money for transit,little change occurs in ridership compared to the No Project Alternative.Because the highway mode will be very unpleasant to use,with high levels of congestion,a well-designed transit system on separate rights-of-way, HOV lanes or transit priority lanes should have significant travel time advantages. The fact that the made share outputs fail to reflect this commonsense conclusion indicates that the transit system coded into the model must be inferior to contemporary professional practice. In responding to this comment,please provide the fallowing: I. Travel times for transit and SOV travel for representative O/D pairs. 2. Identify the design elements incorporated into the transit network to enhance ridership. 3. Explain how,despite the diversion of 15,700 VMT/day for transit riders away from Non-Transit Activity, it is reasonable that the model predicted that Non- Transit Activity actually increased by 2000 VMT/day. (Table 2.2-11) Mode share outputs do in fact show that increased congestion leads to increased transit use. The model suggests that as congestion increases,as it would for any alternative (including the No Project alternative)by 2025,transit ridership increases,and that increases in transit funding generally result in greater increases in transit ridership. Alternative C,which would have the 44 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO 2003062128) »...x,.x,.,.,,,.. iINAL ENVlaRC3NMENTAL IMPACT REPC3RT largest investment in transit, would almost double the number of transit trips compared to existing conditions and would have nine percent higher ridership levels than the No Project alternative, and. 10 percent higher than Alternative A. Travel times for transit and SOV travel for representative O/D pairs: Although congestion will increase highway travel times in 2025, driving will still be quicker than transit in many—but not all—cases.The following table shows estimated travel times between two representative places for the I'M peak hour for Alternative B. For trips between Hilltop Mall and Pleasant Hill BART,highway travel times,while they would increase by about two-thirds, would still be shorter than transit travel times. For trips between Bishop Ranch and County East Mall in Antioch,highway travel times would more than double and would be longer than for transit.As a result of the relative travel time benefits,Alternative B shows an increase in transit ridership. Transit Highway Initial Wait Time Travel Time Total Travel Time Hilltop Mall in Richmond 2000 39 Is 74 89 to Pleasant Hill BART 2025 Alt 6 62 Is 76 91 Bishop Ranch in San 2005 68 Is 74 89 Ramon to County East Mall in Antioch 2025 Alt 0 156 Is 86 101 To assess the effects of additional bus operating funds,the DETR assumed that transit operators would use the funds to increase route frequency rather than invest in separate bus rights-of- way, signal priority systems or other capital improvements.Transit operators could use these funds for such improvements and some could result in cost-effective improvements to their systems. (Separate rights-of-way are,however, extremely expensive and likely infeasible for transit operators in developed areas,which is essentially the majority of Contra Costa, especially the areas where potential transit ridership would be highest.) The increases in frequency assumed serve as a proxy for the constellation of potential improvements that could be made withinn the limited funding available.Transit operators continually modify their route systems to respond to changes in their service population,land use and development, the roadway system, and connections to other transit systems, as well as to available subsidy levels and new service policies.Whiles changes in routing could further increase transit ridership, without a detailed study of transit routing far beyond the scope of this project, it is not certain whether such changes would help or hinder access to transit. Design elements incorporated into the transit network to enhance ridership:The regional travel model is not fine-grained enough to model design elements. MTC and the CMAs in the Bay Area,however, are investigating methods for reflecting such designs in regional modeling. Explain how,despite the diversion of l 5,700 VMTlday for transit riders away from Non- Transit Activity,it is reasonable that the model predicted that Non-Transit Activity actually increased by 2000 VMT#day.(Table 2.2-11):Alternative C,which would allocate the greatest amount of funding to transit,is also forecast to have the greatest levels of vehicle 45 I I I I I I 1 1.1 ..,.:.................. .................... ................... ..................... ................... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003 062128) .............................. miles and vehicle hours traveled, congestion, and transit ridership. Under this alternative, the combination of longer travel times for drivers and increased frequency of transit(with consequent improvements in travel time)would encourage more people to take transit for the advantages it provides. For other travelers, driving—either alone or in a carpool—will still represent the most attractive option. Those drivers,however,would have a slower average speed and may choose more circuitous routes to avoid bottlenecks and delays,both of which would increase VMT and VHT.A good example is the Caldecott Tunnel which would not be funded under Alternative C. Delay in the non-peak(that is,the single bore) direction would be substantially higher than in either Alternative A or B and would encourage some drivers to take alternative routes that would require driving further. Other drivers would experience longer delays. Comment 9-8 When modelling an alternative with substantial increases in transit service, in order to be credible,current best practices must be incorporated.This has apparently not occurred in this DEIR.Elements that need to be included,at a minimum,are: Bus Rapid Transit, bus priority lanes,traffic signal priority,proof-of-payment,and extensive bus pass distribution systems. As this is a program document,the transit service added to an alternative is intended to be representative of the most appropriate service changes using the existing system rather than a system restructuring.No restructuring of the transit system route structure was assumed as this would require a comprehensive, separate planning and environmental effort in coordination with local operators. System restructuring is a reasonable long-range transit planning activity that should be studied by transit operators on a routine basis. It should also he noted that planning money to optimize the transit system productivity will be available through a sales tax extension. Elements such as transit priority and fare collection systems will be eligible for funding under the extension. Comment 9-9 It is disturbing to see the Highway Lobby's oldest canard repeated yet again here: 'Widening the highway will relieve congestion.Only,this time,the message is even more egregious:'Widening the highway is good for you and for the environment.' Through bogus air emissions modelling,discussed below, Elft preparer have the gall to conclude that auto-oriented Alternative A is environmentally superior to the other alternatives. This conclusion is based on assumptions that lead the model to predict higher average travel speeds for Alternative A.Obviously,no one there ever heard of induced demand. Contemporary thought is that adding road capacity encourages a further dependence on the auto,both for existing residents,and for those making decisions to locate jobs and housing there in the future.This results in the increased capacity being'used up'quickly, resulting in even higher future levels of congestion. Something is very wrong with a model that predicts new road capacity to still be available 25 years later. TRANSDEF challenges the model's conclusions that added road capacity will yield higher 2025 average travel speeds. 46 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ......................... Please refer to the overall response to induced travel comments. Comment 9-10 We laugh at the conclusion that Alternative A will have lower ozone precursor emissions than the other Build Alternatives. Besides our general disbelief,we also question whether the tiny quantitative differences in air emissions between the alternatives have any meaning for purposes of selecting an alternative.We doubt the differences are quantitatively significant,given the uncertainties in the model itself and grave doubt in its assumptions. The tools used in the Draft EIR provide the best available methods for a countywide transportation plan in Contra Costa given the responsibilities of the Authority as a CMA.The air quality analysis used the most current CARE model and the travel demand model is fully consistent with the MTC model, as required by State CMP legislation. All of the alternatives had positive and negative impacts and identifying the environmentally superior alternative was based on an analysis on all of the factors addressed in the EIR. Alternative A was identified as the environmentally superior alternative despite more significant impacts on land use than Alternative C.Alternative A, however,was forecast to have the least significant negatives impacts on air quality, transportation and energy. Refer to the alternatives comparison in the DEIR on pages 3-31 through 3-33. Comment 9-11 The Criteria of Significance for air quality impacts were selected arbitrarily, bearing no resemblance to the criteria identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.They were made up of whole cloth,apparently by the EIR prepares,perhaps so as to create a distinction between the impacts of Alternative A and the other alternatives. DEIR Criterion 1,local violations of air quality standards,is not a recognized criterion.Studies on diesel off-road equipment indicate that construction is a highly polluting activity,emitting carcinogenic and asthma-exacerbating particles.Following the suit by Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District against Caltrans (which followed the publication of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines), it is now recognized that best practices for public agency construction contracts require the provision of equipment meeting the most current CARR diesel standards. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines require that a plan such as the CTP Update demonstrate consistency with the adopted Clean Air Plan. "Plans showing a VMT growth rate higher than the population growth rate would be considered to be hindering progress towards achieving this performance objective (due to absence of adequate TCMs],and thus inconsistent With regional air quality planning.This would present a significant air quality impact." (p.22)The DEIR instead uses a bogus'5% increase over No Project'criterion,which has no foundation in science or law. Because the Bay Area is a Non-Attainment area for ozone under the one-hour and eight-hour federal standards and the state standard,any increase in ozone precursors is a matter for concern. Air quality criterion 1 of the DEIR is a recognized criterion from the Initial Study checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G).This criterion is used for the analysis of construction impacts because the Bay Area is nonattainment for the State PM-10 standard.Also, the construction 47 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) i1414LiIP'6ii:............*........................ ............. impacts analysis has been conducted using the methodology recommended by the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,which emphasizes a mitigation-based approach. The section of the BAAQMD Guidelines referred to in the comment is entitled"Thresholds of Significance for Plan Impacts." The "plans" referred to in this section are defined as "[gleneral plans of cities and counties . . [gleneral plan amendments, redevelopment plans,specific area plans, annexations of lands and services,and similar planning activities." (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Dec. 1999, p. 21.) These plans all determine population and growth patterns. When such plans are evaluated,the lead agency may conclude that they have a less than significant impact on air quality if(1) population growth for the jurisdiction is equal to or lower than the rate of increase in population, and (2) the rate of increase in VMT for the jurisdiction is equal to or lower than the rate of increase in population. (Id. at 21-22.) The CTP 2004 Update is not local government plan of the type referred to in this provision. As discussed previously with respect to modeling criteria,the Authority is required to incorporate ABAG population projections; it does not have the ability to independently calculate or reduce population growth in the region.VMT is forecast to increase faster than population under any of the alternatives considered,including the No Project alternative. Both Alternative A,which emphasizes capital improvements, and Alternative C,which emphasizes various programs and operational improvements, are forecast to have result in slightly more VMT (less than one percent more), while Alternative B is forecast to result in slightly fewer VHT. It should be noted that the Authority found that VMT was even higher when only minimal transportation improvements were assumed; see the general response to induced travel in Section 4.1. The Authority used the same threshold—five percent increase in the level of any criteria pollutant—in the EIR for the 2000 Update. Regardless of the threshold used, however, the analysis in the EIR found that Alternative A would result in the production of lower levels of emissions for reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide and identical levels of particulate matter compared to Alternatives A and B. And that Alternative A would be worse than the No Project alternative only for the production of nitrogen oxides. Nonetheless, the ER found that the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact on air quality (Impact 2.2-2).Individual projects under the CTP 2004 Update would undergo further CEQA review at the time of implementation and those projects would use the BAAQMD's recommended project level thresholds. Comment 9-12 The criteria for significant impacts on Environmental justice captured the potential harmful impacts,but failed to state Criterion 3:A significant impact will occur if the project as a whole will result in disproportionately fewer benefits to minority or low income neighborhoods. Not only should this criterion be added,potential impacts should be evaluated. The proposed Criterion 3 would not be consistent with any adopted Environmental justice policies or guidance.The focus of the Environmental justice initiatives established in Executive Order 12898 and Department of Transportation Order 5610.2 is to avoid or reduce disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations.The proposed Criterion 3 is very different because it calls for an analysis of the distribution of the benefits of federal transportation programs. 48 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension {SCFi NO. 2003062128), . iiNAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT It should also be noted that Environmental Justice is not a required EIR component under CEQA. This section has been included to give a broader sense of the potential impacts of the proposed project. Comment 9-13 The analysis of the Environmentally Superior Alternative suffers from the garbage- in/garbage-out syndrome.As demonstrated above,the Impact Significance conclusions on transportation,air quality and energy impacts are unsupportable and counter-intuitive,At best,Table 2.1-5 documents only an 8%difference between alternatives in hours of delay/day. The 8 percent difference (Table 2.1-5)between alternatives is due to fewer freeway lane miles in Alternatives B and C, and the greater diversion of traffic to local arterials and collectors. Note that the EIR discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative states that the alternatives are very close in the impacts they have (page 3-31 —3-33). However,Alternative A was chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative taking all factors into consideration. Comment 9-14 Given the dubiousness of the model outputs,a difference of this magnitude is not an adequate basis on which to make decisions. In fact,even using the questionable data, Alternative C has the greatest beneficial impact on freeway delay of all the alternatives! Can the other hand,the conclusion that Alternative C would have the least land use impacts is robust and convincing. Less agricultural lands would be converted to suburban development under Alternative C.TRANSDEF strongly urges the OCTA to identify Alternative C as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. In the alternatives comparison discussion in Section 3.1, pages 3-31 —3-33, the DEIR acknowledges the tradeoff between the different alternatives. However,as stated on page 3-32 of EIR, "Alternative A offers the most environmental advantages, as it performs the best in key issues areas of transportation, air quality, and energy." In comparison,Alternative C performs the worst of any alternative in these key issue areas. Comment 9-15 TRANSDEE believes that the DEIR looks at the issue of growth inducement backwards. Rather than look at consistency with local plans,which fail to take regional and sub-regional impacts into consideration,this DEIR is the appropriate place to look,first,at the consequences of growth,and then,at the management of growth.It is only at the regional or sub-regional level that potentially effective responses to a predicted future of congestion and gridlock can be formulated.Not only do we disagree that"Second,due to existing congestion,transportation plays a minimal role in attracting or inducing new development for the county as a whole,,, we are convinced that active intervention through the programming of transportation funds as part of a comprehensive Smart Growth program could act as a lever to shift development trends in the direction of a more benign pattern of development and make the future a more attractive place to live. Please refer to the overall responses to comments on induced travel and land use. 49 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation PIan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) „> FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT#< 10 Sierra Club Comment 10-1 First, some general remarks that affect the entire document and its conclusions. It is difficult to guess the methodology used to measure Impacts but it appears that your model makes the assumption that widening roads decreases congestion,even though more than 70 years of documented experience of road widening in the US contradicts this belief. Please see the overall response to comments on induced travel.To analyze alternatives,This EIR uses the established regionally consistent method in the Bay Area forecasting assumptions— regional land use forecasts,adopted regional transportation improvements,and the regional travel demand forecasting model (with a focus on Contra Costa)—as a basis. In this way, the assumptions for land use and regional transportation improvements and their effects on travel are logical inputs into the analysis. Comment 10-2 The document also mentions Saving Our Future(SOV) [sic]and the model it generated,but does not use this model. The EIR discusses the Shaping Our Future effort in Section 2.1,Transportation, on pages 2-9 and 2-10 and in Section 2.11,Population and Land Use,on pages 2-198,2-200 and in Table 2.12-5 of the EIR.The Shaping Our Future report is also available at: wtivw.shapingourfuture.org. Please also refer to general Shaping Our Future response. Please also see the general response to comments on Shaping Our Future in Section 4.1,above. The transportation model used in the SOF analysis was the previous version of the Authority's model with an alternative land use database that reflected the SOF recommendations. Those detailed land use changes recommended in SOF were not available to be used in the modeling for the EIR. Comment 10-3 It also does not recognize that,in the process of developing Saving Our Future[sic] elected officials and the public expressed the belief that our present models do not work and a new vision is required.Alternative A and,to some degree Alternative B, preserve this status quo approach. Comment noted.Many of the same elected officials and members of the public involved in SOF were also involved in the present effort to update the CTP and develop an Expenditure Plan that the voters would support. The Authority is considering refinements to the Expenditure Plan and GMP that would consider the recommendations made as part of SOF,including, for example,the requirement that jurisdictions adopt an urban limit line as part of the GMP, as well as the many other comments made specifically on the draft 2004 CTP Update. Comment 10-4 This document also gives no attention to the aspect of Measure C that encourages higher density growth and emphasis on decreasing use of Single Occupant Vehicles. Is the reason for this omission due to the fact that our"Transportation Model" cannot include so called programs into our highway model? As a result of this basic flaw,many of the conclusions based as they are on the status quo,are completely skewed. 50 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed.Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) .......... ................................... �tE�1AL .�WVlFIC►NM�it�TAl� lMPAC"t`j R1tF4aRT The transportation model used by the Authority is not simply a"highway model"—it is a fully functional, multimodal model that accounts for all modes including walking, bicycling,transit and carpooling as well as driving. It includes a state-of-the-art mode choice component developed by MTC and very extensive transit routing and frequencies. The DEIR reports on a variety of transportation performance criteria,including non-SOV use. While Measure C encourages jurisdictions to provide housing opportunities and to coordinate land use with the capacity of the transportation system, and while Authority policy encourages the use of non- SOV modes and transit-and pedestrian-supportive development,the Authority does not have land use authority, and thus cannot assume land use changes. Consequently,the transportation model itself is based on a fixed land use base. Please also see response to comment 2-4. Comment I0-5 The other generic comment is the exclusion of existing EIR's prepared for the Highway Four Bypass, Martinez Intermodal Project and the Caldecott Tunnel which would presumably give more specific information about these projects. To elate,no EIR has been prepared on the Caldecott Tunnel Project although an environmental assessment is currently being prepared (Vol. 11 of the CTP).An environmental assessment on the.Martinez Intermodal project does exist,as noted in the comment above (please refer to Vol. 11 of the CTP)The EIR also incorporates by reference the analysis in the State Route 4 Bypass Project Final EIR (SCH# 89032824),November 1994. The EIR is programmatic in scale and evaluates the overall impacts of the 2004 Update. Project-specific impacts are most appropriately examined in project-specific EIRs. Comment 10-6 p.2-10 and 2-11 assumes the construction of the Caldecott Tunnel in the No Project scenario.Since the Caldecott Tunnel requires Measure C funding this is not the case. The Caldecott Tunnel was included in the No Project alternative because it was included in Track 1 of MTC's adopted 2001 Regional Transportation Plan. The 2001 RTP assumed that the fourth bore would be funded from a combination of State and federal sources; no Measure C funding was assumed. As stated in the EIR.on page ES-3, "For the CTP 2004 Update EIR, the No Project scenario assumes that the 2000 CTP would continue to apply and that the projects...listed as committed or`Track 1' in MTC's 2041 RTP would still be developed." Comment 10-7 p.2-11 _ 12 It is unclear to me wiry transit projects cannot be incorporated into the travel model.Both the school bus program and the TDM program have long histories. The effects of TDM efforts and the school bus program,which have been in place for many years, are reflected in the calibration of existing conditions and are assumed to continue into future years. Typically, special school bus routes that run only once or twice a time period and serve a specific subscription market are unable to attract significant ridership in the model. This is in contrast to express bus and local routes,which will be able to run at much higher frequencies and show much more significant impacts to ridership.Note that even though most transit projects are explicitly incorporated into the travel model, not all projects (especially TDM non-transit projects) lend themselves to modeling at a countywide scale. 51 .. ......... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 20030621,28) ................> ..*..... Comment 10-8 p. 2-12 It is unclear why the addition of express buses cannot be included in a model to estimate the numbers of SOV's (Single Occupant Vehicles)that will be taken off the road that could presumably reduce LOS. The mode choice component in the travel demand model does remove a vehicle trip when a person makes a trip using carpools,transit,bicycles or walking instead of driving alone. Comment 10-9 p. 2-15 The statement"it is also noted that residents will be less likely to travel further distances for work as congestion grows"cannot be justified.The history of the east county(and indeed all of Contra Costa county)belies this conclusion. A more rational conclusion might be that people might be influenced to change travel mode(from individual auto use) if viable alternatives are provided. It is a long-standing observation,based on surveys of travelers,that people have a"travel time budget",that is,that they have an optimal or preferred amount of time they are willing to spend traveling.To maintain this "budget", people have been observed to respond to increased commute times by making fewer or shorter trips for other purposes. The Authority's travel demand model includes this trade-off by "by including a disaggregate, household-level accessibility variable in the multiple regression models estimated for home-based shop/other (HBSH) and home-based social/recreation (HBSR) trip purposes." " It would thus be more accurate for the EIR to note that increased commute times would encourage people to reduce the time spent making other trips,rely on more linked trips,or to change the location of work or residence.The EIR and the travel demand model both assume that people will shift from individual auto use to transit,carpooling or other modes if those alternatives are more convenient. Change the first paragraph on page 2-15 as follows: The stabilitation in V-Nff is it result of a bfi4ftnee.-ft flentra Ges a i8 less t 2025, residents will not have to travel as far for W &6o noted that reside"ts WA- 1 be lesq likely to travel further distanees for work its e ffli-.-The marnal differences in VMT among the Zi alternatives reflects the marizinal enhancements to the assumed network these improvements would represent.-the improvements Proposed,while significant,would be added to an already mature transportation infrastructure-combined with a fixed land use base. Comment 10-10 p. 2-18 On Table 2.1-9 Why would transit boarding decrease with the construction of E BART? Transit hoardings increase from current(2000) levels under all future scenarios,both the No Project alternative and the three Expenditure Plan alternatives.Total transit hoardings for two of the three Expenditure Plan alternatives-all of which include eBART-are forecast to Purvis, C., M. Iglesias, V. Eisen, "Incorporating Work Trip Accessibility in Non-Work Trip Generation Models in the San Francisco Bay Area".Transportation Research Record#1556(1996)pp.37-45. 52 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ..........*........................................... increase compared to the No Project alternative. Only in Alternative A would they decrease (though by less than one percent).The principal reason is that the improvements in Alternative A result in the highest overall vehicle travel speeds making driving relatively more attractive. Boardings for BART and eBART,however,are forecast to drop in all three Expenditure Plan alternatives: 2.6 percent for Alternative A,3.3 percent for Alternative B and 4.4 percent for Alternative C. There are several likely reasons for these forecasts drops in BART and eBART boardings. For Alternative A, roadway improvements appear to make use of BART relatively less attractive for the longer distance trips the latter serves, For Alternatives B and C, the increased funding for local and express bus service makes those options more attractive compared to BART or eBART. (Alternative B would allocate about 12 percent of revenues to local and express bus service and increase ridership on those modes by 8.7 percent,while Alternative C would allocate about 25 percent to local and express bus service and increase ridership by 31 percent.) In addition,express bus service along the SR 4 and SR 4 Bypass corridors is included,in both existing conditions and the No Project alternative and Alternative A and is expanded in Alternatives B and C,providing apparently more attractive alternatives to commuters. Comment 10-1 1 Table 2.1-10 why is the walking mode unchanged if Alternative C promotes walkable communities? While transportation planners in the Bay Area and the nation are trying to find better methods to forecast the effects of so-called"smart growth",methods to better reflect how alternative community design will affect travel choices are only now being integrated into regional travel demand models. (See, for example, "Incorporating the Effects of Smart Growth and.Transit Oriented Development in San Francisco Bay Area Travel Demand Models: Current and Future Strategies",November 2003,by Chuck Purvis of MTC for potential short-and longer-term model improvements.) Until these improvements are made,the Authority will rely on the on MTC's current model logic and structure.Any reflection of"walkable communities" or other alternative design approaches would need to be done through "post processing". ("Post processing"was used to evaluate the SOF approach. While it can be useful for"sketch planning", it is less rigorous and well validated than more formal models and may be prone to over-amplifying the effects of alternative development types.)The assumptions were not changed to indicate walkable communities,as projects are not defined and the worst case scenario (no impact to walkability) is needed to ensure the adequacy of potential air quality impacts. In addition,we do not yet know the locations of many of the local projects in Alternative C,and furthermore, the countywide model is not sensitive to fine-grained changes within only a portion of a traffic analysis zone. Comment 10-121t should be noted that emissions from BART does not account for cold start driving to BART stations.Therefore Alternative A would increase these emissions. The commenter is correct that the calculated emissions for BART itself do not include the emissions from the vehicles used to get to and from the to BART (or other transit) stations. Those vehicle trips,however,are included in the travel model and are accounted for as part of emissions from vehicle trips in the air quality studies.The implication in the comment that cold starts are not included in the air quality analysis is not correct.The GARB model includes the emissions from cold starts. In addition,all three alternatives were treated the same in the 53 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) FINAL. ENYl,i,6,hiMii4 �1� IMPACT �'iP'6RT..o.o.................... .... ............... .,,.... analysis,that is,the emissions from vehicle trips to transit, including BART,was included in the estimate of emissions in each of the three alternatives.Thus,the implication in the comment that Alternative A would increase these emissions but not the other alternatives is incorrect. Cornment 10-13 p.2-41 why is there an increase in bus transit with Alternative A? Ridership on bus transit would increase by 148 percent for both the No Project alternative and Alternative A compared to existing(2000) conditions. The amount of bus transit service is assumed to be the same for both alternatives. This increase would come from the assumed bus transit service becoming more attractive as driving times lengthen and jobs and population in the county increase. (By contrast,bus transit hoardings are forecast to increase 170 percent with Alternative B and.225 percent in Alternative C, both of which would increase the frequency of bus transit in Contra Costa.) Bus ridership in Alternative A, however,is not forecast to increase compared to the No Project scenario. Bus ridership in this alternative is 100 riders per day less than the No Project Alternative (a 0.1 percent decrease). Comment 10-14 p.2-42'Why is increase in bus transit not offset with decrease in SOWS? The logic of mode choice is not exclusively a trade-off between SOVs and transit. Thus,while transit trips are projected to grow in Alternative C by 15,000 (as compared to the No Project), only 7,000 of these trips are projected to come from drive alone persons (classified as Drive Alone or Vehicle Driver trips). Other trips will come from I IOVs or Vehicle Passenger trips, as improved bus frequency will also attract persons who otherwise would have made their trip as a passenger in a private vehicle. Because there are more buses in Alternatives B and C,overall emissions in these alternatives are higher;however, emissions are not offset by a decrease in emissions from vehicles (Single Occupant or Multi-Occupant)because of the increase in congestion resulting in lower vehicle speeds in Alternative C. Note that Table 2.2-9 does not report emissions for SOVs; it reports emissions for "non-transit" trips which includes both single-occupant vehicles and multiple-occupant vehicles, including vanpools and carpools. Comment 10-IS p.2-44 Add to Mitigation Measures the 2896 increase in transit required under the TCM I of the SIP Plan 1982. Appendix F of the 2003 CMP for Contra Costa County discusses compliance with TCMs, including those designed to comply with federal and State air quality standards in the Bay Area. The author is suggesting that TCM 1, which reaffirms the commitment to increase transit ridership by 28 percent between 1978 and 1983,should be added as part of air quality mitigation measures in the EIR. However,a goal is not a mitigation measure. CMI'legislation simply helps Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs)life the Authority comply with TCMs. In all alternatives, the transit mode share will be higher than it is in the Existing Conditions. Furthermore, the increase in transit between 2000 and 2025 are far higher than 28 percent. Comment 10-16There is no accounting for land use changes under Alternative C. Please see general land use response in Section 4.1. 54 ............ 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ii4A1"i�V I R"'0"'N'....M..E'N'...T-X-L...I A...P,"A''C'...T....R,'ll-P...0...R...T,*......................................................... Comment 10-17p.2-49 there is no recognition that in the trend toward increasing use of SUV's which would probably be encouraged with improvement in roads,nor the tradeoff between riding bus and driving. The Authority knows of no reputable study that supports the contention that there is a causal link between roadway improvements and the increasing purchase of sports utility vehicles (SUVs). The increasing proportion of SUVs is most often linked to the exemption for light duty trucks (which SUVs are considered) under federal fuel efficiency standards, lower real costs of fuel,the attractiveness of SUVs for car manufacturers who make more profit per vehicle on SUVs, and driver concerns for safety, not increases in roadway capacity.The ongoing proportional increase in SUVs in the project area is addressed in the context of fuel economy. The EIR does recognize the tradeoff between riding buses and driving throughout the document,and the travel demand model forecasts people's tradeoffs between taking all potential travel modes.The model is fully multimodal and does consider all modes when assigning person trips to auto,carpool,transit,walk and bicycle modes. Comment 10418 p 2-74:Statement that Alternative C's"small projects" might create seismic damage due to lack of information can easily be quantified by identifying projects as increases in transit, striping bike lanes,etc.which might show this statement tenuous at best. Because the location of the "small projects" in Alternatives B and C has not been determined yet,the localized seismic impacts that these projects may have cannot yet be ascertained. "Small projects",however,are indeed physical improvements,and are just as susceptible to seismic hazards as any other large project. Projects that may trigger seismic risk include construction the Cummings Skyway Truck Climbing Lane,North Court Street Overcrossing,and Galaxy Way Bridge over Walnut Creek. Comment 10-19 p. 2213 the statement: "in a vast majority of instances in the Bay Area transportation improvements are merely'catching up'to serve existing or planned development,rather than influencing the pattern of development"is merely an opinion as it applies to Contra Costa County. The stated purpose of the original Measure C was to"correct past sins",and therefore catching up,and that new development would pay its own way.So an alternative opinion might be that new projects in East County were not paid for up- front at all and that the Measure C contributions merely encourage new developments farther out.Those new residents now clamor to catch up because the new developments did not provide adequate funding for transportation, either with roads or alternative transit. The existence of Measure C provided an investment to encourage more auto dependent developments farther and farther away. The three project alternatives evaluated in the DEIR would result in an increase of 1.3 percent or less in roadway/freeway lane miles (see table below), compared to,for example, the projected 31 percent increase in population and 46 percent increase in jobs in the county 55 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (5CH NO. 2003062128) FtIdAL ENV1lr�O�NMEII�TAt- IMPACT R�P'C�RT between 2000 and 2025 identified in Section 2.11 of the DEIR. Thus, transportation investments are not keeping pace with expected growth. Linder all future scenarios---bio Project, the three alternatives, or other studies, such as Shaping Our Future, for that matter— traffic conditions in the county will be worse than they are today, Because locational decisions (such as buying a house) involve a variety of considerations,including tradeoffs between housing price and travel time, any alleviations in congestion that results in a decrease in travel time,would,by definition, help support some level of growth in farther locations as well. However, given the projected worsening in congestion and the moderate dent made by transportation investments, the influence of improvements to spur growth in the outskirts is likely to be much less in the future than it is today. See also general response to induced growth. Lane Miles by Facility Type 2000 2025 Facility Type Existing Conditions No project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Collector 1,026.47 1,099.95 1110.47 1,100.46 1,099.95 Expressway 52.48 51.36 56.65 52.19 51.36 Freeway 719.79 864.66 887.13 874.96 $75.97 Major Arterial 1,293.12 1,524.06 1535.18 1,535.18 1,524.06 Cather 294.60 309.21 309.21 309.21 309.21 Total 3,382.46 3,849.24 3898.64 3,872.01 3,860.55 Change compared to Existing 13.8% 15.3% 14.5% 14.1% Change compared to No project Source.DKS,2004. Comment 10-20p. 2-214 assumes that the land use plans of jurisdictions have been consistently scrutinized for compliance by the Transportation Authority.This statement would be vigorously contested by many who have observed the process during the last 15 years. The discussion of consistency with local general plans conflates it with consistency of local jurisdictions with the Authority's GMP. Replace the text under the heading of"Consistency of CTP 2004 Update Projects with Local Plans" with the following: The projects included in the three alternatives were primarily generated by local iurisdictions and a encies working through the Regional,Transportation-Planning Committees The RTPCs, which are made up of local elected officials with representation from transit a, ricies work to further and coordinate the ado ted olicies of the jurisdictions within their regions. It canbe-fairly assumed that the ro'ects proposed bthe RTPCs reflect ado tedeneral plans or ether local plans. An ro ects proposed for funding through ro osed transportation improvement programs, such as the CC-TLC and.-bicycle and.i2edestrian facilities programs,would need to be scrutinized by the Authority or the RTPCs to ensure that consistency 56 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH Na. 2003062128) ................................*......... between the project and local plans.The,AuthoLLq's currentprocessfor reviewing 1rojects, which the Authority would continue with the extension of Measure C, would allow for RTPC review of 12rojects for such consistency. Comment 10-21 p.2-221 It appears that our current practices are in violation of SB 115 which requires equitable transportation services to the public, including minority and low income populations. The approach the report takes in analyzing effects on land use in poor or minority neighborhoods is questionable since much of the county is not minority or poor. But the reports rightly concludes that Alternative C provides the most benefit under Environmental justice considerations. But it should include in its analysis the possibility of provide more diverse housing in other parts of the county and the methods to accomplish this. Tthe purpose and scope of SB 115 (Solis, 1999)was to define environmental justice in California. The application of environmental justice principles is limited to the implementation and enforcement of environmental laws and policies. It does not address transportation services or transportation policies. It is true that much of Contra Costa County is not minority nor low-income, however,the Federal Executive Order, the Department of Transportation Order, and related Environmental Justice policies have adopted regulatory definitions of key terms in order to support meaningful analyses of potential Environmental justice impacts. In the San Francisco Bay Region,the Metropolitan Transportation Commission developed definitions of"communities of concern" which were adapted for use in this EIR. Determining methods to provide more diverse housing in other parts of the County is a local government planning function that is beyond the scope of the Countywide Transportation Plan. Comment 10-22 The report might also point out that the regressive nature of the sales tax falls more painfully on lower income residents,and forces them to pay for high capital expenses for roads while they themselves are transit dependent.This may be a violation of environmental justice principles. The "No Project"alternative assumes that no tax would be implemented and evaluates the impacts of this alternative on the environment and on environmental justice. The impacts of increased congestion and decreased transportation availability would also fall most heavily on lower income residents, many of whom do, in fact, drive automobiles. One approach might be to address a new alternative that proposes a new or increased progressive tax that would be sufficient to fund transportation improvements. Because no such proposal is a serious possibility within the foreseeable future, however, it is not a"potentially feasible" alternative (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6). 11 AC Transit Comment I I-I AC Transit's major concern about the EIR is that it declares Alternative A--which places the heaviest emphasis on adding freeway and highway capacity--to be the 57 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ...................................................... Environmentally Superior Alternative.The EIR reaches this conclusion on the basis of marginally different estimates of air pollutants between the alternative.The differences between these estimates could easily be eliminated by slight changes in assumptions used. The decision to designate Alternative A as the Environmentally Superior Alternative was based on environmental analysis on a number of factors,air quality being only one of them. Furthermore,Alternative A performed best in the key issue areas of transportation and energy, as well as air quality, as the author pointed out (see Section 3.1, pages 3-31 —3-33, for discussion of alternatives comparison). Comment 11-2 In addition,the EIR admits that it does not consider the potential effect of the TLC program,which could result in more compact development patterns. The DEIR is a program DEIR and cannot assess the environmental effects of the CC-TLC program because the nature and location of the projects funded by this program have not been determined. However,the EIR does state on page 3-31 that projects funded by the "TLC program could have—and are intended to have—favorable impacts on transportation and air quality," although the extent of those favorable impacts cannot yet be ascertained. Comment 11-3 Nor is Shaping Our Future and land use changes it might cause part of the analysis. Please refer to general Shaping Our Future response in section 4.1 Comment 11-4 The EIR does not consider the impact of other transportation investments in generating either more compact or more sprawling development patterns,thereby changing transportation patterns and environmental impacts. See general land use response. The land use assumptions in the travel model are based on ABAG'Projections 2002,which was the most recent set of land use/demographic projections available when analysis was started. This projection series must be followed, as the Congestion Management requirements mandate that forecasted land uses be consistent with regional projections. ABAG develops their forecasts through analyzing General Plans as well as market trends in real estate, Comment I 1-5 It is also unclear if the air quality analysis in the EIR considered how bus engines are continually improving their emission performance. Future changes in bus emissions resulting from regulations, fleet mix changes, and other factors are accounted for by the EMFAC2002 emission factor model. The EMFAC2002 software includes fleet mixes for each county in California for each year, and these fleet mixes include buses and all other on-road vehicles. Comment 11-6 These considerations invalidate the conclusion that Alternative A is environmentally superior,therefore there should be a reanalysis considering likely development patterns. 58 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) 9e _pp FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Alternative A is the valid environmentally superior alternative because bus emissions were factored in and Alternative A performed the best of any alternative in terms of air quality. In addition,future congestion and energy use were taken into account and Alternative A also performed the best in these two key issue areas. Also see response to comment 11-4. 59 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) .....................*................................. SINAL ENViR(3�NMENTAL IMPACT RE�'oRT 5 Copies of DEIR Comment Letters and Transcript of Oral Comment 60 TRANSPLAN P COMMITTEE 2vG EAST COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Antioch • Brentwood • Oakley • Pittsburg • Centra Costa County 651 Pine Street-- North Wing 4r" Floor, Martinez, CA 94553-0995 February 13, 2904 Martin Engelmann, Deputy Director for Planning Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 199 Pleasant Hill, GA 94523 Dear Martin: The TRANSPLAN Committee on February 12 authorized me to provide you with the following recommendations in regard, to the Measure C Expenditure Plan Alternatives, the Growth Management Program Options, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Expenditure Plan Alternatives TRANSPLAN recommends Alternative.A plus a one-percent pzpgyam or bicycle and pedestrian improvement pro#ects. This alternative - with the bike/ped program added to it — most closely resembles TRANSPLAN's earlier input on the Measure C Extension Effort, because it would provide the most funding for East County's priority transportation improvement projects while providing an ongoing funding source for the bike/ped catetgory. TRANSPLAN recommends the one-percent addition be taken from the "Subtotal Other" category (which would therefore drop from the proposed four percent down to three percent). This "Other" category includes Administration, Contingency and Regional Planning funds, according to CCTA's summary tables. Growth Management ORtions TRANSPLAN recommends 0pti3, with two revisions, for the Growth Management Program. The revisions are that. the Performance Standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary, water and flood. control be retained(as in Option 1); and the Housing Options and.lob Opportunities program also be retained with self-certification (as in Option 1). The TRANSPLAN Cominittee has not developed a recommendation on whether an urban limit line should be part of the Growth Management Program. It is anticipated this will be determined through ongoing discussions at OCTA. Draft Environmental Impact RMort TRANSPLAN offers the fallowing five comments on the Draft EIR. l-f l. An erroneous reference on nage 2-.16 should be corrected. On page 2-16, the first sentence appears to contain an erroneous reference to Table 2.1-7. The sentence states Table 2.1-7 "also shows the average time" it would take for vehicles to make trips under each future scenario. However, the table only shows average vehicle speeds,not trip tunes. Phone:925.335.1201 Fax: 925.335.1300 nr&tz cd.co.cdntra-costa. a us www.transplan.us 1-2 2. On PARe 2-18, the ridership forecasts for BART/eBART shown in Table 2.1-9 could use morethorough ex lap nation. For example, the table shows that projected ridership for year 2025 on BART and eBART would be less under all three scenarios than for the"No Project" scenario which doesn't even include eBART. Evidently the model forecasts these results because in Alternative A, the high degree of highway improvements would lead more people to drive and fewer to use BART and eBART; and in Alternatives B and C the enhanced bus services are projected to'draw more people to use buses and fewer to use BART and eBART. The narrative on page 2-17 doesn't fully explain this and could thus lead to confusion on the Sart of the reader. It would help if CCTA would explain the way that express bus services were represented in the model, so reviewers can determine the degree to which express bus service was represented as redundant or duplicative of the eBART line. This in turn would help us understand the transit ridership forecasts mentioned above. 1-3 3. Explanation is needed for transit ridership forecasts on age 2-18. On page 2-18, there is a substantial difference in the transit ridership forecasts between the tvvo tables on the page. The total transit boardings shown in Table 2.1-9 indicate totals of 244,300 to 288,300 daily hoardings, depending on the scenario. But in Table 2.1-10, ,the total transit trips are substantially fewer,ranging only from 177,004 to 192,000 each day. Explanation is warranted. 1-4 4. Figures 1.2-2-and Figure 1.2-3 should be revised to accurately reflect the Byron Highway shoulder widening project submitted by TRANSPLkN and shown in the Countywide Transportation Plan. The Draft EIR assumes the widening would only extend as far south as Camino.Diablo. However,the highway improvements in this project extend all the way south to the Alameda County line. This southern segment of the road is where the problems addressed by the project are most serious. The project is accurately described and shown in CCTA's Pudic Review 13ra t, Countywide___ arlahon Plan(December 15,2003)on Page A-14. 1-s 5. Traffic safety should be a criterion for evaluating the environmental impacts of the alternatives. Traffic safety is one of the foremost concerns in East County, and is one of the main factors in TRANSPLAN's desire to see improvements to the Byron Highway, Vasco Road, and non-freeway State Route 4, and the construction of State Route 239. All of these desired projects result from safety concerns as well as capacity concerns. Please let me know if you have questions about these recommendations. ' Sincerely, ohn reitzer TRANSPLA.N staff cc: TRANSPLAN Convnittee TI ANSPLAN Technical Advisory Conunittee Phone:925.335.1201 Fax: 925.335.1300 leigZcd.co.contra-costa.ca.us wvmtransplan.us _. Contra. Costa Coutlty t � � np1rt Human Services John B. Cullen Director . i February 25, 2004 Brad Beck in pat-Uir rship Senior Transportation Planner Contra Costa Transportation Authority with the 34y78 Buskirk Ave., Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 cc�rtn���a.rtity, we provide bear Mr. Beck: services I am writing to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR.)that is part of the 2004 Update the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation tlt<rt supe«rt Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension. and I read with interest Section 2.11 of the report, titled Population and Land Use. In this adults, section there are a number of population and household forecasts,with the primary focus on the projected growth of workers and jobs in the county. In this section there children, is no mention of the largest,most significant demographic change that is projected to occur in the county in the next 20 years,the graying of the"Baby Boom"generation. f`�rr3ilic;s Using population numbers from both the DEIR and the Older Adults Transportation anti the elderly, Study published by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,we can see that the percentage of the county's population aged 65 and above increases from I I% in 2000 and proniote to 20%in 2020. pent-1 This unprecedented demographic shift will cause extraordinary demand for services for the elderly and disabled population. Among these services is transportation. esl ox�.s.ihility, Considering the magnitude of the problem, the attention given to it in the DEIR ' indepetidenc- -nd borders on complete disregard and suggests an inherent bias towards capital projects 2-2 and addressing peak hour commute issues. A discussion of the health implications is self=suf-licierzcy. warranted in the EIR given the language in the CCTA's Visions, Goals and Strategies document which mentions preserving and enhancing"quality of life", a"balanced, safe transportation network" and the need to meet the"diverse needs of Contra Costa". 2-3 A high percentage of senior citizens have retired from employment and as they get older,many will no longer drive their own automobiles. Their lifestyles and transportation destinations,needs and modes will be significantly different from those of the worker/commuter who seems to be the primary focus of the DEIR. With 20% of the population falling into the 65+age group by 2020, this DEII2, and the 40 Douglas Drive• Martinez, CA 94553+ (925) 313-1500• Fax(925)313-15752 ` 3 2 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan should take this into account in planning for the future of transportation in the county. 2-4 On page 1-25 of the DEIR there is a statement that a"reduced"level of funding such as in alternatives A and B may not allow for continuation and expansion of current transportation services for the elderly&persons with disabilities. While this statement is correct,it is incomplete given the context.This statement would leave a reasonable person to assume that something above alternative B(5%)may allow for some "continuation and expansion"of these types of services. This is not the case. A good argument could be made that, given the large projected increase in demand for these services,even an increase to 13%as in alternative C, would not allow for sufficient growth in services to meet the impending demand. In closing,I believe that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority has a duty to consider within the"Population,Dousing, and Land Use"section of the DEIR,how to mitigate this huge upcoming increase in the senior population within Contra Costa County. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact .Report. Sincerely, j Paul S. Branson Transportation Manager Cc: Robert Sessler Transportation Work Group of the Advisory Council on Aging John Cunningham, Contra Costa County Community D) velopment Dept. 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS COLLECTED FROM DCTPiDEIR {OUTREACH WORKSHOPS Page 9 of 10 BillStrernmel,Citizen Increasingly during commute hours I find myself walking from BART because of lack of bus service,and I find myself walking in mud because there aren't any sidewalks.This should be addressed,as it is in the platform for TALC[Transportation and Land Use Coalition.]. Some aspects of the TALC proposal are in Alternative C,the Program Alternative,and those are correct.We should redirect money for buying strips of land for sidewalks.What they did on Cleary Read should be extended countywide and replicated.We all need safe routes everywhere. Debbie Toth Mt.Diablo Center,Senior and.Disabled.Stakeholders A lot was said by Myra and Roger,there are also the frail elders who don't qualify as disabled. The 2.9 percent in the existing measure,goes towards senior and disabled.The federal mandate only applies to those who are completely disabled.Those who want same day service may not get that service.We're asking-for something very simple.The senior population is expected to grow.A mix of Alternatives ABC, with at least 13%for transit for seniors and people with disabilities. DBIR Cotnmoskt- 3-1 For Alternatives A and B,the DEIR says we may not be able maintain today's level of service, and that needs to be addressed. Dave Campbell,East Bay Bicycle Coalition We(EBBC)would like to see at least 5%of the Measure C Extension revenues go to bike improvements,bike routes on busy streets,and bike signals at busy intersection. In addition to that,paratransit and TLC program,there are many organizations that are ready and willing to support Alternative C.In Alameda County, it took two attempts to pass their measure.It's very difficult to get a two-thirds of the vote. We're ready to support this.We will stand out there and tell people to vote yes,as long as were getting our share. 5%of Measure C.Cather counties are passing at least 5%.There's no reason why Centra Costa can not be one of those counties. { Dr.Henry Clark,West County Toxic Coalition and member of EPAC West County feels they are being shortchanged.Most of the projects are based in East County. Take the Richmond Parkway for example,Worth Richmond residents are already bombarded by pollution,and there's childhood asthma. I concerned about idling of trucks and cars.Turning the Richmond Parkway into a freeway would eliminate most of our Parkway troubles. It would be of great benefit to West County. Paul Brooks,City of Martinez,Citizen I'm concerned that money from.the Measure C Extension will go to BART salaries,which are absurd..I will not vote for the measure if any money whatsoever goes to the ridiculously increased 2.11 . 09/02/2004 09:29 5102865559 CALTRANS PAGE 01 SPORTAnON 6= �W tt7FN3=r-,rro r y,. ]DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I I I GRAND AVENUE P.d.BOX.23660 OAKLAND,CA 94623.0664 PHONE(514)29&5595 Flaxy»arpowerl FAX(510)286.5559 Be tnery q f'icietrfl ` rY(900)'35.2929 ' t MAR 2 2004 March 1, 2OC4 '� T z ARINIEG �IGIJ � CCO00217 SCH 2003062128 Mr. Bred Beck,AICD, Senior Transportation Planner Contra Costa Transportation Authority Hookston Square 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Mr. Beck: 200e4 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Sales Tax(lbteasure"C')Reauthorization—Draft Envir' 00mental Impact Report Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report(DFIR)and have the following comments to offer: 4-1 • Add the State Route 4 Bypass Frost-West connector to figures 1.2-2 and 1.2-3. 4-2 * Briefly,discuss the Interstate 80 San Pablo Dam Road improvement in the 1-80 HOV.and Interchange Improvements"section on page 1-21. The "I-680 HDV Gap Closure and Direct Connectors"section on page 1-2I — 1-22: 4-3 Could the exclusive 110V on and off ramp work be included in the future I-680 auxiliary lane project"? 4-4 • Note the uninternrpted HDV is southbound I-684 only. 4-5 + Clarify the statement"add less additional HDV capacity". 4-6 This DEIR evaluates the impacts of the proposed Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan as a whole_ Since no detailed trip generation analysis is provided in the document,we are not able to comment fully on the impacts to the State highway facilities at this time. We would expect to have the opportunity to review the trip generation data and environmental details for projects tinder the plan,as they are proposed. "Caltraw improves tnobibry across California" 03/0212004 09:23 5102865559 GALTRANS PAGE 02 hXr.Brost Beck March t,2004 page 3 Should you have any questions regarding this letter,please call Lisa Carboni of my staff-at (5 10) 622-5491. Sincerely, 2OTHY ABLE District Branth Chief fGR/CEQA c:Philip Crimmins(State Clearinghouse) "Caltrans improve;mobil[ across Cutsjomra TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County 1407 Oakland Boulevard, Suite 100, Walnut Creek,California 94596-4300(925)407-0351 The Honorable Amy Worth, Chair March 2, 2004 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Ste. 100 ; Pleasant Hill, California 94523 Dear Chair Worth: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Countywide Transportation Plan. TRANSPAC comments on the Growth Management Program Options and Expenditure Plan Alternatives are referenced at the end of this letter and shown in Attachments B and C. Comments on Volume I of the Draft CTP Pages 29 — 54 generally describe "The Transportation System". TRANSPAC suggests that the roles, responsibilities and contributions of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the Contra Costa Commute Alternative Network (CC CAN), the Bus Transit Coordinating Council (BICC), the Paratransit Coordinating Committee, the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Advisory.Committee and the Countywide Transportation Plan Task Force be incorporated into the"strategies"section of the defined "Issue Areas". In the "HOV',Facilities, including Park and Ride Facilities"section which starts on page 37, we suggest amplification of the contributions made by the CC CAN program to demand management strategies. Suggested language is in Attachment A. In Figure 18 on page 40, we understand that there is a 43-space park and ride lot in Discovery Bay off Highway 4 on Bixler Road which we suggest be added to the figure. TRANSPAC is also curious about the 213-space lot adjacent to the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station. Are those carpool spaces at the BART station? Are these spaces available for carpool formation or only for carpool to BART patrons? If the spacesare not available to the general public for carpool formation, TRANSAC suggests the designation be removed. If the spaces are available for carpool formation, no change is required and the spaces can be presumed to be the same as those at the Pleasant HilLBART station, although it may be advisable to move the label to the west of Bailey Road. f In the "Improving bicycle and pedestrian links to transit" section on page 45, please note that bicycle lockers and racks are available though the CC CAN Program. The third paragraph on page 56, under "The Existing Measure C Growth Management Program„ should be revised to remove the relationship between the "six concerns" of an undefined general growth management program and the current Measure C CMP. On page 57, the description of the requirements of the current Measure C program should be expanded with additional explanation of the requirements and implementation of the Program. In the description of the Central County Action Plan on page 72, please revise the section of the paragraph on"Principles, Goals and Tenets" as follows "...establishment of traffic management plan to manage traffic flow within Central County; and supporting a viable transit services to create an effective/efficient transit network." 7 On page 74 first paragraph, second column regarding the "Future Role Action Plans" indicates that the CCTA might not continue the Action Plan process if Action Plans were eliminated from a Growth Management Program approved by the voters. The section needs clarity relative to Action Pians and the Action flan process, otherwise we believe that it sounds as though the CCTA won't follow the voters' wishes. The Implementation Chapter (8) encompasses pages 143-144 and describes "Who Must be Involved" in the implementation of the strategies outlines in the CTP. TR-ANSPAC suggests that as in Chapter 4, "The Transportation System", the roles, responsibilities of the CAC, CC CAN, BICC, the Paratransit Coordinating Committee, TCC, the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Advisory Committee and the Countywide Transportation Plan Task Force be incorporated into the text and into the "Implementation Activities Needed to Carry out the Strategies in the 2004 Update"Chart on page 111. In addition, the Authority's tasks that involve these groups need to be added to this chapter, e.g. annual allocations for Paratransit Services, the Bus Transit Improvement Program and the Carpool, Vanpool and Park and Ride Lot Program, annual adoption of the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Expenditure Plan, and review and updating of the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Implementation of these tasks will help carry out the strategies in the 2044 Update. Comments on Volume II of the Draft CTP Can page 45, the term "smart growth" .is used. While TRANSPAC appreciates that there is not universal agreement on a better, more descriptive term, we believe that the term is not sufficiently defined and that the use of "smart growth" may cause some readers to prejudge the merits of the Measure based on their own views of what "smart growth" means. For the time being, we strongly suggest deleting the term,and using other descriptive language. We also suggest that the first sentence in the last paragraph on page 45 be revised to indicate that there may (rather than "can," which assumes benefits a priori)be benefits to"smart growth"(or other descriptive language). Can page 49 under"Types of Grants" that would be available under the Contra Costa TLC Program, the funds are to be "administered by the RTPCs which would make recommendations for the Authority's approval.". TRANSPAC appreciates that the details of this program are in the development stage. Please note that TRANSPAC's view is that based on collectively established guidelines, the planning and capital grants would be chosen by the RTPCs and the funds administered by the Authority (see also "Program Funding" on page 54). foes the Plan language regarding "Authority approval" mean that RTPC choices for Contra Costa TLC funding may be overridden by the Authority or that an Authority action approving the allocation of the funds is required? This is a matter of some concern to TRANSPAC members. Under "NextSteps," the last paragraph on page 50, the text states that the Authority will develop detailed program guidance. TRANSPAC believes that in actuality,the Authority will develop program guidance, as it currently does, in concert with the RTPCs and local jurisdictions. If that is the case, the text should be revised to so indicate. Please also note that TRANSPAC opposes the requirement of a local match for these funds. Page A-18 is the description of the 1-680/SR 4 Interchange Improvements. Please revise the Phase III description to include that the mainline widening on SR 4 is proposed for carpo.ols and buses. Pages A-20 and A-21 describe improvements to"Local" Interchanges in Central County. Please revise the project and Alternatives description,title to "Freeway" Interchanges in Central County" which TRANSPAC 'believes is a more accurate description for the novice reader and should eliminate confusion with the"Local Arterials"category. 2 In addition, as this is a "roll-up" category in the Alternatives, please add a description of the SR 4/Willow Pass ramps submitted in TRANSPAC`s July, 2043 Measure C proposal for I-680/SR 242/SR 4 Improvements. Page A-26 describes the "North 1-680 HO'V Gap Closure," Please revise the title to "Northbound and Southbound'HOV Gap Closures on North 1-680." Page A-40 describes the "Bus Operations" category. There is no description of bus services funded outside of'Westem Contra Costa and the first sentence implies there are only the six programs funded in West County. The last sentence indicates that other (unnamed) transit agencies are also eligible for such funding. Please include a description of the services provided by County Connection and Tri- Delta, so that the reader can discern the countywide scope of this category. On page A-43, the Lamorinda School Bus Program is used as a reference for the Safe Transportation for Children: Central County Community/School Improvements Program. The Central County Community/School Improvements (CSI) Project does not include the provision of "school" bus service and is not located in Lamorinda. TRANSPAC suggests moving the reference to the previous page (A-42), which is a description of the Lamorinda School Bus Project where its use might prove beneficial to the reader. Page A-45 describes the Countywide Express Bus Service. 1n this context, does the acquisition of new buses for this service constitute a service related expense? Buses will need to be acquired for new service, Please note that TRANSPAC's July, 2003 Measure C submission did include funding for bus acquisition, signal management and additional bus facility capacity, as does its current proposed Alternative shown in Attachment C. Page A-51 includes a description of"Trip Reduction/TDM." The title is "transportationese" and not particularly illuminating to the public. Please create more instructive language, such as "Commute Alternatives Program." The project description and the "Current Status" section should include a discussion of the relationship between this program and requirements of the Growth Management Program. Please add Jahn Templeton, City of Concord, to the Plan's Acknowledgements page in the Executive Summary as well as Volumes I and 11. Comments on the Draft Environm+eantal lam act Report(SCH NO.2003062128) } 5-1 Chart S-1 on pages ES-6 and ES-29 should be labeled with the comparative evaluation information in the first full paragraph in the second column on page ES-3. 5-2 Chart S-1 on page ES-8 shows Mitigation Measure 2.2-2b for Alternatives B and C. The Mitigation Measure suggests using cleaner fuels such as electricity, instead of diesel, for the eBART project. The description of the Mitigation on page 2-44 and the text on page 2-48 should indicate that eBART electrificationcould significantly increase the cost of the project, and that electricity may be considered a"clean" fuel where it is used,but is not necessarily"clean"where it is generated. 5.3 please explain the reference to the San Francisco Police Department on page ES-22 under Noise Mitigation Measures,under the first clear bullet under the last black bullet on that page. 5-4 On Tables 1.2-1, 2.6-1, 2,10-1, 3.1-1 (and anywhere else)the Authority's title of"Local" Interchanges in Central County" is used. As noted above,please revise the project and Alternatives description title to "Freeway" interchanges in Central County. 3 9 5-5 On Page 1-25, second bullet, first column is the project description for "Trip Reduction/TDM," please see comment above regarding the name of this program. The project description indicates that "slight changes in the amount of funding will not significantly affect the TDM program." This section requires some revision to more fully describe the financial construct of the CC CAN program. Currently available TFCA funds, augmented by Measure C monies, fund the implementation of the CC CAN program. Given the State budget situation and the possibility of termination of the TFCA vehicle fee, it is unknown if TFCA funds will be available for the life of the reauthorized Measure. As a result, TRANSPAC believes that more stable funding is important, and supported a shift from using TFCA funds for these programs to the use of reauthorized.Measure C funds. TFCA funds may be used then for BAAQMD eligible programs and projects assuming the funds are available. 5-6 In the first full paragraph on page 3-2 in Chapter 3.1, an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the Growth Management Program (GMP) on coordinated transportation and land use planning is excluded as speculative. This sentence should be eliminated. Information should be included in the Chapter on the relative qualitative and/or quantitative (if possible) impacts of the Growth Management Program Alternatives. 5-7 On page 2-177, Table 2.10-I "Analysis of Potential Impacts on Cultural Resources from Major CTP 2004 Update Project" indicates that there are potential impacts on archaeological historical resources from the Martinez Intermodal Project. The Chart should be revised to eliminate potential impacts to historical resources that were analyzed in the Environmental Assessment document prepared under NEPA and accepted by FHVVA and Caltrans in May, 1996. No impacts on historical resources were found. 5-8 Page 3-5,`fable 3.1-2 is a Summary Comparison of No Project and Expenditure Plan Alternatives A, B and C. The No Project alternative includes all projects.in MTC's 2001 RTP and Alternative C includes all projects in MTC's 2001 RTP except for the Caldecott Tunnel. If the Caldecott Tunnel can be delivered absent the reauthorization of Measure C in the No Project Alternative, why isn't it assumed in Alternative C? Comments on Growth Mannement Program Options and Expenditure Plan Alternatives TRANSPAC has reviewed the Growth Management Program Options and has crafted a draft Growth ManagementProgram Proposal (GMP) based on those Options for discussion. TRANSPAC's alternative is shown in the CCTA's format in Attachment B. TR.ANSPAC's proposal is a blend of the three Options presented in the Plan and is intended to streamline the GMP while addressing the need for continued cooperative regional planning, demonstration of progress toward implementation of Housing Element Goals and joint City/County establishment of an Urban Limit Line with which all jurisdictions must comply. We believe that a viable GMP is essential to the future of Measure C. In addition, TRANSPAC has also developed an Expenditure Plan Alternative to be used as part of the discussion on,development of a measure for the ballot. Again, the Alternative is a blend of the three alternatives depicted in the Draft CTP and EIR as well as EPAC's alternatives. The Alternative is shown in Attachment C and some project names have been revised for clarity. Please note that TRANSPAC expects that audit requirements will be added for all projects and most likely performance standards for bus and paratransit operations. In addition,TRANSPAC's Alternative presumes that the various Measure funding categories may be used in combination with one another to complete a project or program funding requirements. The Commute Alternatives Program (formerly Trip Reduction/TDM) funding amount is to assure program continuation to meet GMP requirements given the possible future termination of TFCA funding. It assumed that TFCA monies, as long as available, 4 10 _ ,would be used for eligible BAAQMD projects such as signal timing, bicycle/pedestrian projects, traffic calming and smart growth. Express bus funds should available for capital, infrastructure, equipment, park and ride lots as well as operations. TRANSPAC proposes that CC-TLC funds be used for transportation planning or construction based on countywide criteria to reduce trips or trip length for residential and commercial development, landscaping capped at 10%project cost or the TLC grant. TRANSPAC anticipates that the CCTA will continue its practice of developing project and program requirements and guidelines in concert with its RTPCs and local jurisdictions. In addition, TRANSPAC reiterates its desire for the Maintenance of Effort provision to be able to be suspended in the event of a State Budget crisis. The State may waive its own Maintenance of Effort requirement in the event of a budget crisis; however, the authorizing legislation for Measure C is specific in its requirement that local option sales tax funds be used to supplement not replace existing revenues. The legislation does not address suspension of that requirement in the event of a State budge crisis. TRANSPAC believes that the OCTA may need to seek legislation to accomplish this goal and is prepared to assist its achievement. In conclusion,TRANSPAC suggests the development of chart of possible other funds sources for the projects and programs included in the Measure. While this information may be confusing to include in the actual Measure, TRANSPAC believes that it would be useful to those involved in the ballot measure development process,and possibly for presentation to various interest groups. TRANSPAC looks forward to the continuing to work with the OCTA and all of its partners on the development of the Measure and a favorable vote of the Contra Costa electorate. Sincerely, David E. Durant Chair CC, TRANSPAC Representatives , Bob McCleary, OCTA Martin Engelmann,OCTA Paul Maxwell, OCTA Ariell'e Bourgart,OCTA TRANSPAC TAC W:TransTinal CTP Comments Appvd 3 2 04 5 .Attachment A The Contra Costa Commute Alternative Network Several jurisdictions had TDM programs prior to the passage of Measure C in 1988, including the cities of Concord, San. Ramon, and Walnut Creek. Measure C required all jurisdictions in the County to have TDM ordinances (later amended to include ordinances or TDM resolutions). The purpose of these ordinances was to provide demand management methods to maximize the efficiency and capacity of the roadway system. The previously established city-sponsored TDM programs were combined into subregional RTPC programs overseeing countywide programs and local projects based on each RTPC need. The Authority has historically funded these programs using both Measure C and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) funds. In late 1999, the RTPC TDM Programs developed a unified identity called the Contra Costa Commute Alternative Network, or Contra Costa CAN. Some of the many Transportation Demand Management Programs and Projects developed and managed by the Contra Costa CAN staff include: • The Countywide Carpool Program encourages the formation of new carpools by providing ridematching services and a gas card incentive valued at $40 per participant. Carpoolers are. also informed of the locations of park&ride lots and transit connections. • The Countywide Vanpool Program promotes the creation and retention of vanpool by providing an incentive of 112 off the cost of joining a vanpool for the first three months, and a $1000 bonus for vanpool drivers for keeping a van on the road for 12 consecutive months. • The Countywide Transit Incentive Program promotes transit use by providing a BART, bus, or train pass valued at $32-$I10, depending upon the commute trip length. Participants are also given transit maps, schedules, and other trip-linking information. • The Countywide Guaranteed Ride Home Program offers either a taxi or rental car voucher up to six times per year for emergencies such as illness or unscheduled overtime, to anyone who works'in Contra Costa and uses a commute alternative. • The Contra Costa CAN programs support Employer-Based Trip Reduction efforts by working with employers in the development of parking management programs, assessment of worksite TDM needs, providing commute alternatives and Spare the Air and other transportation campaigns and fairs. Contra Costa CAN staff also provide commute alternative information and incentives directly to residents through the New Resident Program, by working with housing developers and city staff, and through direct mail and-advertising efforts. The public uses CC CAN's- toll free 1-860-833-4499 for transit trip planning and other transportation assistance. J * The Centra Costa CAN website is www.cecan.org and is the one-stop online resource for Bay Area transportation information. It includes services and incentives offered to employers, commuters, schools, residents and others needing commute alternative and incentive information. In addition, the CC CAN website hosts the RTPC websites for: TRANSPAC (www'.transpac.us) TRANSPLAN(www.transplan.us)and WCCTAC (www.wcctac.net). a The Countywide Bicycle Infrastructure Project provides bicycle lockers and racks for locations throughout the County annually. Bicycle and pedestrian trail maps are also distributed (East Bay Bicycle Coalition and East Bay Regional Park District maps, etc.). The Countywide Clean Fuel Vehicle Program assists in the expansion of clean fuel vehicle fleets as well as CNG infrastructure for locations throughout the County. + The Countywide SchoolPool Program provides ridematching services to parents .wishing to find carpool partners for their children, or free bus tickets and schedules for students K-college. 6 12 >• am o e r- sa . n .0 o v , ww608o o ccvt�. cz E u. o 0 co e "� o � c c m CL(L v ¢� zs o c2c0. Y ,+� cm rv `) '?MY C b b Q N Qccot O d{S j c N > +� 0 d A C c C N N - 4) t+'QE 'a C1 e 0 -0 - 0) o a LA C3 o o _C CC nS w +� y �7 Qy p tri cg > a. CT O c� a C J-- 0 ' CD d iN.1 d Gl E 10- m tS 0 r < d Cf`33 Cl w O — N C•0 -1N E C7 m �- ► _' 5 A) O it O RaS tis y Cl$_ K c IM 0 CL U. ° ( 0 vs ca c: V .,� t� sa 0cn VC gEcocz Ow t9 `o CC w. > v e c CL Et� �s a 4) CL ¢ c a� �v — a� o c coi =�0 m c > Z t, C 5. t:5 c D o in .. 0. to UJ m _ `v WJt a o c ao. � � drL CL s� >. tJ c v c Q ar c ¢i a > o x. o N c 0t� ° aci {} yct (D rs Uo a) � - rn� w � 0. 0 . - 00 0 rao o V) o O .c 0 CL o to V) c 00 o rn 0 .9 Ov � o �CL00 � � > 0 C � - 0)y C . }..• o r`a o W o c 4) CL a C cc Cr u� to •- m e _ o :. c to C� ;' � c c s m chi ( - > t- c co > .c e cs X t.7 c 4)i CC C LU Ci d 0 .0 0 � � N 0 t`�s m .!.. w Cn N 'C ill eo t3 =3 Q c c c , .� y o o u� a a ». - 0 n EL 0 'a 0 A � a w cu ' `? � aci c _LM o 0 � � � � � � a 0 cn ° 4) CL vs 2 — z Co a to i o' o "s c c ° s as a- -� a c air t- u 4. cCC . M > a o b t ar m C/5 ��- ami > 0 o C U CL }- i- cn CL : D 13 Fte�eiveeit 3/ ,8104 17.08; 4159288860 -> C.C. Transportation Auth. ; Page 1 03/A/2004 16:48 _ ... COVER PAGE TO : FROM : BA's ,AREA AIR QUALITY FAX : 4156256560 TEL: 4159288560 COMMENT 18 ... Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2003062128 Project Title 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Sales Tax Lead Agency (Measure"C")Reauthorization Contra Costa Transportation Authority Type ElR Draft EIR Description The 2004 Update will be the second major update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan(CTP)since It was first adopted in 1095.The CTS'serves as the long-range transportation-planning document for the CCTA.It outlines CCTA's goals and policies for Contra Costa's transportation system and outlines the framework by which transportation investment and policy is fashioned. Lead Agency Contact !Name Brad Beck Agency Contra Costa Transportation Authority Phone 525 256-4726 Fax 925 407-0128 email bbeck@ccta.net Address 3478 Buskirk Avenue,Suite 100 City Pleasant Hill State CA Zip 94523 Project Location County Contra Costa city Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways . San Francisco Bay and San Francisco Pablo Bays,Carquinez Strait Schools Land Use CTP and Measure Extension Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Population/Housing Balance;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation-,Water Quality;Water Supply; Growth Inducing; Biological Resources;Other Issues Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Fish and Game, Region 3;Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation-,San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Department of Water Resources;Caltrans,Division of Aeronautics; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2;Air Resources Board,Transportation Projects;Native American Heritage Commission;California Highway Patrol;Caltrans,District 4;Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning; Public Utilities Commission Date Received 01/20/2004 Start of Review 01/20/2004 End of Review 03/04/2004 Note: Blanks in data fields result from inl9fficient information provided by lead agency. ....... ...... . ... _ _. ...... ATTACHMENT C TRANSPAC PROPOSED EXPENDITURE PLAN APPROVED FEBRUARY 26, 2004 8 14 ANSPAC Proposed Expenditure Plan$Approved Pebrua 2S,2004 cts $M % $ M idecott Tunnel^ 145 9.0 50.5 ;ARTA 136 8,5 _ 9� Lte Route 4 Lovwid e to SR 150^ 100 8.3 MiMEMMMt e^{rapt#a#,infrastructure e ui m-nt, arklride lots,o -rations,etc. 80 5.0 s/o 20Mca &5.9M ann.o i€5ervice/Stai€ori lmpvt's at Hercu#es^ 10 0.6 at#cn Parkrn and Ferry landside#m t'sl"! " _ 10 0.6 €�rs Vasdo,Non-F SR4, SR4 ass,etc. contln -nt 18 FTO Sal e uarrtto preclude growth inducement maybe!^ 80/SR4 lnterchange^ 16 1.0 �eway i Interchanges in Central County^ 20 1.3 0 HOV and Interchange Improvements and Richmond Parkway^ 25 1.5 Pk Park&Ride 16 80 HOV Gap Closure and Direct Connectors^ 80 5.0 1-680 Sia Ext 15 ,fiT lm rovements^ 16 1.0 seismic 143& PHXover 35 eel Centra Costa Arterials 150 9.3 ;hmond and Hercules F r Landside lm vt's^ 20 1.3 Richmond 1 ridership stud ►brats#Projects 824 51.5 ca ramal cal Transportation Maint. Improvement Pro ects.Recel t re ulres GMP compliance 288 18.0 ansportation for Seniors and Peo ie with Disabilities 48 3.0 Is Operations^ 80 5.0 f-ff f ammute Alternatives Prograre* 32 2.0 abreglonal Senior&Disabled Persons Mobilia Pro ram. Funds divided Into regional 64 4.0 ares and allocated by the Regional Transportation Planning Commi##ees on a pro ectl ram basis to local jurisdictions for Seniors&Peo a w/Disabilites transportation local bus service. fibre lona€Safe Transportation for Children/Communy School Improvements/CC- 200 12.5 Bikes slo 22M plus ansportation for livable Communities Pro Tarn**/Pedestrlan/BIc cle/Trall Pro acts'** 30M CC s/o T-2030*** oval Transportation Maint. &improvement Projects.Eligible projects include,not nited to Lamor€nda &SRV School Bus Program/Central&Bast SchoolPool&Transit centives/bus irnpvts/West County School Bus Pass PLqgram; Pedestrlan/Bic Iles/ all Pr ects***/t-oval Street Maintenance-pro Is. ecel t of these funds predicated on revised Growth Management Pres ram ompliance and adoption of"Shaping Jur future" Principles. Funds divided to regional shares and allocated by Regional Transportation Planning omrnittees on a projecVprogram basis to local jurisdictions, ubtotal Programs 712 44.5 'titer drninlstration 16 1.0 iin ont _ 32 2.0 egional Planning _ 16 1.0 ubtotal Other 64 4.0 OTAL1,600 100.0 w possible future Federal/State$Candidate FFCA assumed at$1.2M annually or$24M over 20 years `CC-TLC funds for transportation ptolect planning or construction based can countnide criteria to reduce •ivs or trip fength for residerdial_and commercial development,fandscapfrig capped at 10%protect asst or TLC$a. 'Tedestrian/Bic cle/Tralls assumes credit for$30M Contra Costa's e/o 7-2tf30 fie fano Bicycle Program funds. ./0=share of eauth TRANSPAC Prapvsed t xpersd Pfau Appvd 226 Od.xfS 2 2�Q4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research ' G05 . State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold Jan Boel Schwarzenegger Acting Deputy Governor Director March 5, 2004 Brad Beck Contra Costa Transportation Authority MA ; 3478 Buskirk Avenue,Suite 100 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 GCTA# Subject: 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Sales Tax (Measure"C")Reauthorization SCH#: 2003062128 Dear Farad Beck: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse.has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on March 4,2004,and the comments from the responding agency(ies)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c)of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State.Clearinghouse review requirements for draft. envirourtiental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director,State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STRE19T P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 (916)445-0813 PAX(916)323-3018 www,opr.ca.gov 16 Racelved: 3/ 8/04 17:08; 4159288580 -> O.C. Transportation Auth. ; Pape 2 0?108 20134 16:48 4259288560 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY PAGE 92 March 8, 2004 Brad Beck Senior Transportation Plattner BAY AREA Contra Costa Transportation Authority Am C LJAC.ITY 3478 Buskirk Avenue,Suite 100 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 MANAGEMENT E7 ! 5 T R r C T Subject: 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive ALAXE0A COUNTY Transportation Plan and proposed Measure C Renewal Roberta Cooper Hawrty (Chaaon) Dear Mr. Beck: Nota Way s1lefla Young The Bay Area Air Quality Management District(District)staff have mceived CONTRACOSTA,Ct UN1Y your agency's Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the 2004 Update to the Mark D"2utntar , Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive'Transportation Plant(CTP 2004 Update)and Mafk Ross sed Measure C Renewal. The CTP is the long-range transportation plying Gayta L tkerna proposed (5aeretary) document for the County. The DEIR.evaluates three alternatives for the CTP 2004 Update:Alternative A emphasizes major regional projects over county-wide programs, MARIN COUNTY Alternative B divides revenue evenly between projects and programs; and Alternative rtarota C.Brown,Jr. C emphasizes programs over projects. 'l"kte DEIR also includes the analysis of alma COUNTY proposal to extend Measure C, a half-percent sales tax to fund transportation Brad wapenknecht improvements in the County,for twenty years starting in 2409. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(OCTA)intends to,put the proposed extension on the SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY November 2004 ballot. Gans Daly Jake McGoldrick Vacant 6-1 We agree with the conclusion in the DEIR that implane otation of the CTP 2004 Update could result in significant impacts on air quality. The Bay Area is SAN r+J COUNTY Jerry it currently a nonattaitnment area for federal and state ambient air duality standards for Mad d Tmmnsend ground level ozone and state standards for particulate matter. The air quality standards (Vice-Chairperson) arc set at levels to protect public health and welfare. Motor vehicles constitute the SANTA CLARA COUNTY largest source of air pollution in the Bay Area;therefore,promoting alternative less Uz KnIss polluting modes of transportation can significantly help reduce air pollution. We are Pattk Kwok concerned that this plata docs not adequately consider alternative modes of Julia Miller Dens Moser transportation,and we requiest that another alternative be analyzed that emphasizes air S©LANOCOMTr quality beneficial projects and programs in the CTP. John F.S Na s©ilcsiun COUNTY 6-2 We are especially concerned about the air quality impacts of increased vehicle Tim Smith utiles traveled(VMT)due to land use patterns supported by highway expansion Fannia Tofliatt projects proposed in the CTP 2004 Update. We do not agree with the statement made in the Induced Growth section(page 3-37)that states tmnsportation improvements do Jade P.Broadbent not induce growth in the County. We are concerned about the negative long-term xr=cu:tve cFrrMraPco impacts from tTavel induced by highway capacity expansion in corridors that connect high-growth areas,such as Eastern Contra Costa County,with more moderate-growth urban parts of the County. Alternative A, identified in.the DEIR as the environmentally superior alternative,proposes the highest percent expenditure on construction.of new highway and arterial capacity projocts. We understand that the short-term effect of such traffic flow impmvements is to reduce travel time for all drivers. However, increased 939 ELLIS STRCTT - SAN FttnNc'tSt U CALlfORNIA 94109 - 415.771.11000 - weara.hadgmd.g,,v 19 Received: 3J 8104 17:09; 4159288860 -> C.C. Tranaportatlon Auth. ; Page 3 031.08.12004 16:48 4159288568 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY PAGE 02 Mr,Brad Beck -2- March 8,2404 roadway capacity is quickly consumed by latent travel demand resulting in further congestion. In the interim,when driving becomes more convenient,there is less incentive to travel during non-peak periods,use transportation alternatives,work and shop closer to home,and avoid discretionary trips. Short-terra higher speeds ftom the additional capacity may induce some people to move to areas farther from their jobs, encouraging laud use changes that further increase V'MT and emissions. Especially in growing areas,highway capacity expansions can result in greater dependence on autornohitea thereby causing long-term increased air pollution and ether significant environmental impacts. 6-3 The air quality analysis provided in the DEIR presents an aggregate of the emissions from the three alternatives making it difficult to determine the air quality impacts of the individual proposed projects and programs. The lel IR indicates that emissions from neer vehicle trips under Alternative A will have a less than significant air quality impact while Alternatives B&C will have significant impacts. 'Please clarify whir your agency made that determination when V"MT is roughly the same 6-4 amongst the three alticrnatives. We also request clarification:on whether the emissions analyses include the impacts of induced travel for the alternatives that propose additional roadway capacity. 6-5 We recommend that the CCTA select an alternative which reduces congestion.in Contra Costa County through stir quality beneficial strategies such as improving transit service and pedestrians icycle access and facilities. 6-6 Finally,we support the Mitigation Measures listed under 2.2-2a for Alternatives B&C,and encourage the+OCTA to implement these measures regardless of which alternative is selected.for the CTP, and to mitigate the air quality impacts associated with the plan to the greatest extent possible. In.order to avoid Iong-term adverse impacts to air quality,the CTP should emphasize the link between land use,transportation and air quality. While we recognize that the OCTA does not make local land use decisions,we believe your agency's transportation plait for the County cart help local. decisionmakers and the public make choices at the local level that would help to reduce automobile dependency. Strategies include encouraging transit-oriented development near existing and proposed transit stations,designing streets and infrastructure to be safe and convenient for pedestrians and bicyclists,and providing appropriate U=sit,bicycle and pedestrian links between shopping and services to housing and jobs. We support the CC—TA's current and future efforts to improve air quality through the promotion of transportation alternatives to driving alone. If you have any questions regarding these comments,please contact Suzanne Bourguignon, Environmental Planner, at(413)749-5093. Sirncere Jack P.Broadbent Executive Officer/APCO .t�PR.SR cc: 3AAQMD Director Nfwk DeSaulnier BAA,.QMD Director Mark Ross 13f1AQMD Director Gayie uiik=A 20 Page 1 of 1 Brad Beck From: Franzen, Edward(efranzen@'7a ci.antioch.ca.us) Seat: Monday, March 08, 2004 4:55 PM To: 'bbeck@ccta.net Cc: Bernal, Ron Subject: comments on draft EIR for 2004 comprenhensive plan To Brad Beck at OCTA From Ed Franzen at City of Antioch March 8 , 2004 The following are some very brief comments on the public review draft January 20, 2004 7-1 pg 1-15 Should mention SR4 widening Alternate B at$125 million 7-2 pg 1-26 Safe transportation for children should be available for School children in East County also. 7-3 Pg 2-6 The EBMUD class I trail should be included especially since a bridge over the SR4 bypass will be needed. 7-4 Pg 2-149 eBart noise should be discussed: eBart noise may be lower than a large train as there are only 2 or 3 cars per train. 7-5 Pg 3-7 should discuss that not widening SR4 east to 8 lanes results in slower traffic, more air pollution and higher impacts on the neighborhood streets in Antioch and Pittsburg as drivers leave the freeway and drive through neighborhoods to avoid the gridlock. Appendix A 7-6 Pg A-4 The wording is not correct on James Donlon to Hidden Ranch Rd could it be Lone Tree Way widening from 4 to 6 lanes between Jaynes Donlon and Heidorn Ranch Rd? 7-7 lig A-10 Somersville rd should be between James Donlon and Buchanan Rd 4 lanes Buchanan Rd 4 lanes between Somersville Rd and Standard Oil Ave. Standard Oil Ave new 2 lane between Buchanan Rd and Delta Fair Blvd. There may be other items but the Spm deadline is almost here Thank you for accepting this by Email. Ed 3/8/2004 21 Egad Beck From: Michael Flake[mike_ �la€€akeyahoo.com] X1 Seat: Monday, March 03, 04 4:36 PM To: bbeckccta.net Subject: DEIS Dear Mr. Beck, Thank you for allowing me to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) developed by the Contra Costa Transportations Authority (CCTA) for the proposed renewal of Measure C. The DEIS supports continuation of Measure C and $-€ Alternative A as the preferred alternative, which is essentially how Measure C exists now. Although I view Measure C as beneficial to the citizens of Contra Costa County, Alternative A shouldCive allocated more proposed expenditures for .the program areas for bicycle/pedestrian trail efforts, transportation for seniors citizens and disabled persons, and safe transportation for children. The program areas could be combined, as these program areas do share some commonality. Therefore, 10d recommend that Table 1.2-1 be modified to combine all of these programs into single program and provide an increase in potential expenditures for this program need. Although the DEIS evaluates growth management 8-2 compliance through the Growth Management Plan (GMP) options, no single option contains a clarification on how a GMPs are to be held accountable. If a GMP were found to be deficient, what actions would be taken by the CCTA to cause withhold or denial of funding? In the past, some cities have submitted GMPs that were found to be deficient by the CCTAL7s Citizen Advisory Committee or to have an uncertified housing element, yet the CCTA still awarded the city its allocation. I recommend that the means for defining the denial or withhold of funds be clearly explained in the renewal of Measure C. This will ensure that cities with an adequate GMP are rewarded for expending resources and efforts to develop an adequate and acceptable GMP. The specific comments that I have on the DEIS are correlated to Table S-1 in the Executive Summary, which would entail a change to the main text, if the comment were accepted. The specific comments are as follows: 1. ) 2.2-1 Mitigation measure 2.2-1c targets only 8-3 buildings with asbestos, whereas the BAAQMD requires notification and controls for all structures regardless of the presence of asbestos. An asbestos survey is to be submitted as part of the notification procedures. If asbestos were found, it would cause the project sponsor to evaluate the controls needed and consult with the BAAQMD if needed. 2. ) 2.4-2 Caltrans does not have ordnances, but does $_4 have manuals, guidance and specifications for meeting the intent. 3. ) 2.5-1 Mitigation measure 2.5-1b should not attempt $-5 to identify pollutants, nor infer that elevated 1 22 structures are the sole problem. Recommend replacing statement with UControl discharges from facilities, so that pollutants in runoff do not affects wetland habitats.10 4 . ) 2.5-1 Mitigation measure 2.5-1e should be 8_6 rephrased, so that stabilization.s efforts are implemented for affected soils, which could be beyond the pillar location (e.g. abutments, access points, etc. ) . The use of Ustabilization effortsO over !.;!erosion controls,!: should be preferred, as erosion controls are not inclusive of geotechnical design efforts to stabilize affected soils. 5. } 2.5_1 Mitigation measure 2.5-1h is focused on 8-7 roads. ShouldnUt bike paths, rail structures, and other linear transportation facilities be included? 6. ) 2.6-2 Mitigation measure 2.6-2a is overly 8-8 prescriptive at defining equal intervals for soil sampling. It is best to leave this to the judgment of the professionals tasked with conducting the assessment or investigation of contaminants. 7. } 2..6-2 Mitigation measure 2.6-2b infers that 8-9 material is required to be disposed off--site. Some material might be acceptable for reuse within the project, especially in location where the public exposure is limited. This is evident in the lead variance issued to Caltrans by the Department of Toxic Substances control that allows reuse of soils containing elevated lead concentrations. 8. ) 2.6-2 Mitigation measure 2. 6-2c requires that Lull 8-10 construction shall stop.0 This statement is too bold, as only the operations affected by the tank may need to be stopped. Furthermore, why not just state that tank removal shall be done with the oversight of the appropriate regulatory agency and not name the County. We cannot predict if the County will continue to be the regulatory entity twenty years from now. 9. ) 2.7 -4 The impact is not only the impact to storm 8-11 water from impervious surfaces, but also the presence of pollutants in storm water that are indicative of the use. The description provided is. overly detailed and not entirely correct. The mitigation that should be performed is that contained in documents (i.e. Storm Water Management Pians) required under the applicable NPDES Permit for the projects. The applicable permit could include an individual NPDES Permit issued for the project, or be under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County NPDES Permit or the Caltrans NPDES Permit. Do you Yahoo! ? - Yahoo! Search - Find what you!.ire looking for faster http://search,yahoo.com 2 23 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND 18 Monte Cimas Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-380-8600 March 8, 2004 Brad Beck, Senior Transportation Planner Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill CA 94523 Re: 2004 GTP Update DEIR Dear Mr. Beck; TRANSDEl= is a Bay Area non-profit advocating for improved regional planning for transportation, land use and air quality. While we ordinarily focus on planning at the regional level, several of our colleagues requested that we review the DEIR for the 2044 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, out of doubt about its technical reliability. We are disappointed to report that this document is status quo planning which will result, absent intervention, in the commitment of extensive resources to an undesirable future of gridlock and congestion. Rather than take up the challenge of planning for a more desirable future, the DEIR remains stuck in the narrow confines of traditional transportation thinking. Given the projections of extreme congestion for even the Preferred Alternative, the absence of a focus on the linkage of transportation and land use is unacceptable. We present our specific comments below. Linking Land Use to Transportation The usefulness and credibility of the DEIR are seriously compromised by a series of decisions affecting the linkage of transportation and land use: 9-1 1. The modelling was based on a fixed 2025 land use, so that the distribution of transportation funding in each of the alternatives had no effect on location and 9-2 development decisions of 2025 residents. A massive investment in transit has little effect on ridership, due to development being assumed to following now- 9-3 obsolete auto-oriented county development trends. More sophisticated model- ling would be interactive between transportation and land use. 9-4 2. The planning process made no use of the County's million-dollar plus investment in Shaping Our Future. Given the current heightened recognition of the impor- tance of land use in solving transportation problems and the utterly unsatisfac- tory performance of even the Preferred Alternative, it is unconscionable to not study one or more Smart Growth alternatives. 9-5 3. The failure of any of the 2025 alternatives to perform tolerably as transportation raises the bar for mitigation. Whether as TCMs to mitigate the rate of increase in 24 VMT over the rate of population growth, to mitigate unacceptable levels of congestion, to mitigate the cumulative impacts of suburban growth, or for some other rationale, the DEIR needs to explore a variety of means to improve 2025 conditions. 9-6 4. TRANSDEF believes that conditioning local receipt of regional and state funds on compliance with a series of measures is the most obvious method of make local jurisdictions responsible for minimizing the impact of their development decisions on neighboring jurisdictions. This approach is being studied by ABAG and MTC as part of the implementation of the Regional Agencies Smart Growth process. 9-7 5. Another passible mitigation would be the imposition of a regional transportation impact mitigation fee. This would mitigate impacts beyond the earlier Measure C fees, and would apply to trips leaving local jurisdictions for points within Contra Costa, as well as outside the county. The fee would be based on auto trips generated, and would be waived for any project adjacent to frequent(15 minute peak headway) transit. Such a fee would help level the playing field between infill and greenfield development. Transit System Effectiveness 9-8 Something is very wrong in the assumptions about transit expansion for Alternatives B and C. Mode share outputs are unreasonable. Despite the expenditure of vast sums of money for transit, little change occurs in ridership compared to the No Project Alterna- tive. Because the highway mode will be very unpleasant to use, with high levels of congestion, a well-designed transit system on separate rights-of-way, HCV lanes or transit priority lanes should have significant travel time advantages. The fact that the mode share outputs fail to reflect this commonsense conclusion indicates that the .transit system coded into the model must be inferior to contemporary professional practice. in responding to this comment, please provide the following: 1. Travel times for transit and SOV travel for representative OID pairs. 2. Identify the design elements incorporated into the transit network to enhance ridership. 3. Explain how, despite the diversion of 15,700 VMTfday for transit riders away from Non-Transit Activity, it is reasonable that the model predicted that Non- Transit Activity actually increased by 2000 VMTlday. (Table 2.2-11) 9-9 When modelling an alternative with substantial increases in transit service, in order to be credible, current best practices must be incorporated. This has apparently not occurred in this DEIR. Elements that need to be included, at a minimum, are: Bus Rapid Transit, bus priority lanes, traffic signal priority, proof-of-payment, and extensive bus pass distribution systems. 25 TRANSDEF March 8, 2004 Page 3 Transportation Modelling 9-10 It is disturbing to see the Highway Lobby's oldest canard repeated yet again here: 'Widening the highway will relieve congestion.' Only, this time, the message is even more'egregious: 'Widening the highway is good for you and for the environment.' Through bogus air emissions modelling, discussed below, EIR preparers have the gall to conclude that auto-oriented Alternative A is environmentally superior to the other alternatives. This conclusion is based on assumptions that lead the model to predict higher average travel speeds for Alternative A. Obviously, no one there ever heard of induced demand. Contemporary thought is that adding road capacity encourages a further dependence on the auto, both for existing residents, and for those making decisions to locate jobs,and housing there in the future. This results in the increased capacity being 'used up' quickly, resulting in even higher future levels of congestion. Something is very wrong with a model that predicts new read capacity to still be available 25 years later. TRANSDEF challenges the model's conclusions that added road capacity will yield 9-11 higher 2025 average travel speeds. We laugh at the conclusion that Alternative A will have lower ozone precursor emissions than the other Build Alternatives. Besides our general disbelief, we also question whether the tiny quantitative differences in air emissions between the alternatives have any meaning for purposes of selecting an alternative. We doubt the differences are quantitatively significant, given the uncertain- ties in the model itself and grave doubt in its assumptions. Air Qualm: Criteria of Significance 9-12 The Criteria of Significance for air quality impacts were selected arbitrarily, bearing no resemblance to the criteria identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. They were made up of whole cloth, apparently by the EIR preparers, perhaps so as to create a distinction between the impacts of Alternative A and the other alternatives. DER Criterion 1, local violations of air quality standards, is not a recognized criterion. Studies on diesel off-road equipment indicate that construction is a highly polluting activity, emitting carcinogenic and asthma-exacerbating particles. Following the suit by Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District against Caltrans (which followed the publication of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines), it is now recognized that best practices for public agency construction contracts require the provision of equipment meeting the most current GARB diesel standards. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines require that a plan such as the CTP Update demonstrate consistency with the adopted Clean Air Plan. "Plans showing a VMT growth rate higher than the population growth rate would be considered to be hindering progress towards achieving this performance objective[due to absence of adequate TCMs], and thus inconsistent with regional air quality planning. This would represent a significant air quality impact." (p. 22) The DER instead uses a bogus '5% increase over No Project' criterion,which has no foundation in science or law. Because the Bay Area is a Non- 26 TRANSDEF March 8, 2004 Page 4 Attainment area for ozone under the one-hour and eight-hour federal standards and the state standard, any increase in ozone precursors is a matter for concern. Environmental Justice 9-13 The criteria for significant impacts on Environmental Justice captured the potential harmful impacts, but failed to state Criterion 3: A significant impact will occur if the project as a whole will result in disproportionately fewer benefits to minority or low income neighborhoods. Not only should this criterion be added, potential impacts should be evaluated. Environmentally Superior Alternative 9-14 The analysis of the Environmentally Superior Alternative suffers from the garbage- in/garbage-out syndrome. As demonstrated above, the Impact Significance conclu- sions on transportation, air quality and energy impacts are unsupportable and counter- intuitive. At best, Table 2.1-5 documents only an 8% difference between alternatives in 9-15 hours of delay/day. Given the dubiousness of the model outputs, a difference of this magnitude is not an adequate basis on which to make decisions. In fact, even using the questionable data, Alternative C has the greatest beneficial impact on freeway delay of all the alternatives! On the other hand, the conclusion that Alternative C would have the least land use impacts is robust and convincing. Less agricultural lands would be converted to suburban development under Alternative C. TRANSDEE strongly urges the OCTA to identify Alternative C as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Growth Inducement 9-16 TRANSDEI` believes that the DEIR looks at the issue of growth inducement backwards. Rather than look at consistency with local plans, which fail to take regional and sub- regional impacts into consideration, this DEIR is the appropriate place to look, first, at the consequences of growth, and then, at the management of growth. It is only at the regional or sub-regional level that potentially effective responses to a predicted future of congestion and gridlock can be formulated. Not only do we disagree that "Second, due to existing congestion, transportation plays a minimal role in attracting or inducing new development for the county as a whole,,,we are convinced that active intervention through the programming of transportation funds as part of a comprehensive Smart Growth program could act as a lever to shift development trends in the direction of a more benign pattern of development and make the future a more attractive place to live. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan. Sincerely, /s/ David Schonbrunn President 27 T SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 San Francisco Bay Chapter Serving the counties of Alameda,Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco March 8, 2004 TO: Centra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Ave Pleasant Hill, Ca. 94523 Att Brad Beck From: Kathleen Nim r RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report 2004 Plan Update Dear Sir General CoInMpnts €Q-1 First, some general remarks that affect the entire document and its conclusions. It is difficult to guess the methodology used to measure impacts but it appears that your model makes the assumption that widening roads decreases congestion, even though more than 70 years of documented experience of road widening in the US contradicts this bellef, €0-2 The document also mentions Saving Our Future (SOV) and the model it €0-3 generated, but does not use this model. It also does not recognize that, in the process of developing Saving Our Future elected officials and the public expressed the belief that our present models do not work and a new vision is required. Alternative A and, to some degree Alternative B, preserve this status quo approach. 10-4 This document also gives no attention to the aspect of Measure C that encourages higher density growth and emphasis on decreasing use of Single {occupant Vehicles. Is the reason for this omission due to the fact that our "Transportation Model" cannot include so called programs into our highway model? Office: 2530 San Pablo Ave.,Suite 1, Berkeley,CA 94702 `1'el.(510)848-0800 E-mail:san-francieco-bayebapterOrierractub.org Bookstore:6014 College Avenue,Oakland,CA 94618 "1`e12(W)658-7470 E-mail: info@sierraclubbookstore.com 9 As a result of this bask flaw, many of the conclusions based as they are on the status quo, are completely skewed. io-s The ether generic comment is the exclusion of existing EIR's prepared for the Highway Four Bypass, Martinez Intermodal Project and the Caldecott Tunnel which would presumably give more specific information about these projects. Irasumation and Circulation 10-6 p. 2-10 and 2-11 assumes the construction of the Caldecott Tunnel in the No Project scenario. Since the Caldecott Tunnel requires Measure C funding this is not the case. 10-7 p. 2-11-12 It is unclean to me why transit:projects cannot be Incorporated into the travel model. Both the school bus program and the TDM program have long histories. io-s p. 2-12 It is unclear why the addition of express buses cannot be included In a model to estimate the numbers of SOV's (Single Occupant Vehicles) that will be taken off the road that could presumably reduce LOS. 10-9 P. 2-15 The statement "it is also noted that residents will be less likely to travel further distances for work as congestion grows" cannot be justified. The history of the east county (and indeed all of Contra Costa county) belies this conclusion. A more rational conclusion might be that people might be influenced to change travel made (from individual auto use) if viable alternatives are provided. i o-i o p. 2-18 On Table 2.1-9 Why would transit boarding decrease with the construction of E BART? 10-11 Table 2.1-10 why is the walking mode unchanged. if Alternative C promotes walkable communities? Air Quality 10-12 It should be noted that emissions from BART sloes not account for cold start driving to DART stations. Therefore Alternative A would increase these emissions. 29 10-13 p. 2-41 why is there an increase in bus transit with Alternative A? 10-14 p. 2-42 why is increase in bus transit not offset with decrease in SOWS? 10-15 P. 2-44 Add to Mitigation Measures the 28% increase in transit required 'under the TCM 1 of the SIP Plan 1982. 10-1 6 There is no accounting for land use changes under Alternative C. Energy- 10-17 p. 2-49 there is no recognition that in the trend toward increasing use of SUVs which would probably be encouraged with improvement in roads, nor the tradeoff between riding a bus and driving. scisinic 10-18 p 2-74 Statement that Alternative C's "small projects" might create seismic damage due to lank of information can easily be quantified by Identifying projects as increase in transit, striping bike lanes, etc. which might ,show this statement as tenuous at best. 10-19 p. 2-213 the statement. In a vast majority of instances in the Bay Area transportation improvements are merely "catching up" to serve existing or planned development, rather than influencing the pattern of development Is merely an opinion as it applies to Contra Costa County. The stated purpose of the original Measure C was to "correct past sins', and therefore catching up, and that new development would pay its own way. So an alternative opinion might be that new projects in East County were not paid for up-front at all and that the Measure C contributions merely encouraged new developments farther out. Those new residents now clamor to catch up because the new developments did not provide adequate funding for transportation, either with roads or alternative transit.. The existence of Measure C provided an investment to encourage more auto dependent developments farther and farther away. 30 The entire "analysis" here is based on past experience and has no presumption that the change in culture envisioned by Shaping our Future and Alternative C would change habits. And, again, Is based on the false premise that road widening, would decrease congestion and not merely create induced demand in future years. 10-20 p. 2- 21.4 assumes that the land use plans of jurisdictions have been consistently scrutinized.for compliance by the Transportation Authority. This statement would be vigorously contested by many who have observed the process during the last 15 years. Environmental justice We appreciate the inclusion of this section which, we know Is not required.. under CE(A, but has been a concern of many community members. 10-21 p. 2-221 It appears that our current practices are in violation of SB 115 which requires equitable transportation services to the public, including minority and low income populations. The approach the report takes in analyzing effects on land use in poor or minority neighborhoods.is questionable since much of the county is not minority or poor. But the reports rightly concludes that Alternative C provides the most benefit under Environmental Justice considerations. But it should include in its analysis the possibility of provide more diverse Dousing in other parts of the county and the methods to accomplish this. 10-22 The report might also paint out that the regressive nature of the sales tax falls more painfully on lower income residents, and forces them to pay for high capital expenses for roads while they themselves are transit dependent. This may be a violation of environmental justice principles. 31 ^' x 1600 Franklin Strut, Oakland, CA 94612 -Ph. 5101$51-4716- Fax. 5101851-7157 Rick Fernandez General Manager March 8, 2004 Ms. Julie Pierce Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Ave., Suite 100 Pleasant bill, Ca. 94523 Re: Expenditure Plan, Transportation Plan, and Environmental Impact Report Dear Chair Pierce and Members of the Authority: This letter is to transmit AC Transit's comments at this time concerning Contra Costa —bounty's--transportation-sales—tax--fefttbo4zation -C"I -Expenditure-PJan,—..� Transportation Plan, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these documents as the Contra Costa Transportation Authority formulates its plans. Our comments also reflect the concerns of members of the AC Transit Board of Directors. Contra Costa County is a critical part of our service area and service planning efforts. Contra Costa County is literally the "C" in AC Transit's name. In Centra,Costa County, AC Transit carries some 6.5 million passengers annually--the most of any bus transit agency in the County. We provide service on 4 Transbay and 12 local routes, including the San Pablo Rapid--our first Rapid route. AC Transit's Contra Costa service area has a population of approximately 175,000--almost 20% of the County's population-- including the cities of El Cerrito, Richmond, and San Pablo, North Richmond and several unincorporated areas. AC Transit provides service to four Contra Costa County BART stations and one Capitol Corridor station. EXPENDITURE.PIAN AC Transit's position on the sales tax reauthorization Expenditure Plan continues to reflect the position articulated by the Bus Transit Coordinating Council (BTCC), made up of all four bus transit operators in Contra Costa County. In June 2003, BTCC endorsed five funding principles for the Expenditure Plan: 32 March 8, 2004 AC Transit Measure C Comments Page 2 of 5 • Local bus operations should receive at least 10% of measure funds, doubling its current share of funding or at least$160 million countywide over 20 years • Paratransit (described as Transportation for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities) should receive at lust 6% of measure funds ($96 million), doubling its current share of funding; • Express bus service should receive capital and operating funds adequate to carry out the Contra Costa Express Bus Study. This figure was subsequently estimated by Tri Delta Transit staff'at $158 million countywide over 20 years; • Highway and roadway improvements that support express bus service, such as HOV lanes, exclusive access lanes, park and ride facilities, and transit signal priority should be funded; = Regions of the county that are particularly transit-oriented should be funded for supplemental transit and paratransit programs, developed through Regional Transportation Planning Committees(RTPCs). AC Transit continues to support those principles and recommends funding levels in the Expenditure Plan that are no less than specified in the BTCC proposal. These funds could be structured simply as countywide programs or there could also be specific funding] for West County, since it has indicated that bus transit is its top priority. We have two additional nates on funding. Paratransit: Paratransit funding should be equitably allocated to all operators providing ADA mandated service in Contra Costa County. East Bay Paratransit Consortium--consisting of. AC Transit and BART--provides all ADA-mandated paratrasit in our service area but is not currently funded through Measure C. Bus Project: The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) has proposed a bus project of $6.7.4 million over 20 years to support additional bus services in bath the AC Transit and the Westcat service areas. We support this request; it is vital to meeting the great demand for local transit service in West County. WCCTAC has stated that local bus service is the highest priority funding item for West County. OCTA has requested that agencies evaluate how well various alternatives meet their needs. The only proposals that can easily be modified to meet the BTCC requirements are Expenditure Plan Alternative C ("Program Focus") and the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) proposal. AC Transit therefore recommends that the Expenditure Plan be based either on Alternative C or on the EPAC proposal. 33 March 8, 2034 AC Transit Measure C Comments Page 3 of 5 TRANSPORTATION PLAN AC Transit has the following comments on the Transportation Plan (Volume 1) Land Use and Travel Projections. The Transportation Plan is using assumptions that are not consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is based on the Association of Say Area Governments` Projections 2003- which includes modifications to growth projections to incorporate some degree of smart growth planning. This inconsistency undermines the validity of the Plan, and the EIR, which is based on similar assumptions. The inconsistency is related to our most serious concern with the Transportation Plan as a planning document: The Tranl2ortation Plan assumes that the development patterns for Contra Costa County for the next 20 years are fixed (the EIR makes similar assumptions). There is no analysis of the effect that differing transportation investment packages--such as these represented by the 3 alternatives--would have on land use In Contra Costa. This is a particularly serious omission given the ongoing work of the Shaping Our Future process, which has now been endorsed by the County Board of Supervisors and 18 of the 20 cities in Centra Costa County. The AC Transit Board of Directors has indicated that it plans to transmit a separate letter, urging CCTA to integrate Shaping Our Future into the sales tax reauthorization process. The Transportation Plan includes Strategy 2.4 to "Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of the transportation system, consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions." However, the Plan states that "The decision to make or encourage these changes in land use, however, rests with local jurisdictions." The Authority's rale is only to "encourage" these changes and provide technical analysis supporting them. Strategy 3.4 calls for the plan to "Support transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly development." This call is supported (in Alternatives B and C and the EPAC proposal) by funding for a new and as yet undefined "Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities Incentive Program." However, in neither case are alternative transportation programs assumed to have any impact on land use patterns. Given this approach, it is not surprising that the Plan concludes that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will not only continue to increase, but continue to increase faster than population. Such an outcome is of course not preordained, but changing the trend that CCTA cites would require changes in land use patterns. 34 March 8, 2004 AC Transit Measure C Comments Page 4 of a Social Equity: The discussion of equity issues in the Plan is inadequate. The only time that the Flan discusses equity issues is when it notes the perceived inequity of High UccupancyfToll (HUT) lanes as "Lexus lanes." The Plan should incorporate an environmental justice analysis that considers at least the following issues: • Equity impacts of funding road projects versus transit projects and programs, since transit projects and programs generally serve a population whose average incomes are lower. * Equity impacts of funding rail projects versus bus service. * Equity impacts of projects that serve infill development versus greenfield development. • Equity impacts of funding investments in various cities and communities. Highways and Transit: We also take note of the Plan's description of highway and transit operations. We note that highway congestion (as graphed in the Plan) increased despite numerous capacity-expanding measures. This suggests that highway capacity expansion is not necessarily the best strategy for Contra Costa County. The Plan also states that transit ridership is correlated with the presence of a BART station. While there is some relationship between the two; San Pablo is a community with high transit ridership and no BART station. In its discussion of why people drive rather than take transit, the Plan should note the fact that bus passengers transferring to BART must pay an extra fare, while drivers to BART can generally park for free. We would also note that the San Pablo Rapid service makes the areas around Rapid stops eligible as Infill Opportunity Zones under recently enacted state legislation. Finally, the Plan incorrectly describes some of AC Transit's proposed projects in Contra Costa County, particularly with regard to the San Pablo corridor. The projects submitted for Measure C funding are correctly described in the Expenditure Plan Alternatives volume. AC Transit staff will correct the Transportation Plan database.. Environmental Impact Report(EIR) i -i AC Transit's major concern about the EIR is that it declares Alternative A--which places the heaviest emphasis on adding freeway and highway capacity--to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The EIR reaches this conclusion on the basis of marginally different estimates of air pollutants between the alternative. The differences between these estimates could easily be eliminated by slight changes in assumptions used. 35 March 8, 2004 AC Transit Measure C Comments Page 5 of 5 11-2 In addition, the EIR admits that it does not consider the potential effect of the TLC 11-3 program, which could result in more compact development patterns. Igor is Shaping 11-4 aur Future and land use changes it might cause part of the analysis. The EIR does not consider the impact of other transportation investments in generating either more compact or more sprawling development patterns, thereby changing transportation 11-5 patterns and environmental impacts. It is also unclear if the air quality analysis in the EIR considered how bus engines are continually improving their emission performance. 11-6 These considerations invalidate the conclusion that Alternative A is environmentally superior, therefore there should be a reanalysis considering likely development patterns. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on these important documents. If you have any questions about these comments, please let me know. Yours truly, Rick Fernandez General Manager AC Transit RCF/nl/clt Cc. AC Transit Board of Directors Robert McCleary, Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Lisa Hammon, Executive Director, West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Charles Andersen, General Manager, Westcat Rick Ramacier, General Manager, County Connection Jeanne Krieg, General Manager, Tri Delta Transit 36 EXHIBIT D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Trans- portation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NCI. 2803062128) Addendum to the Final EIR Proposal for Adaption May 19, 2004 In response to the many comments received on the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) al- ternatives analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and Proposed Meas- ure C Extension, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) has developed a pro- posed TEP that refines and improves on the alternatives analyzed in the FEIR.The Authority also has proposed several other minor changes to the CTP. This document, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000 et seq., constitutes an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on the draft 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan(CTP) and pro- posed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128).This Addendum outlines the changes to the project, as analyzed in the FEIR, and evaluates whether those changes, or new information or changed circumstances,would require substantial changes to the impacts identified or miti- gation measures proposed. CEQA provides that "[t]he lead agency...shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." (CEQA Guidelines S15164(a).) The referenced provision states that "no subsequent ETR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: ■ "Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the previously prepared EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant ef- fects; ■ "Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involve- ment of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; ■ "New information of substantial importance becomes available which shows new sig- nificant effects or significant effects substantially more severe than previously discussed, or which shows that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be fea- sible or that are substantially different from those analyzed in the EIR would substan- tially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment." As discussed below in the section entitled "Evaluation of the Proposed Expenditure Plan and Growth Management Program," there is no substantial evidence that supports any of these conclusions. The analysis conducted in this section establishes that the changes in the project do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.There is no new information that shows that new mitigation 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE ANAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce any environmental effect are available, or that mitigation measures or alternatives previously thought to be infeasible would, in fact,be feasible and would substantially reduce any environmental effect. This analysis provides the basis for the Authority's decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the Authority "shall" prepare an addendum when these conditions have not been met but"some changes or additions" to the previously certified EIR are necessary.This Addendum first sets forth the changes and additions to the previously certi- fied EIR and then considers the impacts of each change in light of the assessment of each im- pact in the EIR. This analysis concludes that there are no significant impacts or substantial in- creases in impacts and that no new or previously-rejected mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially reduce the impacts of the changes. Description of the Project This EIR analyzes the effects of adoption and implementation of the proposed 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP 2004 Update) and extension of Measure C,which includes a proposed new Expenditure Plan and an update of the 1988 Growth Management Program (GMP). Measure C,which was approved by Contra Costa vot- ers in 1988, imposed a half-percent retail transaction and use tax.The revenues from this tax have been used to implement the "Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Expenditure Plan" adopted as part of Measure C. Among other things,Measure C calls for the Authority to prepare and update a Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP).The CTP is serves as the long-range transportation planning document for Contra Costa. It outlines the Authority's vision for Contra Costa,goals and strategies for achieving that vision, and future transportation priorities.The CTP 2004 Up- date is intended to carry out four main goals: • Reduce future congestion on highways and arterial roads; • Manage the impacts of growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy and preserve its environment; • Expand travel choices beyond the single-occupant vehicle; and ■ Maintain the transportation system. The CTP builds on and incorporates the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance which establish objectives for the functioning of the regional transportation system and actions for meeting those objectives.Jurisdictions and other agencies within each of the regions of Contra Costa work cooperatively to prepare and carry out the Action Plans. The Authority adopted the first CTP in 1995 and completed the first major update to it in 2000. The 2004 CTP Update is the second major update. It refines the Authority's vision and goals and strategies for achieving it, updates information on projects and existing and future May 19,2004 ( Page 2 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ................................„ .,..,,,.,,.a,...,,,..,,.,..,. ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT conditions within Contra Costa and the region, and revises the measures needed to implement the plan. The 2004 CTP Update focuses on the extension of Measure C as an important meas- ure for addressing future problems and achieving the Authority's vision. Measure C,adopted as a 20-year sales tax measure,will expire in 2009. The proposed exten- sion of Measure C would continue the sales tax into the future and establish a new Expenditure Plan and revised Growth Management Program. The Expenditure Plan would allocate expected sales tax revenues to a wide variety of projects and programs. The revised Growth Management Program outlines requirements that local jurisdictions must meet to receive funding from cer- tain programs in the Expenditure Plan. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DRAFT AND FINAL EIR The Draft EIR, released on January 20, 2004, and the Final EIR, certified on May 19, 2004, analyzed the potential effects of three alternative Expenditure Plans and three GMP options. These alternatives are described below and summarized in the tables on the following pages. Expenditure Flan Alternatives The three Expenditure Plan alternatives---Alternative A "Project Focus",Alternative B "Local Focus" and Alternative C "Program Focus"—represent different mixes of specific projects, categories of capital improvements, and other transportation programs. While there is some overlap among the three alternatives, they emphasize different approaches to and emphases on improvements to the transportation system. Alternative A "Project Focus” The first alternative represents a continuation of the current Measure C funding approach–69 percent($1.1 billion) for projects, 27 percent ($432 million) for countywide programs, and the remaining for contingencies,planning and administration. It emphasizes major regional projects and facilitates the early delivery of regionally significant capital improvements such as the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel and eBART. Approxi- mately $432 million (27 percent) is allocated for countywide programs. Project funding in- cludes funds for new rail transit and state highways in East County, the Caldecott Tunnel,pro- jects on I-680 to close HOV gaps, and BART improvements. Alternative B "Local Focus" The second alternative divides expected sales tax revenues about evenly between programs and projects. It reflects requests for projects and program fund- ing received from the Regional Transportation Planning Committees. Under this alternative, projects receive $746 million (47 percent) and programs $790 million (49 percent). Alternative B doubles funding for bus operations,increases paratransit funding from three percent to five percent,adds the proposed Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities Program ($32 million or two percent of the total), funds the Richmond and Hercules ferries and pedes- trians and bicycle projects, and creates a new "safe transportation for children" program with five percent of available revenues.The Caldecott Tunnel Fourth bore, Route 4 in East County, and eBART are included in Alternative B, but at reduced funding levels compared to Alternative A.Funds for completing HOV gaps on the freeway system as well as BART improvements are reduced, compared to Alternative A. May 19,2004 1 Page 3 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) .....__... ..............__.... .........,...........,.»..,,.,..... ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Alternative C "Program Focus" The third alternative emphasizes programs ($1.256 bil- lion, 78 percent) and de-emphasized major regional projects ($280 million, 18 percent). The 78 percent for countywide programs is principally for transit operating subsidies and local trans- portation grants,which have traditionally been difficult to obtain from other sources. The "Program Focus" alternative provides funding for ferry service ($50 million) as well as bus op- erations (which increases to 1.5 percent in this alternative). Paratransit funding would receive $208 million (13 percent). While Alternative C reduces funding for the Local Transportation Maintenance and Improve- ments program to $160 million (10 percent), the proposed Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities Program receives a total of$240 million (15 percent). The amount ear- marked for capital projects ($280 million) would be used for eBART, completion of HOV gaps, and 1-80 HOV improvements. Growth Management Program Options The three GMP options all begin with the recognition that the existing Measure C GMP has brought tangible benefits to the residents of Contra Costa, although it has not always been easy to administer. Therefore,all three alternatives would continue several of the provisions in the existing GMP. the growth management element(GME); local and regional development miti- gation programs; cooperative multi-jurisdictional planning; the Capital Improvement Program; and the Transportation Systems Management(TSM) ordinance or resolution. It would stream- line or eliminate other requirements to improve the programs overall effectiveness. While the three GMP options share these elements, they also differ in several important ways, reflecting a variety of issues, concerns and differing opinions on how the Authority, through the GMP and the RTPCs can best meet Contra Costa County's future growth management and transportation needs. May 19,2004 1 Page 4 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Expenditure Plan Alternatives Analyzed in EIR Alternative A Alternative 8 Alternative C Project Focus Local-Focus Program Focus Projects % $ ...Saldecot,t Tunnel 125 7.8 100 6.3 0 0.0 e-BART 174 10.9 150 9.4 150 9.4 ...........-.--_.- State Route 4(Somersville to SR1 60) 150 9.4 125 7.8 0 0.0 .................... ................................ ............ . ......... ...... Capitol Corridor Rail Service&Station Im- 70 4.4 20 1.3 0 0.0 provements at Martinez and Hercules East County Corridors(Vasco, Non-Freeway 140 8.8 50 3.1 0 0.0 SR4, SR4 Bypass,etc.) 1-680/SR4 Interchange 70 4.4 25 1,6 0 0.0 Local Interchanges in Central County 30 1.9 15 0.9 0 0,0 1-80 HOV and Interchanges Improvements 65 4.1 15 0.9 30 1.9 ... ........... 1-680 HOV Gap Closure and Direct Connectors 100 63 40 2.5 100 6.3 ......_._....w_.__,.... ._..._,........__..,...._.......__.......... ............. Richmond Parkway 15 0.9 is 0.9 0 0.0 ........... ................... ............ ......-___-..--.--_. BART Improvements 100 6 0.9 0 0.0 Local Arterials 65 4.1 176 11.0 0 0.0 Subtotal Projects 1,104 69.0 746 46.6 280 17.5 Programs $ % $ % Return to Source 288 18.0 288 18.0 160< 10.0 Smart Growth 0 0.0 32 2.0 240 15.0 Bus Operations 80 510 160 10.0 240 15.0 Safe Transportation for Children 0 0.0 80 5.0 80 5.0 Express Bus Service 0 0.0 30 1.9 150 9.4 Ferries 0 0.0 40 2.5 50 3.1 Transportation for Seniors and People with 48 3.0 80 5.0 208 13.0 Disabilities _._.._ __w._..__._.............._...._...._.....,,..._..__._,_._ Pedestrians,Bicycles and Trails 0 0.0 48 3.0 80 5.0 Trip Reductiorv7ransportation Demand Man- 16 1.0 32 2.0 48 3.0 agement Subtotal Programs 432 27.0 790 49.4 1,256 78.5 Other $ % Administration 16 1.0 16 1.0 16 1.0 Contingency 32 2.0 32 2.0 32 10 Regional Planning 16 1.0 16 1.0 16 1'0 Subtotal Other 64 4,0 64 4.0 64 4.0 Totals 1,600 100.0 1,600 100.0 1,600 100.0 May 19,2.004 1 Page 5 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCHNo. 2003062128) >............ ... .... ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Option 1: Refinements to Existing GMP Option 1 can be seen as a baseline alternative and represents a continuation of the existing GMP program with some changes to respond to con- cerns raised by the RTPCs and others involved in the Measure C Extension. One modification from the existing GMP program is the provision of an LOS traffic exemption for Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) and Pedestrian-Oriented Development (POD), and/or traffic management corridors.This is consistent with new state legislation on infill opportunity zones that could be created under the Authority's Congestion Management Program (CMP) and could remove potential conflicts between the GMP and the CMP.Another modification is the explicit addition of self-certification as a way for local jurisdictions to satisfy the existing re- quirement for a housing Element that complies with Housing Element law as interpreted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Option 2: Streamlined Program with Housing Focus and County ULiL Program In com- parison with Option 1,Option 2 eliminates LOS standards for non-regional routes and the requirements for performance standards for public services. This latter proposal makes sense in light of the new mandates established for Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs), which set spheres of influence boundaries for cities and approved annexations. LAPCO's new role requires that it undertake municipal services reviews, update sphere of influence bounda- ries every five years, and consider new criteria in making decisions on extension of governmen- tal services, including promoting orderly development, discouraging urban sprawl, preserving opens space and prime agricultural lands, and providing affordable housing. Option 2 removes the requirement for an HCD-approved or self-certified housing element,but replaces it with a new, and potentially more challenging, requirement that jurisdictions demon- strate progress towards achieving the goals and quantified objectives set in their housing ele- ments using a rolling seven-year average.The CIP alternative offered under Option 2 eliminates the requirement of meeting traffic LOS standards for non-regional routes, thereby simplifying preparation and review of that program. Option 2 also includes a requirement for local compliance with the Urban Limit Line approved by Contra Costa voters in Measure C-1990. Option 3: Streamlined Program with Cooperative Planning Focus Option 3 presents a streamlined GMP by eliminating all traffic LOS and performance standards and requirements for a Housing Element that complies with HCD's requirements. Provisions for Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance would be eliminated,although jurisdictions must still work co- operatively to mitigate traffic on regional routes.The existing General Plan Amendment Re- view process that links land use decisions to impacts on regional routes also would be elimi- nated. Finally, local jurisdictions would work together to jointly establish a new ULL with which all must comply. This could offer additional flexibility, consistent with the spirit of co- operative planning established by the existing Measure C. May 19,2004 ( Page b Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128)}+yYy ....... ..... . .. ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GMP Options Analyzed in EIR GMP Component Caption I Option 2 Option 3 Geo'wih Manage- jurisdictionsadopt a Same as Option'I Same as Option I ment Eieme>t General Plan GME that (GME) pledges to Implement--- key mplementkey GrowthManagp- went resp,b sibilities: Development Miti- jurisdictions continue Same as Option I Same as Option I gation Program local and regional mitiga- tion programs. Cooperative,Multi- Continue RTPC forums, Same as'Optlon I Same as Option 1 jurisdictional#'lan; standardized models and ning evaluation methodology, and assement of per- f6 of Regional Routes. TSM Ordinance or jurisdictions must adopt Same as Option 1 Same as Option I Resolution and ordinance or resolu- tion consistent with Au- thority model resolu- tion. Traffic Level of Ser. Allow exemptions for Eliminate Eliminate vice'(LOS)Stan- Transits or P+edestran- dards for Non- Oriented Development Regional Routes (TCO or.PCD),conSis� tent with Authority; guidelines. Action Plan Traffic Keeps TSOs on Regional Same as Option 1 Eliminate Action Plans, Service Objectives Routes,with exemptions GPA review process, (TSOs)for Routes for TOD or,POD,con- and conflict resolution of Regional Signifi- sistent with Authority process cance guidelines. Performance Stan- jurisdiction establish Eliminate I I I IEliminate dards standard for capitaFfa- cilitles for fire,.policed, parks,,sanitary,water, and flood control. Five-Year CIP jurisdictions prepare CIP jurisdictions prepare Eliminate to meet or maintain CIPS traffic and facility stan- dards. Housing Options '° Continue.Allow either Using a,rolling 7-year Eliminate and job- HCD approval or self average*,jurisdictions Opportunities certification. must demonstrate pro- gress towards achieving goals set in their Hous- ing Element Urban Limit Line No requirement for an Require local compliance Local jurisdictions work (ULL) ULL. with County's voter to develop a new,jointly approved ULL(Measure established ULL with C 1990)and any which all jurisdictions amendment or reau- must comply. thorization.* *Local General Plans that allow urban development beyond the ULL would be found to comply if they reflect an equal or greater amount of lqr ay r5pp }t o ennes�ce within the ULL. Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO3 2003062128) ,,,.,.„„„„, ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS OF THE EER Significant Unavoidable Effects The EIR found that the implementation of any of the alternatives and options considered would likely result in two significant unavoidable effects: worsening air quality compared to the No Project alternative and the conversion of non-urban land to transportation purposes. Air Quality. By 2025, the EIR found that—except for particulate matter—pollution from cars,buses and rail transit will drop as a result of improvements to the vehicle fleet: reactive organic gases will fall about 30 percent, nitrogen oxides by about 11 percent, and carbon mon- oxide by about 73 percent. Pollution caused by particulate matter,which is generated from wear from tires,brakes and roadways, however, is forecast to increase by about four percent. These changes would result from both the No Project and three alternatives. All three of the alternatives would result in increased levels of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.The increases for the former would be significant.Alternative A would,however, de- crease levels of bath reactive organic gases and carbon monoxide, especially the latter, while Alternative B would reduce carbon monoxide levels.Alternative C would result in increases in all four types of pollution measured. Conversion of Non-Urban Land. The construction of new facilities and the expansion of existing ones,especially in the eastern part of Contra Costa, would convert some lands cur- rently in agricultural use or open space to transportation uses.Alternative A would have the greatest impact. Environmentally Superior ALterntive Consistent with CEQA, EIRs must identify an environmentally superior alternative. Table 3.1-15 from the EIR, which compares the alternatives for each of issue areas analyzed in the EIR, was used to illustrate the trade-offs among the three alternatives. As the table indicated, each of the three alternatives would provide environmental benefits compared to the No Pro- ject alternative, and each would have some negative effects. In addition, the differences among the alternatives are often fairly minor. For example, for "Population/Land Use", the impacts of Alternative B are closer to the impacts of Alternative A, and the impacts of both alternatives are shown as "Vlore Unfavorable." As the text of the ETR indicates,however,Alternative B's impacts fall between the impacts of Alternatives A and C.The gradation of such impacts high- lights the difficulty of determining a single "environmentally superior alternative” among the alternatives. Based on its superior performance on transportation, air quality and energy, and despite the greater impacts on population and land use,the EIR found Alternative A to be the environmen- tally superior alternative.The impacts and benefits of Alternative B were very similar to those of Alternative A; they differed by having somewhat less beneficial impacts on transportation and energy and by having unfavorable (rather than beneficial) impacts on air quality.Alterna- tive C differed more significantly from Alternative A. It had unfavorable impacts on transporta- May 19,2004 1 Page 8 Proposal dor Adoption ......................... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT tion, air quality and energy, but had less unfavorable or more beneficial impacts on biological resources, hazardous materials,visual resources, cultural resources, and population and land use. PROPOSED 2004 CTP UPDATE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Following release of the draft 2004 CTP Update in December 2003 and the Draft EIR in Janu- ary 2004,the Authority conducted a series of workshops with the public, consulted with local jurisdictions, agencies and stakeholders and asked for input from the Regional Transportation Committees and Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee. Based on the comments received on the Draft CTP and Expenditure Plan alternatives and Growth Management Program options, and on the Draft EIR, the Authority has developed a final CTP,including a draft proposed Ex- penditure Plan and Growth Management Program (GMP) for the proposed reauthorization of Measure C. The proposed 2004 CTP Update continues to build on the vision, goals and strategies first es- tablished in the 2000 Update.The vision is to: Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy to benefit the people and areas of Contra Costa that is sustained by 1) a balanced, safe and efficient transportation network; 2)cooperative planning; and 3)growth management. The transportation network should integrate high- ways, local streets and roads, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa. The goals and supporting strategies are: I Reduce future congestion on highways and arterial roads 1.1 Increase the operational capacity of the existing highway and arterial roads systems through capital and operating enhancements 1.2 Define and close gaps in the existing highway and arterial system 1.3 Improve the highway and arterial system consistent with a countywide plan to influence the location and nature of anticipated growth 2 Manage the impacts of growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy and preserve its environment 2.1 Require cooperative transportation and land use planning among Contra Costa County, cit- ies,towns,and transportation agencies 2.2 Work to maintain and expand partnerships to achieve the Authority's goals 2.3 Participate in a regional cooperative land use planning process with agencies both within and outside of Contra Costa. 2.4 Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of the trans- portation system, consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions May 19,2004 1 Page 9 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.5 Require local jurisdictions to (i) establish standards for necessary public capital improve- ments, (ii) have new growth pay its fair share of the cost of such improvements,and (iii)link land use decisions to the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided 2.6 Link transportation investments to(i) support of an urban limit line jointly endorsed by the County,cities and towns,once it is established, (fl) new developments which enhance trans- portation efficiency and economic vitality,and (iii) infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfields areas 2.7 Respect community character and the environment when considering proposed new trans- portation projects 3 Provide and expand safe,convenient and affordable alternatives to the single- occupant automobile 3.1 Help fund the expansion of existing transit services,and maintenance of existing operations, including BART,bus transit,school buses,and paratransit 3.2 Link transit investments to increased coordination and integration of public transit services, and improved connections between travel modes 3.3 Require local jurisdictions to incorporate policies and standards that support transit,bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments 3.4 Support transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly developments 3.5 invest in trails,walkways,and pedestrian-oriented improvements 3.6 Promote formation of more carpools and vanpools,and greater use of transit,bicycling,and walking 3.7 Support the expansion of a coordinated system of transit and paratransit service to address the mobility needs of low-income,elderly,young and disabled travelers 3.8 Encourage local jurisdictions to develop bicycle facilities and to connect those facilities into a coordinated network 4 Maintain the transportation system 4.1 Advocate for stable sources of funds for transit operations 4.2 Require programs for effective preventive maintenance and rehabilitation of the transporta- tion system 4.3 Provide funding to reduce the backlog of rehabilitation and maintenance needs 4.4 Once the backlog has been addressed, promote stable funding and preventative maintenance programs that will maintain the long-term health of the system The final proposed 2004 CTP Update and proposed Expenditure Plan and Growth Manage- ment Program revisions reflect these goals and strategies. May 19, 2004 1 Page 10 Proposot for Adoption .......................... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003 062128) ........... ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Changes to the 2004 CTP Update The Authority has made relatively few changes to the draft 2004 CTP Update released in De- cember 2003. In addition to minor corrections and updates to the projects in the Comprehen- sive Transportation Project List in Appendix B, the final proposed 2004 CTP Update includes changes,primarily in Volume 2,that reflect the proposed Expenditure Plan and revised Growth Management Program. The vision, goals and strategies have not been changed. Changes to the Expenditure Plan The proposed Expenditure Plan responds to the many comments received on the draft Expen- diture Plan alternatives and the analysis of them in the Draft EIR. In response to these com- ments, the Authority has developed a proposed Expenditure Plan that: ■ Consistent with the Authority's adopted vision, goals and strategies, balances the need to maintain the transportation system, provide new capacity to reduce future conges- tion, and encourage alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle ■ Refines the projects and programs to make them more reflective of the differences among the various regions within the county • Melds aspects of the three Expenditure Plan alternatives to maximize the positive environmental aspects of each Consistency with Vision,Goals and Strategies The proposed Expenditure Plan includes a wide variety of projects and programs, from freeway widenings;and a major extension of rail transit service to transit operations and programs to encourage more walkable and bicycle-and transit-friendly communities. Several projects would help further the first goal of reducing fu- ture congestion: • The Caldecott Tunnel,widening of State Route 4 and some of the East County Corri- dor projects would remove bottlenecks and fill gaps in the transportation system ■ Interchange projects along 1-80, 1-680, and State Routes 4 and 242 would improve op- erations along Contra Costa's freeways • Improvements to the HOV system would close existing gaps and support expansion of the express bus system ■ The new major streets program would fund operational and capacity improvements on key roadways in Central, East and Southwest County Many of the projects and programs would the second goal of providing safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant automobile, including: Providing rail transit further into East County through the extension of e-BART May 19, 2004 1 Page I I Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ■ Creating a new program for express bus service while continuing the current support for local bus transit service • Adding new programs—Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities and BART access and station improvements—while increasing specific support for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support more walkable and bicycle- and transit-friendly communities • Expanding funding for transportation services for the elderly and people with disabili- ties and adding a new Safe Transportation for Children program to help meet the needs of those that cannot drive The proposed Expenditure Plan also supports the goal of maintaining the system by continuing the local transportation maintenance and improvement program with supplemental funding in West, Central and Southwest County. Reflecting Regional Needs The Authority responded to many comments that the proposed Expenditure Plan needed to reflect the differing needs of the regions within Contra Costa by adding supplemental funding to some programs specifically for only some of those regions. They include- • Additional funding bus transit enhancements and paratransit within West and Central County • Additional funding for local street maintenance and improvement, and a new Safe Transportation for Children program, for West, Central and Southwest County • Additional funding for Transportation for Livable Communities and pedestrian and bi- cycle facilities, and specific funding for ferry service, for West County ■ A program for safety, operations and capacity improvements for major streets in Cen- tral, East and Southwest County • A"subregional transportation needs" program that each region can use for eligible pro- jects within their specific region Minimizing Environmental Impacts and Increasing Benefits As noted above, the EIR found Alternative A to be the environmentally superior alternative. This finding was based on that alternative's superior performance in the areas of transportation, energy and air quality, despite significant impacts on land use and land use. The other two alternatives performed bet- ter than Alternative A in some areas, and the Authority has tried to incorporate components from those alternatives into the proposed Expenditure Plan to minimize environmental impacts. Overall,the proposed Expenditure Plan is closest to Alternative B ("Local Focus"), which em- phasized regional projects. (The following table outlines the proposed Expenditure Plan and compares it to Alternative B.)The Expenditure Plan, however, also draws from the other two May 19, 2004 1 Page 12 Proposal for Adoption .......... ...... .... ............................... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT alternatives to enhance the environmental benefits of the project while creating the balanced transportation approach called for in the Authority's vision and goals. To improve the environmental performance of Alternative B, the proposed Expenditure Plan incorporates components from Alternative A and Alternative C, including: • Advancing the construction of the Caldecott Tunnel to reduce delay and improve air quality • Reducing funding for the East County Corridor projects (compared to Alternative A) which would reduce land use impacts • Significantly increasing funding for HOV facilities and express bus service to increase the attractiveness of carpooling and transit for commuting ■ Increasing the amount of funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, projects that help the region meet the region's adopted Transportation Control Measures, and projects that encourage alternative modes of travel • Expanding support for programs to encourage more walkable communities and districts so that people need not rely as much on use of private automobiles To achieve this balancing, the Authority proposes to extend the measure for 25 years, rather than 20. Extending the time period for the sales tax would increase expected revenues from about $1.6 billion to about$2 billion. This increase will allow the Authority to advance some projects earlier through bonding and to continue funding various programs for an additional five years. May 19, 2004 1 Page 13 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003 062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Proposed Expenditure Plan Proposed Expenditure Pian $ % Caldecott Funnel $125.0 6.3% e-BART i $150.0 7.5% State Route 4(Somersville to SRI 60) $125.0 6.3% Capitol Corridor Rail Service&Station Improvements $15.0 0.8% East County Corridors $94.5 4.7% 1-6801584 Interchange 0.0% Freeway Interchanges in Central County $36.0 1.80% 1-80 HOV and Interchange Improvements $30.0 1.5% 1-680 HOV Gap Closure and Direct Connectors $100.0 5.0% Richmond Parkway_ $20A 1.0% Subtotal $696.0 BART Improvements $36.0 1.8% Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvement $360.0 18.0% CG-TLC $100.0 5.0% Pedestrians,B€c cles and Trails $20.0 1.01yo Subtotal $516.0 25.8°/ Bus Operations-Existing Program $100.0 5.0% Transportation for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities $100.0 5.0% Express Bus $88.0 4.4% Transportation Demand Management/Commute Alternatives (TDM) $20.0 1.0% Congestion Management,Transportation Planning,Facilities&Ser- vices $60.0 3.0% Subtotal $366.0 18.4% Additional Bus Transit Enhancement(Central and West County) $64.5 3.2% Additional Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities $23.0 1.2% Safe Transportation for Children $88.9 4.4% Ferry Service at Richmond $50.0 2.5% Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvement $41.8 2.1% Major Streets $80.4 4.0% Additional CC-TLC $8.0 0.4% Additional Bicycle-Pedestrian $3.3 0.2% Capitol Corridor Rail Station Improvements at Martinez $2.5 0.1% Subregional Transportation Needs Flexible Funds` $38.1 1.9% Subtotal $400.5 20.0% Contingency $0.0 0.0% Admin Salaries&Benefits $20.0 1.0% Subtotal $20.0 1.0% May 19,2004 1 Page 14 Proposal for Adoption ............... ........... ....................... ................ 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) .......................... ... .... ............. ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Growth Management Program Changes The proposed revisions to the Growth Management Program (GMP) would retain most of the existing components (with some refinements), eliminate two of the existing eight components, and add one new component.The revised GMP would contain seven components: ■ Adopt a growth management element This component,which continues from the current GMP, would require each jurisdiction to include a growth management element within its general plan. The GME would need to outline the jurisdiction's goals and policies for managing growth and requirements for achieving those goals, and must show how the jurisdiction will comply with the other components of the Authority's GMP. • Adopt a development mitigation program This component,which is part of the current GMP,would require jurisdictions to adopt a local development mitigation pro- gram to mitigate impacts of new homes, businesses and other uses on its local transpor- tation system. It would also require jurisdictions to work with other jurisdictions through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees to create a program to miti- gate the impacts of development on the regional transportation system. • Address housing options and job opportunities This component would be modi- fied somewhat from the existing GMP. The refined component would require each ju- risdiction to document progress made in achieving its adopted housing objectives or to demonstrate sufficient capacity to facilitate needed development. Each jurisdiction would also need to demonstrate that it has analyzed the effects of land use and devel- opment policies on local and regional transportation systems and that it has adopted policies and regulations supporting transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new devel- opments. • Participate in an ongoing cooperative,multi-jurisdictional planning process This component would continue the existing requirement that each jurisdiction "par- ticipate 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 would continue to work in their RTPCs to prepare and implement their Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, to review General Plan amendments and major de- velopments, and participate in other studies and plans to address transportation issues. ■ Adopt an urban limit line This new component would require jurisdictions to work together to develop a mutually agreeable urban limit line, and require each jurisdiction to adopt an UL L into its general plan. ■ Develop a five-year capital improvement program The revised GMP would con- tinue the existing component. May 19, 2004 1 Page IS Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure CLExtension (SCH Nth. 200306212$) ADDE'NDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ■ Adopt a transportation systems management(TSM)ordinance or resolution The revised GMP would continue the existing component. As noted in the Draft EIR on page ES-4,the components of the GMP represent a process for managing the impacts of future growth. Because the GMP does not require the development of particular projects or specific outcomes, neither the direct nor the indirect impacts of the GMP on the environment can be determined. For that reason, the focus of the EIR and the evaluation in the following section is on the impacts of the projects and programs in the proposed Expen- diture Plan. Evaluation of the Proposed Expenditure Plan and Growth Management Program The following section evaluates the proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan and revised Growth Management Program to determine whether the impacts identified, the mitigation measures recommended and the findings made in the EIR still apply. 2.1 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Section 2.1 of the EIR found that the impacts of the three alternatives would have either less than significant or beneficial impacts on transportation and circulation. Because the mix of pro- jects and programs are most similar, the impacts of the proposed Expenditure Plan are expected be closest to those identified for Alternative B with a few differences. The proposed Expendi- ture Plan would include the same major projects----the Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore,eBART, and the widening of State Route 4-- and would have somewhat less funding for improvements to arterial streets. (The proposal has about $175 million for "major streets" and the East County Corridor,while Alternative B had about$225 million for those two categories.)The proposal would shift the latter funding to roadways in East County. The proposed Expenditure Plan would significantly increase funding for express bus service but have less for local buses. Together,these differences would have several results. Increased express bus service and im- proved HOV connections would likely increase use of express buses for commuting with con- sequentially beneficial impacts on freeway congestion, which would likely reduce VHT and VMT at congested levels of service. (Alternative B was forecast to have the highest VMT and VHT at LCIS F.)The slight reduction in funding for major roadways could increase congestion slightly on collectors and arterials, especially outside of East County. Since the funding for these improvements in the proposed Expenditure Plan is between Alternative A and B,the im- pact could also be expected to be between the two alternatives. Both Alternatives A and B were forecast to have fewer VHT and VMT at congested levels than the No Project alternative. _..._____..._...._....____...._._.._...____._._......___.__............__....._.....___......._.__......._......__...................... _...__......_.._..................-.........._..... ,....._._.___..-_._._.._...___.__._.__.___.___...___.....__.__._._....._ Significance of Impact Impacts Identified in EIR After Mitigation 2.1-1 A decrease in total vehicle hours traveled(VHT)would oc- Less than significant cur compared to the No Project condition May 19, 2004 1 Page 16 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE ANAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT w._ __........ ._....__ .....___.____._..._. __.................. ........_._.._..___..__...._.__...__.........._._..____........___.....___..__..,......__.._.._.........___.__.._. __.___.____._.__.__._..._._.__..__.._. .._ Significance of Impact Impacts Identified in EIR After Mitigation ............._.__....._......._.___....__......._._..................___.._....._......_._.__._..._....................__......._............_.........__.._.._........___.._....._....._.__.___._.._----- _._.._.....___...____—_.____._.___...._. Discussion:The increased Express Bus service and reduced Remains less than significant funding for arterial improvements in the proposed Expenditure Plan compared to Alternative B would likely decrease VHT on freeways but increase VHT slightly on arterials. On balance,the proposed Expenditure Plan is expected to reduce VHT and at congested(LOS F)levels compared to Alternative B. 2.1-2 Total vehicle miles traveled(VMT)at level-of-service(LCIS) Less than significant F would remain essentially unchanged compared to the No Project Conditions Discussion:By significantly increasing express bus service,the Remains less than significant proposed Expenditure Plan would likely reduce VMT at LOS F on freeways compared to Alternative B. (tinder Alternative B,only VMT on freeways,overall and at LOS F,was higher than the No Project alternative.) . .............._...w.._.._........___...........,._......._..._.._..._......._._.__._........_.._......._......_...._........................._............_......__........... _.... _ _ 2.1-3 Average system-wide vehicle speed increases,compared to Less than Significant the No Project condition Discussion:All three alternatives had average speeds that were Remains less than significant higher are the same as the No Project alternative. The proposed project would likely improve speeds on freeways from increased express bus service and improved HOV facilities would be offset by somewhat slower speeds on arterials.Overall average speeds, however,would be similar to Alternative B and higher than the No Project condition. 2.1-4 Total number of vehicle trips remains essentially unchanged, Less than Significant compared to the No Project condition Discussion:All three alternatives were forecast to generate Remains less than significant about the some number of vehicle trips. Because it would be be- tween Alternatives A and B which were about 0.1%above and below the No Project alternative,the proposed Expenditure Plan would also be comparable to the No Project alternative. 2.1-5 Transit ridership increases or stays essentially unchanged Beneficial compared to the No Project condition Discussion:While all three alternatives would have increased Remains beneficial funding for local and express bus service,only Alternatives B and C showed increases in transit boardings. The proposed Expendi- ture Plan would set aside a greater share overall for bus transit than Alternative 8-- 12.6 percent instead of 11.9 percent-- and would likely increase transit boardings compared to Alternative B and the No Project condition. _._.......____.__...._.__._.._...._...-._._____.....___....___........ ........._.......... ...__.__....___.........._......._.......a..........._....... _...._...._._..._...._-.__ 4_........___.__.._......______..._._.__.._......_._.____......_.. 2.1-6 Transit mode share increases or stays essentially the same Less than Significant when compared to the No Project condition May 19,2004 1 Page 17 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT _.._....__.__.._........._..__._............_.._------------_..... ._.._._. . Significance of Impact Impacts Identified in EIRAfter Mitigation Discussion:As with transit boardings, the proposed Expenditure Remains less than significant Plan is expected show increased transit mode share compared to the No Project alternative. 2.2 AIR QUALITY The analysis of air quality impacts found that all three alternatives would have potentially sig- nificant impacts on air quality resulting from construction,but that these impacts can be miti- gated to below a level of significance. Alternatives B and C were found to have significant, un- avoidable impacts on regional air pollutants. Significance of Impact Impacts identified in EIR After Mitigation 2.2-1 The construction of proposed projects in the draft CTP Potentially significant but 2004 Update could result in significant short-term direct im- mitigable' pacts on air quality near construction sites. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would fund the con- Remains potentially significant but struction of many of the projects included in the three alternatives mitigable (all of the projects or project categories were included in at least one of the alternatives.)so its environmental effects are expected to be comparable. __...._._...._.._.-._._e. _...__..__._..._ .. _. ... _._.._�.. _____.__.. 2.2-2 Implementation of projects under the CTP 2004 Update Less than Significant for would result in more than five percent increase in emissions Alternative A;Significant of regional air pollutants such as ROC,NOX,CO,and PM- Unavoidable for Alternatives 8 10 compared to the No Project Alternative. and C Discussion.None of the alternatives is forecast to produce Remains significant and unavoid- emissions greater than the five percent threshold,except for ni- able trogen oxides. Both Alternatives B and C would increase NOx emissions more than five percent and Alternative A would be very close to meeting that threshold. The proposed Expenditure Plan is most similar in impacts to Alternative B. ' As used in this Addendum,the term"mitigable"means that an impact can be mitigated to below a level of significance. May 19, 2004 ( Page 18 Proposal for Adoption 2004 update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128)ttbz eFV ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.3 ENERGY The analysis of energy impacts found that impacts on transportation energy consumption of Alternative A could be beneficial, while the impacts of Alternatives B and C would be less than significant. _...........__..................._.._.._._..................................._.._........_...._,..__....._._.... _.......__._....._._W.._.._.._._.........•__.__..•__•___...__..__....--.....-.......................... _... Impacts Identified in EIR. Significance of Impact ......._.._..:...,__..............._ ..................... .. .... _.._-__..._ ._..__......._.... ....................._.._._...._.............._._..._............._...__. _ .................._....._......_.._....__...._........_....__......... ................._._.__....... _...... _._......._ 2.3-1 The impacts on transportation energy consumption of CTP Beneficial for Alternative A,Less Alternative A on energy use in Contra Costa County would than Significant for Alternatives be beneficial.The impact on transportation energy con- B and C sumption of CTP Alternatives B and C would be less than significant. Discussions The proposed Expenditure Plan would likely reduce Remains less than significant total transit vehicle miles traveled,reducing energy use compared to Alternative B,but otherwise would use comparable levels of energy as Alternative B. 2.4 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY The analysis of geologic and seismic impacts found that the construction of projects included in the three alternatives would have potentially significant, but mitigable, impacts. The EIR looked at the potential susceptibility of proposed projects to damage from surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides and tsunamis. Since the proposed Expenditure Plan includes most of the projects analyzed in the alternatives, its impacts are comparable. For example,the proposed project includes the Caldeeott Tunnel, eBART, the Martinez and Hercules train sta- tion improvements, the I-680/Marina Vista interchange, and the I-680 HOV gap closure pro- jects,which could variously be subject to damage from surface fault rupture, liquefaction, and ground shaking. __...,.._..___........_..._......._..__.._.._..._._..._......... ..........w.........._.._..._.........____.._............... _....._......_..........._....._.... _ ._-. _..._......._.._.............__.-_....._ Impacts Identified in EIRSignificance of Impact _. .__......_._......._..__e............._ __.M_........._....M..._......__.._......__..........__....._.....__.......... _-__._........_.._......__..___....__... -_..._.._� _.._�_._._....._...__..._.. _ 2.4-1 Seismic events could damage proposed transportation infra- Potentially significant but structure through surface rupture,ground shaking,liquefac- mitigable tion,landslides and tsunamis.Potential impacts on property and public safety from seismic activity would be considered significant. Discussion.The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in each of the alternatives,and would sustain simi- mitigable lar levels of impact- . _..__._............. _......._......_._......._......_.._._.._......___._____._._.._.___.....__........___....._...._.....__._..__...........W_...._......._._..._.._._....... .___._.....____.__.___.__,...._...___..,. ..._....._.._,___._._____._ 2.4-2 Highway and rail construction could require significant Potentially significant but earthwork and road cuts.Such projects could increase mitigable short-term and long-term soil erosion and the potential for slope failure. May 19, 2004 1 Page 19 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ADDE14DUnM%tlTO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Impacts Identif}ed in EIR Significance of Impact Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would result in a Remains potentially significant but similar level of construction and, thus,a similar level of construe- mitigable tion-period impacts. _.___............... -...............__............_...._._..................._........... _..__,,...._................-,.....-............. _...._...........__...._......._.......... _...,._......_ _...._._.._------.._..-__.__._......_._...................._ 2.4-3 Projects built on highly compressible or expansive soils Potentially significant but could become damaged and weakened over time. mitigable Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in each of the alternatives,and would sustain simi- mitigable far levels of impact. 2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The analysis of biological resources found that the construction of projects included in the three alternatives would have significant,but mitigable, impacts.As with geology and seismicity,the EIR looked at cumulative impacts from the construction and operation of the projects included in the three alternatives on mortality of animals, reduction in habitat and habitat use, habitat fragmentation,and predation. The EIR analysis found that the specifically named projects in Alternatives A and B would have greater impacts than those in Alternative C, although Alterna- tive C would fund more as yet undefined projects through its more expansively funded pro- grams. The EIR identified eight projects with a high potential o affect biological resources: the Caldecott Tunnel, eBART,the.Martinez and Hercules rail station improvements,the State Route 4 Bypass, the widenings of Vasco Road and Byron Highway, local arterials, and ferry service in West County.The proposed Expenditure Plan includes all of these projects although funding for local arterials is lower than in Alternatives A and B. _.. .__.___.....____.__._.._,____..__.__._._-___.__.___....__.._.._._..._.._.._..................__.._..... _._._._._..___...._____ Impacts Identified in EIR Significance of Impact 2.5 -1 Projects included in the CTP 2004 Update could adversely Potentially significant but affect rare,threatened or endangered,or other special- mitigable status species of plants and animals and their habitats,includ- ing potential interference with the movement of wildlife spe- cies. Discussion. The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and 8,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact. 2.5-2 Projects included in the CTP 2004 Update could adversely Potentially significant but affect wetlands and other aquatic resources. mitigable Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and 8,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact. 2.5-3 Projects included in the CTP 2004 Update could result in Potentially significant but the removal of trees protected by local ordinances. mitigable May 19, 2004 1 Page 20 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (5CH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Impacts Identified in EIRSignificance of Impact Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains significant but mitigable jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar levels of impact 2.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The analysis of hazardous materials found that the construction of the projects named in, or that would be funded through, the three alternatives could expose workers, the public or natu- ral systems to hazardous materials. This exposure could occur as part of construction activities, whether from the materials used in construction or from the disturbance of soil or buildings during construction.As the proposed Expenditure Plan includes the projects included in the alternatives, the potential for these impacts, absent the implementation of the mitigation meas- ures proposed,would be comparable Impacts Identified in EIR Significance of Impact 2.6-1 Hazardous materials used on-site during construction activi- Potentially significant but ties(e.g.,fuels,oils and solvents) could be released to the mitigable environment through improper handing or storage. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigabie levels of impact 2.6-2 Disturbance of impacted soils or groundwater during pro- Potentially significant but ject construction and excavation work could expose con- mitigabie struction workers,the public,or the environment to haz- ardous conditions. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact _....:__......_.__..__....___...__._.._._._..._......__................_...__._......__ _._.......__._..._..........__.................._..._...........__._._............._ ._.__...__-___...__._..__.._._ ..._..__....__.._.__.._.._.___.___ 2.6-3 Disturbance of structural and building components(i.e.,as- Significant but mitigable bestos,lead,PCBs,and PAHs)could expose construction workers,the public,or the environment to hazardous con- ditions. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Pian would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact ............w...... ._._...._.._____......__._ 2.6-4 Exposure to hazardous materials,such as petroleum prod- Potentially significant but ucts,fuels,spent oil,and solvents used during project con- mitigable struction and operation,could expose humans and the envi- ronment to potentially hazardous conditions. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact. May 19,2004 ( Page 21 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ADDENDUMTOTHE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES The analysis of hydrology and water resources found that the construction of the projects named in, or that would be funded through, the three alternatives could, as with hazardous ma- terials,introduce sediments and pollutants into waterways and ground water. In addition,the addition of new impervious surfaces through the creation of new roadways would increase storm water runoff and decreased groundwater recharge. Population growth would increase travel and vehicle use, whether transit or private automobile,which would lead to increased pollutants in storm water runoff. The proposed Expenditure Plan,which would include the same projects analyzed in the three alternatives,would have similar project-related impacts. Impacts Identified in EIR Significance of Impact 2.7-1 Construction activities could result in erosion and cause Potentially significant but subsequent sedimentation of storm water runoff,or intro- mitigable duce pollutants to runoff from the use of automotive fluids and hazardous materials. Discussion: The proposed Expenditure Plan would include Imo- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B, and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact. 2.7-2 Construction activities may discharge groundwater impacted Potentially significant but with hazardous materials during dewatering. mitigable Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact. 2.7-3 Transportation facilities and programs constructed or oper- Potentially significant but ating in flood-prone areas may subject people or structures mitigable to flood hazards,or could serve to redirect flood flows. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact. _._.___......__.__.___.... __.....___._...._...__.__._..._..__. ___._.__...__.........._..........._........._......_._...____._._.._.__._..---_--------_.______-_._-._____._......_....__.___....._____ 2.7-4 Construction of transportation improvements would in- Potentially significant but crease impervious surface areas causing an increase in storm mitigable water runoff volume and rate,and nonpoint-source pollut- ant levels and decreased rates of groundwater recharge. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact May 19,2004 Page 22 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM y„'1'd?eTHE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT __.. ._.........__._....._._...__._...w_...... ._ ....__..__._......-._,_ ._._...._..m___....___.__._......___._.._...... ............__.__...._. .__._ _.___.___.._.____�._..__.._............ __-_ Impacts Identified in EIR Significance of Impact _.__.___.___.._ __.._......._.._... ._........ __ ..._..._...___.....,........_..............._.,....,....___...__.-___.__.._._....._..._...__ 2.7-5 Population growth in the San Francisco Bay Area would re- Less than significant sult in additional vehicle usage in Contra Costa County,in- creasing automobile-related pollutant levels in storm water runoff generated from county roads. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains less than significant jects included in Alternatives A and 8,and would result in similar levels of impact 2.8 VISUAL RESOURCES The analysis of visual resources found that the construction of the projects named in, or that would be funded through, the three alternatives could affect visual resources through both short-term impacts during project construction and longer-term changes in visual character and blocking of important views by significant new projects.The EIR found that, while all three alternatives would have some impacts,Alternative C would have the fewest impacts on visual resources,in both the short-and longer-term. The proposed Expenditure Plan would fund many of the regionally-significant projects in- cluded in Alternatives A and B and would have a similar level of impact to either. Impacts Identified in EIR Significance of impact 2.8-1 Construction of new transportation projects supported by Less than significant the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect visual resources in Contra Costa in the short-term during period of construction by blocking or disrupting views. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains less than significant jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar levels of impact. .... .....__ .2.8-2 P Construction ..._._.......___..._.�......_..._ ._._.__._....__..__..........._........_._.___._._.._...__...__......_._...__...._..___...... .__.___.... ... tion or expansion of certain transportation pro- Potentially significant but jects included in the CTP 2004 Update could adversely alter mitigable views in the county over the long-term by adding incongru- ous elements to the existing landscape,thereby blocking view or altering the scale,character,and quality of rural or open space areas,important vistas along roadways,and ur- ban communities. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Pion would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact May 19,2004 Page 23 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.9 NOISE The analysis of noise found that the projects in the three alternatives would create short-term impacts during construction and that the transportation improvements could result in noise levels requiring abatement under federal guidelines. Because they include more projects,Alter- natives A and B would have more construction-related noise impacts. Without project-level analysis, it was not possible to determine where increased noise levels generated from particular facilities would result in significant noise levels. The EIR found, however, that noise levels on at least some of the facilities where improvements would be made could have noise levels meeting or exceeding the FHWA and FTA Noise Abatement Criteria. The proposed Expenditure flan would fund many of the regionally-significant projects in- cluded in Alternatives A and B and would be expected to have a similar level of impact to ei- ther. Impacts Identified in EIR Significance of Impact 2,9-1 Construction of the projects proposed in the CTP 2004 Potentially significant but Update would have short-term noise impacts on surround- mitigabie ing areas. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigabie levels of'impact 2.9-2 Transportation improvements proposed as part of the CTP Potentially significant but 2004 Update could result in noise levels that approach or mitigabie exceed the FHWA and PTA Noise Abatement Criteria. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and R,and would result in similar mitigabie levels of impact. 2.10 CULTURAL. RESOURCES The analysis of cultural resources found that the projects in the three alternatives could nega- tively affect both historic and archaeological resources. These impacts would result from the construction of the projects included in the alternatives.While Alternatives A and B, because they would involve more construction than Alternative C, would have the greatest likelihood of impacts on these resources,the smaller projects funded through the programs in Alternative C (and also, at a lower level, in Alternative B) could have similar impacts. The proposed Expendi- ture Plan would fund many of the regionally-significant projects included in Alternatives A and B and would be expected to have a similar level of impact to either. May 14,2004 1 Page 24 Proposal for Adaption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM nTO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Impacts Identified in EIR Significance of Impact 1__.1_._....._._....___.W..._.......___.w__......._.__,.__...,......_____.......... ..____...___....__,._..._._._............._......_.._.,_-._.._._....___.______._.___........_..__._.._.._._______- 2.10-1 Construction of new transportation projects supported by Potentially significant but the proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect mitigable historic architectural resources through demolition or sig- nificant changes to the historical setting. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B,and would result in similar mitigable levels of impact. 2.10-2 Construction of new transportation projects supported by Potentially significant but the proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect mitigable archaeological remains or buried human remains through damage or destruction of those remains. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains potentially significant but jects included in Alternatives A and B, and would result in similar mitigable revels of impact. 2.11 POPULATION AND LAND USE The analysis of population and land use found that the three alternatives,and the projects in them, could have four impacts on population and land use. converting agricultural land to transportation use, creating short-term construction impacts on adjoining uses,displacing exist- ing land uses and neighborhoods, and affecting the pattern of land uses within Contra Costa. While most projects proposed would occur in existing urban areas,some projects in Eastern Contra Costa could require the conversion of prime agricultural land. This is most applicable to the proposed widening of Vasco Road and Byron Highway. Projects,both major projects such as the widening of State Route 4 and smaller arterial projects or even bicycle facilities (though the latter are less likely to), could create short-term construction impacts or displace existing land uses.The ETR found that changes in travel time resulting from the transportation im- provements in any of the alternatives,taken as a whole, would not result in significant changes in the planned or forecast pattern of land uses. The proposed Expenditure Plan would result in the development of a similar number of trans- portation improvements compared to Alternatives A and B and would be expected to have a similar level of impact to both. _____..._ ......,______..__._.___... .__._.....___._...._._........ ._....... __._____ Impacts Identified in E1R Significance of Impact 2.11 -1 The construction of new or expanded transportation facili- Significant unavoidable ties proposed by the CTP 2004 Update could result in the conversion of agricultural lands to transportation uses. May 19, 2004 j Page 25 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 200306212$} % ...... ................. ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Impacts Identified in EIR Significance of Impact Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would include pro- Remains significant unavoidable jects included in Alternatives A and 8, and would result in similar levels of impact. The primary impact would be from projects in East Contra Costa,and the funding in the proposed Expenditure Plan for projects in that area is closer to Alternative 8 and would thus be expected to have impacts most similar to that altemative. __.......-..._.........._...............__.._..................-......... ,........_.,...._.-_._.__......_.........._._.................__...._.__......._............_._.._.._.........._._...._......._..__._......._......_._........_.._ ..._..___ ....._ 2.11-2 Construction-related activities associated with projects Potentially significant but comprising the CTP 2004 Update are likely to significantly mitigable disrupt adjoining land uses in the short-term. Discussion.The impacts of the proposed Expenditure Plan Remains potentially significant but would be most similar to Alternative B.Both would allocate about mitigable 35 percent of expected funding to projects involving major con- struction,and the proposed Expenditure Plan would allocate a similar but somewhat smaller share for smaller construction pro- jects(16 percent compared to 22 percent),compared to Alterna- tive B. _.__.._...___......___....._....__._.._.._.__..__.__......._._-..__.....-__.._._._......_.___........._...._...__.............Y..__...._......._..._.__..._........_...._...._.........-_._.......... .__.._..._........,_.___....._.__.__......__._._........____.__ 2.11-3 The construction of new or expanded transportation facili- Potentially significant but ties proposed by the CTP could result in the displacement mitigable or division of existing housing,businesses,and neighbor- hoods. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan could the some pro- Remains potentially significant but jects identified in Table 2.11-6 has having the potential to dis- mitigable place homes or businesses,or to disrupt adjoining land uses. While those projects could also have been funded through either Alternative A or 8,the proposed Expenditure Plan includes fund- ing levels for those projects that are closest to Alternative 8 and would thus be expected to have impacts similar to the alternative. __._._......-.___...._.._....______.__.._.._....--_.......__...__..._..........-___..._........._....... __._..____._........,...__._...._.......____.__........__._.__....__.__._-_...__.W__........____..._.__..._........____._. 2.11-4 The CTP 2004 Update may affect patterns of land use such Less than significant that the location differs from planned growth in the county Discussion:The mix of projects and programs in the proposed Remains less than significant Expenditure Plan are closest to Alternative B and would result in similar changes in travel times and accessibility within Contra Costa and would thus have similar impacts on the pattern and in- tensity of land uses within Contra Costa and the region. 2.12 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT The analysis of the socioeconomic environment found that none of the three alternatives would disproportionally affect residents of low-income and minority communities within Contra Costa. Alternative A would generally provide the most improvement in travel time throughout Contra Costa, although it would provide the least additional transit service,which would be less beneficial for those low-income residents dependent on transit services. Alternative C would provide the greatest level of additional transit service but would not improve overall May 19,2004 1 Page 26 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension (5CH No. 2003062125) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT travel times substantially. Alternative B would have impacts between Alternatives A and C. The EIR also identified seven projects with the potential to affect low-income or minority communi- ties.Alternatives A and B could fund all seven; Alternative C would likely fund only one of them: eBART. The proposed Expenditure Plan would provide travel time benefits between Alternatives A and B; it includes many of the same major transportation improvements which is expected to in- crease average speeds and reduce travel times.The proposed Expenditure Plan would have slightly less bus transit funding overall but would significantly increase express bus service. The emphasis on express bus service would benefit longer-distance commuters and could benefit low-income communities,if routing provides convenient service. (Most of the low-income neighborhoods, however, are located relatively close to BART stations, especially Richmond, Pleasant Hill,Concord and Pittsburg-Bay Point.) The seven projects identified as having poten- tial impacts on minority or low-income communities would—or might, in the case of local arte- rials--be funded by the proposed Expenditure Plan, which means that it would likely have simi- lar impacts to Alternatives A and B. -_...:_.._.._..._.........._.__._......__..._............__...__............__...._....................__..........._..._................._..........._......_......__........._.-................._._........_....._........_ __... ---...... _....._. Impacts identified in EIRSignificance of Impact.. .._-._ _......_-.._....._._......._ ...__w_... .._........_....._....._w.._............__........._.........._.-...............___..............._-._...._..... .. _..... 2.12-1 Changes in the overall performance of the transportation Less than significant network resulting from implementation of the CTP 2004 Update would range from minor adverse effects to beneficial for residents of low-income and minority communities.No substantially disproportionate adverse impacts on these communities are projected. Discussion:The proposed Expenditure Plan would result in simi Remains fess than significant for benefits in travel time and transit service to Alternatives A and B,and would thus have similar impacts. 2.12-2 Adverse socioeconomic impacts and environmental injus- No adverse effect tices would occur where components of the CTP 2004 Up- date disproportionately disrupt or divide existing minority or low-income neighborhoods or displace a disproportion- ate number of homes or businesses in minority or low- income neighborhoods Discussion:Three of the seven projects that the EIR identified Remains no adverse effect as having the potential to affect low-income or minority communi- ties are identified in the proposed Expenditure Plan for funding or potential funding®-eBART,the SR 4 widening,and Byron High- way widening—and the other four might be funded as part of the major arterials category. The impacts of the proposed Expendi- ture Plan would thus be similar to Alternatives A and B. ConciLEslons Based on the preceding evaluation of the proposed 2004 CTP Update and proposed TEP, in- cluding the revised GMP, the Authority finds that: May 19, 2004 f Page 27 Proposal for Adoption ...........................I.......................... 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH NO. 2003062128) ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. While Alternative A was identified in the EIR as the environmentally superior alterna- tive, the proposed TEP better meets the Authority's vision,goals and strategies. The proposed TEP outlines a more balanced approach to achieving the goals of reducing fu- ture congestion,expanding alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, and maintaining the transportation system by: a. Expanding express bus service and HOV facilities to encourage transit use and carpooling and thereby reduce future congestion b. Increasing funding for the Contra Costa Livable Communities program, safe transportation for children, and bicycle-pedestrian facilities to encourage alter- natives to the single-occupant vehicle c. Boosting funding for paratransit to serve forecast increases in demand d. Refining the TEP to emphasize regional differences such as increased system capacity in East County and increased operational improvements in West and Central County 2. The mix of project and programs in the proposed TEP most closely resembles that in Alternative B"Local Focus" and, thus,the impacts of the proposed 2004 CTP Update and proposed TEP would most closely resemble those of Alternative B, and the mitiga- tion measures recommended for Alternative B should be included as mitigation meas- ures for the proposed 2004 CTP Update and proposed TEP. 3. While the proposed 2004 CTP Update and proposed TEP most closely resembles Al- ternative B,the proposed TEP would change the mix of projects and programs in Al- ternative B. These changes would further reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle miles traveled at congested levels, and further increase transit boardings and transit rid- ership and thus improve on the environmental performance of Alternative B. These changes include: a. Advancing the construction of the Caldecott Tunnel to reduce delay and im- prove air quality b. Reducing funding for the East County Corridor projects (compared to Alterna- tive A) which would reduce land use impacts c. Significantly increasing funding for HOV facilities and express bus service to increase the attractiveness of carpooling and transit for commuting d. Increasing the amount of funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, projects that help the region meet the region's adopted Transportation Control Meas- ures, and projects that encourage alternative modes of travel e. Expanding support for programs to encourage more walkable communities and districts so that people need not rely as much on use of private automobiles 4. As summarized in the following table (based on Table 3.1-15 in the EIR), the proposed TEP would have comparable effects to Alternative A,the alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR. The mix of projects and programs in the proposed TEP are expected to increase transit ridership compared to Alternative A. Combined with improvements to the HOV system and increased funding for express May 19,2004 1 Page 28 Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension (SCH No. 2003062128) ADDENDUM uTO TtllxE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT service, the proposed TEP is also expected to result in VHT and'SMT at congested lev- els close to those in Alternative A. Together, these changes would result in transporta- tion, air quality and energy impacts comparable to the impacts of Alternative A. By al- locating fewer funds to East County Corridor projects, the proposed TEP would likely have fewer impacts than Alternative A in the areas of biological resources and the con- version of agricultural land. By focusing more funding on transit, carpools and other al- ternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, the proposed TEP would have fewer impacts on land use patterns and would better serve lower-income communities. Comparison of Alternatives to Proposed TEP Proposed Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C TEP Air Quality + '' + +� Geology/Seismicity ++ ++ + ++ Hazardous Materials + Hyd"rt�kgy f.Yater, esci+rs . Visual Resources tis ► A NA 1 . . Cultural Resources Socioeconomic Environment + + + + ++More favorable +Favorable -Comparable -Unfavorable --More Unfavorable May 19, 2004 ( Page 29 Proposal for Adoption EXHIBIT E The Measure C Extension CONTRA COSTA'S TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN Final Draft -- May 26, 2404 0 t7 3 Y . i' CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Contents The Contra Costa Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Final Draft Expenditure Plan.....................................................................................2 PartSummary..................................................................................................4 Part 11 Detailed Project And Program Descriptions.................................B Part III The Growth Management Program ..............................................Z| Attachment A: Principles ofAgreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line...................................................26 Part IV Summary ofthe Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities Program.................................................27 0 CONTRA COSTA T8RANSPORTATIONAUTNORXTY 3478Buskirk Avenue, Suite l0O Pleasant Hill, California 945l3 925 4OJOl27phone 925407 0128 wpvrv.vcu.oet TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN � w .. The Contra Costa Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan The projects and programs that follow constitute the Transportation Expendi- ture 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: Sections 180000 et seq. of the Public Utilities Code), 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 (California Public Utilities Code §180205), and for specific efforts supporting such investments. MAY 26, 2004 I TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN Final Draft Expenditure Flan Distribution of Funding By Subregion Central West Southwest East $millions % (a) (b) (c) (d) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ' l alIc?tt, i ( trrFt mora, 2 BART-East Contra Costa Rail Extension 150 7.5% 150.0 5th Roil a-4 '�Vld,n(ng f2S h;3 125A 4 Capitol Corridor Improvements Including Rail I5 0.8% 7.5 7.5 Stations at Hercules and Martinez 5. fast +rid r Ifs R �5R4 BypW" s Byrzsrt ,Noi t€' ro 4„ , 6 Interchange Improvements on 1-680&State Route 36 1.8% 36.0 242 7 �: rplisitsn a18ir � € �x�p��wnents 8 I-680 Carpool Lane Gap Closure/Transit Corridor 100 5.0% 75.0 25,0 Improvements 9 �ft€ tq�d SUBTOTAL 691.5 34.6% 181.0 53.5 87.5 369.5 COUNTYWIDE CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS 10 AR# i° rtai» ,Acc s �oth #" p c�veriiencs 4:1 :2#% :. C 2.0 154., 3.0 110 . I I Local Streets Maintenance&Improvements 360 18.0% 10&0 82.8 79.2 90.0 12 Traps st a tcin Exit lr' l MuItles Protect.; 100 a.0% , 29rQ 24,0 18,0 13 Pedestrian,Bicycle and Trail Facilities 3 30 1.5% ( 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 SUBTOTAL 531 26.6% 1 151.5 124.3 102.7 132.5 OTHER COUNTYWIDE PROGRAMS 14 Bos$er a' ( 5.# 20 '10 9,0 15 Transportation for Seniors&People with 100 5.0% 25.0 35.0 17.0 23.0 Disabilities 4 [6 Irxp�ess f * 86 4.3% : +4f3.b 20,0 6 0 17 Commute Alternatives 20 1.0% 5.8 4.8 3.6 5.8 l8 c� Ixan Mrrer _T� rttlix+ ? rilri8, ::.Gtr 3:4 gttlst+16s SUBTOTAL 366 18.3% 74.8 131.8 55.6 43.8 SUSREGIONAL PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS I93>Ad"jt!6 gal bus ra sit Eeihaatc nts' 6 .5 3.4 ] 24.0 4q,5 20 Additional Transportation for Seniors and People 23 1.2% 10.0 13.0 with Disabilities` 21 Safe trA"ris of tatlnn fcar hlldrikri s(I ainoripda 9{):9 4.5% 10,0 K5 66.1 anal San€Mon a#!e}r Sc !ctl s P ogr4M$ W t'w60 Law#neorne Stii+leht Esus Pass f'+gra+ ,Central:Caj Solo, 1 Access Programs, Pedestrian"and l3icyde Irr provemebts,etc.) 2 MAY 26, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN Distribution of Funding By Subregion Central West Southwest East $millions % (a) (b) (c) (d) F+rry i^v#r if14t ittnty q. 45 °� 45:0 23 Additional Local Streets and Roads Maintenance& 41.8 2.1% 20.0 11.0 10.8 Improvements fAty antiA, 480 144: t 25 Additional Transportation for Livable Communities 8 0,4% 1 8.0 Project Grants ; 26' +ati #Pclgst 3as . 3cc# (rail 27 Capitol Corridor Rail Station Improvements at 25 0.1% 2.5 Martinez T' , SUBTOTAL 391.5 19.6% 130.7 142.8 96.3 21.7 OTHER TOTAL 2,000 100.0% sutra# Wl` Sstlivret:: Esc_. Specific Projects and Programs(Total)s 1,900 538.0 452.4 342.1 567.5 Population Share(2020 Estimate)of Total j 29.0% 24.0% 18.0% 29.0% %allocated to Projects and Programs in subregion I 28.3% 23,8% 18.01/. 29.9% %of`:'Fair Share"of Projects and Programs 97.6% 99.2% 100.0% 103.0% 1: Funding is for both capital improvements and costs incurred to accelerate delivery into the early years of the program (2009-10 through 2015416) 2: Actual funding levels will be determined by formula:For 18%Local Street Maintenance and Improvements funds,annually; for TLC,every three to five years. 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, and Capacity Improvements categories.$20 million out of the$30 million to be made available countywide. Remainder($10 million)to be divided by subregion. 4: Transit Operators are required to set aside up to 3%of their annual allocation as a reserve to offset potential future revenue downturns. 5: A summary of the Transportation for Livable Communities(TLC)program is included in Part IV. 6: "Total"excludes$20 million for Pedestrian,Bicycle and Trail facilities,$60 million for Congestion Management, Transportation Planning,Facilities&Services,and$20 million for Administration MAY 26, 2004 3 .........................11.11........................ ............1.1.1111,........................... ........................... TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN lmmw�' PART I SUMMARY Capital Improvement Projects I Caldecott Tunnel Fourth gore..........................................................................................................$125 million Construct a two-lane fourth bore to match the through-lane capacity on both sides of the tunnel to reduce delays and improve the predictability of travel in the non-peak direction. 2 BART— East Contra Costa Rail Extension.....................................................................................$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 com- munity of Byron., 3 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 bus/carpool and auxiliary lanes) in each direction to State Route 160. 4 Capitol Corridor Improvements Including Rail Stations at Hercules and Martinez.................$15 million $7.5 million is available to construct a new station at Hercules and may be used for Capitol Corridor operations. $7.5 million is available to construct parking and pedestrian facilities at the Martinez Rail Station. 5 East County Corridors (Vasco Rd, SR4 Bypass, Byron Hwy,and Non-Freeway SR 4).......$94.5 million Construct capacity and safety enhancements to Vasco Road, the State Route 4 By- pass,Byron Highway and the existing Route 4 through Brentwood and Oakley. 6 Interchange Improvements on Interstate 680 and State Route 242............................................$36 million Construct improvements at the following interchanges: 1-680/SR4, SR 242/ Clayton Rd, 1-680/Marina Vista, and/or SR 4/Willow Pass Road. 7 Interstate 80 Carpool Lane Extension and Interchange Improvements.....................................$30 million Construct improvements at the 1-80/San Pablo Dam Road and 1-80/Central Av- enue interchanges; complete the bus/carpool lane to the Carquinez Bridge. 4 MAY 26, 2404 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN 8 Interstate 680 Carpool Lane Gap Closure/Transit Corridor Improvements.,.....................$104 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, and other transit corridor improvements. 9 Richmond Parkway..................................................................................................................................$16 million Upgrade the Richmond Parkway by constructing intersection and interchange improvements, and/or provide funds to maintain the roadway, Countywide Capital and Maintenance programs 10 MART Parking,Access, and Other Improvements...........................................................................$41 million Construct improvements to the BART system such as additional parking,station access, capacity, safety and operational improvements. I I Local Streets Maintenance& Improvements................................................................................_$360 million Eighteen percent of annual revenues are allocated to local jurisdictions on a for- mula basis for transportation projects to be determined locally, including street and road maintenance, subject to compliance with the Growth Management Program (GMP). 12 Transportation for Livable Communities Project Grants (CC-TLC)......................................$100 million Five percent of sales tax revenues are to be used to implement specific transporta- tion 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. Allocations are subject to compliance with the GMP, as outlined in the CC-TLC Summary included as Part IV of this Expenditure Plan.. 13 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities.................................................................................................$30 million One and a half percent of revenues are for construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities including regional trails throughout Contra Costa. Other Countywide programs 14 Bus Services.............................................................................................................................................$104 million Five percent of annual revenues are for bus service provided by all Contra Costa bus transit operators to alleviate traffic congestion and improve regional or local mobility for Contra Costa. MAY 26, 2004 5 .................................. ................. TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN 15 Transportation for Seniors&People with Disabilities..................................................................$100 million Five percent of revenues are for Transportation Services for Seniors & People with Disabilities. 16 Express Bus...............................................................................................................................................$86 million Provide express bus service to transport commuters to and from residential areas, park&ride lots, BART stations/transit centers and key employment centers. 17 Commute Alternatives.........................................................................................................................$20 million Provide and promote alternatives to commuting in single-occupant vehicles, including carpools, vanpools and transit. 18 Congestion Management,Transportation Planning, Facilities & Services...................................$60 million Implement the countywide GMP, prepare the countywide transportation plan, and support the programming and monitoring of projects that are to be funded with federal and state funds, as well as the Authority's Congestion Management Agency functions. Subregional Projects and Programs There are four subregions within Contra Costa: Central, West, Southwest and East County. The objective of the subregional Projects & Programs category is to recog- nize the diversity of each subregion by including projects/programs that are critical to addressing local transportation needs. Central County (TRANSPAC subregion) includes Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and the unincor- porated portions of Central County. West County (WCCTAC subregion) includes El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo and the unincorporated portions of West County. Southwest County (SWAT subregion) includes Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, San Ramon and the unincorporated portions of Southwest County. East County (TRANSPLAN subregion)) includes Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pitts- burg and the unincorporated portions of East County. 19 Additional Bus Transit Enhancements...........................—.1–.........................................................$68.5 million In addition to the $100 million for bus transit improvements countywide, ad- ditional funding is allocated for bus transit improvements in two subregions: Central County ($24 million) and West County ($44.5 million). 20 Additional Transportation for Seniors& People with Disabilities...............................................$23 million In addition to the$100 million for transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities under the countywide program, additional funding is allocated for transportation for seniors and people with disabilities in two subregions: Central County ($10 million) and West County ($13 million). 6 MAY 26, 2004 ..........I............11......................... .......................... ................. TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN RXM 21 Safe Transportation for Children................................................................................................... $90.9 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, $14.5 million is for a low-income student transit fare subsidy Program. In Southwest County $26.4 million is for the Lamorinda School Bus Program, and $40 million is for a San Ramon Valley School Bus Program and school-related access. 22 Ferry Service in West County...........................................................................................................$45 million Funds for ferry service in West County from Richmond, and Hercules or Rodeo to San Francisco. 23 Additional Local Streets Maintenance& Improvements..............................................................$41.8 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 subregions: Central County ($20 million), West County ($11 million), and Southwest County ($10.8 million). 24 Major Streets:Traffic Flow,Safety and Capacity Improvements..............................................$80.4 million Improvements to major thoroughfares such as traffic signals, widening, traf- fic calming and pedestrian 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) and East County ($18 million). 25 Additional Transportation for Livable Communities Project Grants.............................................$8 million In addition to the $100 million available on a countywide basis, $8 million is available for projects specific to West County. 26 Additional Pedestrian, Bicycle,and Trail Facilities.........................................................................$0.8 million In addition to the$30 million available countywide, $0.8 million is available for projects specific to West County. 27 Capitol Corridor Rail Station Improvements at Martinez.............................................................$2.5 million In addition to funds provided under the Capitol Corridor Improvement Project, an additional$2.5 million is to be allocated specifically to Martinez Rail Station improvements. 28 Subregional Transportation Needs..................................................................................................$ 30.6 million Each subregion will identify projects and/or programs to address its current and future needs. The fund,, are allocated as follows: Central County ($16.2 mil- lion), West County ($6.0 million), Southwest County ($4.7 million) and East County ($3.7 million). MAY 26, 2004 7 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN PART II DETAILED PROD ECT AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS RIPTIONS All of the following projects are necessary to address current and future transpor- tadon needs in Contra Costa, and the proposed projects and programs constitute a "fair share" distribution of funding allocations to each subregion. However, through the course of the Measure, if any of the projects prove to be infeasible or cannot be implemented, the affected subregion may recommend to the Authority that funds be reassigned to another project in the same subregion so that the "fair share" allocation is maintained: Capital Improvement Projects I Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore...........................................................................................................$125 million Construct a fourth bore with two traffic lanes to match the through-lane capacity on both sides of the tunnel, and thereby significantly reduce delays and improve the predictability of travel in the non-peak direction.Final project will be subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2 BART- East Contra Costa Rail Extension (e-BART)..................................................................$154 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 com- munity of Byron. Subject to environmental review and assessment of alterna- tives, the likely preferred alignment will occupy the State Route 4 median up to the 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. 3 State Route 4 East Widening.............................................................................................................$125 million Widen State Route 4 in East Contra Costa to provide four lanes (including a bus/ carpool lane) in each direction from Somersville Road to State Route 160, in- cluding auxiliary lanes between interchanges.Project components will be staged to provide congestion relief as quickly as possible with available funding. 4 Capitol Corridor Improvements Including Rail Stations at Hercules and Martinez.................$15 million $7.5 million is available to 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 8 MAY 26, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN station and Ozol Yard. $7.5 million is available to construct the Hercules Rail Station improvements (including relocating railroad tracks, constructing station platforms and plaza, and a parking structure) and may be used for Capitol Cor- ridor track improvements, rolling stock, or for rail operations on the Capitol Corridor line in Contra Costa County. 5 East County Corridors (Vasco Rd, SR4 Bypass, Byron Hwy, 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,Byron Highway,and the existing Route 4 through Brentwood, Oakley and unincorporated areas. For corridors lying outside of the 2004 boundary of the Contra Costa Coun- ty ULL, in effect as of May 26, 2004 (the ULL), local sales tax funds may be allocated by the Authority only to fund environmental reviews, route adoption studies,right of way protection and safety improvements.For such investments, allocations may be made by the Authority upon a determination that the project Sponsor has agreed to include the following in the scope of the relevant studies or projects:. Assessment as to their potential for inducing additional development and identification of measures to minimize or prevent such inducement; Identification of appropriate project-related mitigations, including consid- eration of the purchase of abutters' rights of access, preservation of critical habitat and/or open space acquisition; and i Investments affecting facilities in Alameda County will be done in partner- ship with Alameda County jurisdictions. Subject to the above conditions,potential improvements include: 5.1 Vasco Road from the SR 4 Bypass to Interstate 580 in Alameda County. Funds shall not be allocated for the construction of capacity enhancing proj- ects outside of the ULL. Funds may be used to fund safety and operational improvements, and potentially consider realignment where warranted. 5.2 Widening and safety improvements (including safety-related capacity mi- provements) to the non-freeway portion of SR 4 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. 5.3 Completion of the SR4 Bypass project.The project includes the upgrade of Marsh Creek Road and interchanges at the following locations: SR4/SR4 MAY 26, 2004 9 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN Bypass/ SR160; Laurel Road; Lone Tree Way; Sand Creek Road; Balfour Road; Marsh.Creek Road; and Vasco Road at Wahaut Boulevard. 5.4 Improvements to Byron Highway between Delta Road northeast of the City of Brentwood, and the Contra Costa-Alameda County line. 6 Interchange Improvements on Interstate 680 and State Route 242.............................................$36 million Construct improvements to reduce congestion and improve safety at(I) 1-680/ SR 4 interchange, (2) SR 242/Clayton Road Interchange northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp, (3) I-680/Marina Vista Interchange, and/or (4) SR 4/Willow Pass Road ramps. 7 Interstate 80 Carpool Lane Extension and Interchange Improvements.....................................$30 million Projects eligible for funding in this category include (with priority given to the San Pablo Ilam Road and Central Avenue interchanges): 7.1 1f supplemental fiuiding beyond the Regional Measure 2 commitment is needed, help construct an eastbound carpool lane extension along 1-80 from State Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge approach. 7.2 Project development and construction of the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road in- terchange to improve traffic operations and safety and accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. 7.3 Project development and construction of the I-80/Central Avenue inter- change to reduce traffic backups on Central Avenue. 74 Project development and/or preliminary engineering towards the construc- tion of the SR 4/1-80 interchange and approaches. 7.S Other interchange improvements may be considered for funding subject to WCCTAC concurrence. 8 Interstate 680 Carpool Lane Cap Closure/Transit Corridor Improvements..........................$100 million Projects eligible for funding in this category include: Extend existing bus/carpool lanes along I-680 in the southbound direction from North Main Street to Livorna Road, and in the northbound direction from North.Main Street to north of SR 242. Construct bus/carpool on-and off-ramps at Norris Canyon Rd and/or Syca- more Valley Road. 10 MAY 26, 2004 ..................I............................ TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN lik Transit corridor improvements that address congestion and/or increase people throughput along the 1-680 corridor. 9 Richmond Parkway..................................................................................................................................$16 million 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. The Richmond Parkway is the priority project for this funding; however, funds not expended for this project may be reprogrammed at the City of Richmond's re- quest for Richmond ferry service. Countywide Capital and Maintenance Programs 10 BART Parking,Access,and Other Improvements..........................................................................$41 million Construct improvements to BART such as additional parking, station access, capacity, safety and operational improvements. Projects funded by this category are subject to the review and approval of the applicable subregional committee, prior to funding allocation by the Authority. I I Local Streets Maintenance& Improvements ...................................................................... 18% ($360 million) Funds may be used for any transportation purpose eligible under the Act and to comply with the GMP requirements. This existing program will continue distributing 18 percent of the annual sales tax revenues to all local jurisdictions with a base allocation of$100,000 for each, the balance to be distributed based 50 percent on relative population and 50 percent on road miles for each juris- diction, subject to compliance with the Authority's revised GMP. Population figures used shall be the most current available from the State Department of Finance. Road mileage shall be from the most current State Controller's Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads.Pedestrian and bicycle fa- cilities are an important part of the regional transportation system. Moreover,as appropriate, components for routine accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian travel shall be incorporated as part of construction projects. 12 Transportation for Livable Communities Project Grants..................................................5% ($100 million) The CC-TLC Program is intended to support local efforts to achieve more compact, mixed-use development, and development that is pedestrian-friendly or linked into the overall transit system. The program will fund specific trans- portation projects that: (a) facilitate, support and/or catalyze developments, especially affordable housing, transit-oriented or mixed-use development, or (b) encourage the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and promote walking, bicycling and/or transit usage. Typical investments include pedestrian, bicycle, and streetscape facilities, traffic calming and transit access improve- MAY 26, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN ments. 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 only if they are in compliance with the GMP at the time a grant is approved for funding allocation by the Authority. Eligible projects will be recommended to the Authority by each subregion based on a three- or five-year funding cycle, at the option of the RTPCs. Subregional 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. A summary of the Transportation for Livable Communities program is in- cluded in Part IV, 13 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities.................................................................................... 1.5% ($30 million) Pedestrian,bicycle, and trail facilities, including regional trails are an important component of the regional transportation system. Two-thirds of the funds are to complete projects in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Consistent with the Bicycle Plan and the importance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, other potential funding;categories in this Plan for pedestrian/bicycle/trail facili- ties include: (a) Major Streets: Traffic Plow, Safety,and Capacity Improvements; (b) Safe Transportation for Children; (c) Local Streets and Road Maintenance; and (d) the Transportation for Livable Communities project grants. Moreover, where it is appropriate, routine accommodation for pedestrians and bicyclists should be incorporated in construction projects funded from these other cat- egories. One third of the funds are to be allocated to the East Bay Regional Park Dis- trict (EBRPD) for the development and rehabilitation of paved regional trails. EBRPD is to spend its allocation equally in each subregion, subject to the review and approval of the applicable subregional committee, prior to funding alloca- tion by the Authority.The Authority in conjunction with EBRPD will develop a maintenance-of-effort requirement for funds under this category. 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 through the Bus Transit Coordinating Coun- cil) so that the additional revenues will fund additional service in Contra Costa. The guidelines may require provisions such as maintenance of effort; operational efficien- cies including greater coordination; promoting and developing a seamless service; a 12 MAY 25, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN specified minimum allowable farebox return on sales tax extension funded services; and reserves for capital replacement. For the transit operating programs (Bus Services, 'Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities, and Express Bus) for years in which sales tax revenues in- crease at or above the change in the Consumer Price Index, the Authority will require that each recipient/operator retain up to 3 percent of its annual allocation to accumu- late 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. 14 Bus Services...................................................................................................................................5% {$100 million) This program provides funding for bus service provided by Contra Costa transit operators to alleviate traffic congestion and improve regional or local mobility for Contra Costa. Funds can be used to purchase transit vehicles, service opera- tions, maintenance and capital programs to assist operators in the implementa- tion of adopted plans. The percentage of program funding now allocated to the bus transit opera- tors will continue. Reflecting the current distribution among the four parts of the county, the percentage of annual sales tax 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: i AC Transit, 2% ($40 million), 1 County Connection, 2% ($40 million); Tri-Delta Transit, 0.4% ($8 million); 0 WestCAT, 0.6% ($12 million); 1 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 subregional programs category, additional increments of 2.2% and 1.2'/0 of annual sales tax revenues are available for West and Central County, respectively. MAY 26, 2004 13 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN 15 Transportation for Seniors &People With Disabilities......................................................5°j ($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 tinder the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to people with disabilities, and (2) services not required by law but desired by commu- nity interests, either for those with disabilities beyond the requirements of the ADA (for example, extra hours of service or greater geographic coverage), or for non-ALTA 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 pro- grams if desired, subject to Authority confirmation that services are consistent with the relevant policies and procedures adopted by the Authority. Revenue growth above the base allocations will be utilized to expand paratransit services and providers eligible to receive these funds. Paratransit funding will be increased from the current 2.97% to 3.S% of annual sales tax revenues for the first year of the new program, FY 2009-10. Thereafter, the percentage of annual sales tax revenues will increase by 0.10 % each year, to S.9%in 20134 (based on a 25-year program). In 2003 dollars, this averages to 43% over the life of the program, which has been rounded to S% 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: 1 West County Paratransit program allocations will start at 1.225% of annual sales tax revenues in FY 2009-10, and grow by 0.03S%of annual revenues each year thereafter to 2.065010 of annual revenues in FY 203334. (An additional increment of 0.65% of annual revenues is available for West County under its subregional program category.) In addition to the current. providers, Paratransit service provided by AC Transit and BART (Fast Bay Paratransit Consortium) in West County is an eligible recipient of program. funds. 0 Central County paratransit program allocations will start at 0.875% of an- nual sales tax revenues in FY 2009-10 and grow by 0.025% of annual rev- enues 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 subregional program category.) 0 Southwest County paratransit program allocations will start at 0.595010 of annual sales tax 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, 14 MAY 26, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN East County paratransit program allocations-will start at 0.80S% of annual sales tax revenues, and increase by 0.023%of annual revenues thereafter to 1.357% of annual revenues in FY 2033-34. Transportation for Seniors&People with Disabilities funds shall be available for (a) managing the program, (b) retention of a mobility manager, (c) coor- dination with non-profit services, (d) establishment and/or maintenance of a comprehensive paratransit technology implementation plan, and (e) facilitation of countywide travel and integration with fixed route and BART specifically, as deemed feasilble. 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 subre- gions and a demonstration of the financial viability and stability of the programs proposed by prospective operator(s). 16 Express Bus..................................................................................................................................4.3% ($86 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 key 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. 17 Commute Alternatives..................................................................................................................1% ($20 million) This program will provide and promote alternatives to commuting in single oc- cupant vehicles, including carpools,vanpools and transit. Eligible types of projects may include but are not limited to: parking facili- ties, carpooling, vanpooling, transit,bicycle and pedestrian facilities (including sidewalks, lockers, racks, etc.), Guaranteed Ride Home, congestion mitigation programs, SchoolPool, and clean fuel vehicle projects. Program.and project rec- ommendations shall be made by each subregion for consideration and funding by the Authority. 18 Congestion Management,Transportation Planning, Facilities and Services..............................................................................................................................................3% ($60 million) Implementation of the Authority's GMP and countywide transportation plan- ning 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; and the fa- cilities and services needed to support the Authority and CMA functions. MAY 26, 2004 I S TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN Subregional Projects and Programs The objective of the Subregional Projects and Programs category is to recognize the diversity of the county by allowing each subregion to propose projects and pro- grams critical to addressing its local transportation needs. There are four subregions within Contra Costa: Central, West, Southwest and East County, each represented by a Regional Transportation Committee (RTPC). Central County (the TRANSPAC subregion) includes Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek and the unincorporated portions of Central County. West County (the WCCTAC subregion) includes El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo and the unincorporated portions of West County,Southwest County(the SWAT subregion)includes Danville, Lafayette, Moraga,Orinda, San Ramon and the unincorporated portions of Southwest County. East County (the TRANSPLAN subregion) includes Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pittsburg and the unincorporated portions of East County. Each subregion has identified specific projects and programs which include: school bus programs, safe routes to school activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, incremental transit services over the base program, incremental transportation ser- vices 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, and capacity improvements, and ferry services. With respect to transit operations (bus, transportation for seniors&people with disabilities, ferries and express bus), the Authority will allocate funds on an annual basis and will establish guidelines (in cooperation with transit operators through the Bus Transit Coordinating Council) so that the additional revenues will fund additional service in Contra Costa.The guidelines may require provisions such as maintenance of effort, operational efficiencies including greater coordination promoting and devel- oping a seamless service, a specified minimum allowable farebox return on sales tax extension funded services, and reserves for capital replacement, etc. For an allocation to be made by the Authority for a subregional project and pro- gram, it must be included in the Authority's Strategic Plan. CENTRAL COUNTY (TRANSPAC) 19a 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. 20a Additional Transportation Services for Seniors and People&Disabilities....................0.5% ($10 million) Funds will be used to supplement the services provided by the countywide transportation program for seniors &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. 16 MAY 26, 2004 ...................................................... ......................... .......................... TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN 21a Safe Transportation for Children......._-_.............................................................................0.5%($10 million) TRANSPAC will identify specific projects which may include the SchoolPool and Transit Incentive Programs, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, sidewalk con- struction and signage, and other projects and activities to provide transportation to schools., 23a Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements....................................................1%($20 million) These funds will be used to supplement the annual allocation of the 18% "Lo- cal Streets Maintenance & Improvements" prograin 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 GMP.Each jurisdiction shall receive an allocation using a formula of 50%based on population and 50%based on road miles. 24a Major Streets:Traffic Flow, Safety and Capacity Improvements.....................................2.4% ($48 million) Improvements to major thoroughfares including but not limited to installation of bike facilities, traffic signals, widening, traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements, shoulders, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, bus transit facility en- hancements such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities, etc. 27a Capitol 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. 28a Subregional Transportation Needs ..................................................................................0.81% ($16.2 million) TRANSPAC will propose programming funds for any project or program iden- tified in the Expenditure Plan, and to meet other future transportation needs of Central County eligible under the provisions of the Act. WEST COUNTY (WCCTAC) l 9 Additional Bus Service Enhancements................................................................................2.2% ($44.5 million) Funds will be used to enhance local bus service in West 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 fre- quency,expanded days of the week, etc.At least$4 million of the$44.5 million total would go to WestCAT. 20b Additional Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities.............................0,65% ($13 million) As determined by WCCTAC, funds will be used to supplement the services provided by the countywide transportation program for seniors and people MAY 26, 2004 17 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN r 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, supple- mental service provided by the cities, the County or 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. 21b Safe Transportation for Children., Low Income Student Bus Pass Program..............OJ% ($14.5 million) Establishment and operation of a program to expand the subsidy for bus transit fares for low-income students. 22b Ferry Service in West County.................................................................................................2.3% ($45 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.), operat- ing the service, transit feeder service, way-finder signs, and/or other compo- nents of ferry service to be determined by WCCTAC and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA), the agency authorized by the State to provide a comprehensive water transit system for the Bay Area. If the WTA is not able to use these funds, WCCTAC and the Authority will designate alterna- tive recipient(s). Funding priority should be given to routes that demonstrate long-term sustainability. 23b Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements................................................0.5% ($11 million) These funds will be used to supplement the annual allocation of the 18% "Lo- cal 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, subject to compliance with the GMP. Each Jurisdiction shall receive an allocation using a formula of 50%based can population and 50%based on road miles. 25b Additional Funding for Livable Communities (CC-TLC)......................................................0.4% ($8 million) This prograin 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 subject to compliance with the Authority's GMP. 26b Additional Pedestrian, Bicycle andTrail Facilities..............................................................0.04% ($0.8 million) WCCTAC will propose programming these funds for additional trail/ pedestrian/bicycle capital projects, and/or facility maintenance in West Coun- ty. 18 MAY 26, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE FLAN 28b Subregional Transportation Needs............................................................................................0.3% ($6 million) WCCTAC will propose programming these funds to any project or program eli- gible under the provisions of the Act. Such projects may include: (1) planning work or environmental studies for a project; (2) implementation of recom- mended transportation projects in a regional study or plan (including, but not limited to, the EI 5obrante Transportation and Land Use Plan, the Richmond- Area Community-Based Transportation Plan, the El Portal Gateway Plan, the Montalvin Manor Community Plan, the Safe Communities Program, etc.); (3) bus and/or BART improvements; (4) neighborhood traffic calming improve- ments; (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 COUNTY (SWAT) 21 c Safe Transportation for Children: School I3us Program.................................................3.3% ($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 re- lated congestion,or improve the safety of children traveling to and from schools ($40 million). These programs, which provide congestion relief where capac- ity improvements are not feasible, also collect user fees from parents as well as other grant funding to cover operational expenses. In consultation with the af- fected jurisdictions the Authority may establish criteria for the services including but not limited to farebox return/parental contribution., 23c Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements.............................................0.5% ($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 South- west 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 GMP. Each Jurisdiction shall receive an allocation using a formula of 50%based on population and 50%based on road miles. 24c Major Streets:Traffic Flow, Safety and Capacity Improvements..................................0.7% ($14.4 million) Improvements to major thoroughfares including but not limited to installation of bike lanes,traffic signals,widening, traffic calming and pedestrian safety im- provements, shoulders, curb and gutter, and bus transit facility enhancements such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities. MAY 26, 2004 19 .............................. TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN 28c Subregional Transportation Needs ..................................................................................0.24% ($4.7 million) SWAT will propose programming these funds to any project or program identi- fied in the Expenditure Plan or eligible under the provisions of the Act. EAST COUNTY (TRANSPLAN) 24d Major Streets:Traffic Flow, Safety and Capacity Improvements..................................0.9% ($18.0 million) Improvements to major thoroughfares including,but not limited to,installation of bike lanes, traffic signals,widening, traffic calming and pedestrian safety im- provements, shoulders, curb and gutter, and bus transit facility enhancements such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities. 28d Subregional Transportation Needs......................................................................................0.19% ($3.7 million) TRANSPLAN will propose programming these hinds to any project or program identified in the Expenditure Plan or eligible under the provisions of the Act. Other 29 Administration........................................................................................................................... 1% ($20 million) This category funds the salary and benefits costs of administrating the Measure C extension, consistent with program requirements. Program and Project Management The Transportation Expenditure 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, but are not limited to,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, and reviewing and processing invoices. 20 MAY 26, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE FLAN A PART III THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Goals and Objectives Components The overall goal of the Growth Management Pro- To receive its share of Local Transportation Mainte- gram is to preserve and enhance the duality of life nance and Improvement funds and to be eligible for and promote a healthy, strong economy to benefit Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities the people and areas of Contra Costa through a co- funds, each jurisdiction must: operative, multi-jurisdictional process for managing growth, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions. ' 1. ADOPT A GROWTH MANAGEMENT The objectives of the Growth Management pro- ELEMENT gram are to: Each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain in 1 Assure that new residential, business and com- place, a Growth Management Element as part of its mercial growth flays for the facilities required to General Plan that outlines the jurisdiction's goals and meet the demands resulting from that growth. policies for managing growth and requirements for 0 Require cooperative transportation and land use achieving those goals.The Growth Management Ele- planning among Contra Costa County, cities, ment must show how the jurisdiction will comply towns, and transportation agencies. with sections 2-7 below. The Authority will refine 1 Support land use patterns within Contra Costa its model Growth Management Element and admin- that make more efficient use of the transporta- istrative procedures in consultation with.the.Regional tion system, consistent with the General?dans of Transportation Planning Committees to reflect the re- local jurisdictions, vised Growth Management Program. M Support infill and redevelopment in existing ur- Each jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate ban and brownfield areas. ether standards and procedures into its Growth Management Element to support the objectives and required components of this Growth Management Program. I The Authority will, to the extent possible, at- 2. ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT tempt to harmonize the Growth Management MITIGATION PROGRAM and the State-mandated Congestion Management Each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain in Programs. To the extent they conflict, Conges- place, a development mitigation program to ensure tion Management Program activities shall take that new growth is paying its share of the costs as- precedence over Growth Management Program sociated with that growth.This program shall consist activities. of both a local program to mitigate impacts on local MAY 26, 2004 21 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN streets and other facilities and a regional program to to meet the housing objectives established in the fund regional and subregional transportation proj- jurisdiction's Housing Element; or ects, consistent with the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. (2) Illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately The iurisdiction's local development mitigation planned to meet the existing and projected hous- prograiii shall ensure that revenue provided from this ing needs through the adoption of land use plans measure shall not be used to replace private devel- and regulatory systems which provide opportu- oper funding that has or would have been committed nities for, and do not unduly constrain., housing to any project. development; or The regional development mitigation. program (3) Illustrating how a jurisdiction's General Plan and shall establish fees, exactions, assessments or other zoning regulations facilitate the improvement mitigation measures to fund regional or subregional and development of sufficient housing to meet transportation improvements needed to mitigate the those objectives. impacts of planned or forecast development.Regional mitigation programs may adjust such fees, exactions, In addition, each jurisdiction shall consider the assessments or other mitigation measures when de- impacts that its land use and development policies velopments are within walking distance of frequent have on the local,regional and countywide transpor- transit service or are part of a mixed-use development tation system, including the level of transportation of sufficient density and with necessary facilities to capacity that can reasonably be provided, and shall support greater levels of walking and bicycling. Each incorporate policies and standards into its develop- Regional Transportation Planning Committee shall anent approval process that support transit, bicycle develop the regional development mitigation pro- and pedestrian access in new developments. gram for its region, taking account of planned and forecast growth and the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives and actions to achieve them es- "�. PARTICIPATE t N A N ONGOING tablished in the Action Plans for Routes of Regional COOPERATIVE, MULTI- Significance.Regional Transportation Planning Com- JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING mittees may use existing regional mitigation pro- PROCESS grains,if consistent with this section,to comply with Each jurisdiction shall participate in an ongoing the Growth Management Program. process with other jurisdictions and agencies, the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and the Authority to create a balanced, safe and efficient 3. ADDRESS HCtUSING OPTIONS transportation system and to manage the impacts of Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate reasonable growth. jurisdictions shall work with the Regional progress in providing housing opportunities for all Transportation Planning Committees to: income levels as part of a report on the implementa- A. Identify Routes of Regional Significance, and tion of the actions outlined in its adopted Housing establish Multimodal Transportation Service Ob- Element. The report will demonstrate progress by: jectives for those routes and actions for achieving (1) Comparing the number of housing units ap- diose objectives.proved, constructed or occupied within the B. Apply the Authority's travel demand model and jurisdiction over the preceding five years with technical procedures to the analysis of General the number of units needed on average each year Plan Amendments (GPAs) and developments 22 MAY 26, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN AM'II 'tMW Mftwft exceeding specified thresholds for their effect on The new ULL will be developed and maintained the regional transportation system, including on consistent with the "Principles of Agreement" in At- Action Plan objectives, tachment A, incorporated herein by reference. C. Create the development mitigation programs outlined in section 2 above, 6, DEVELOP A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL D. Help develop other plans, programs and studies IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM to address other transportation and growth man- Each jurisdiction shall prepare and maintain agement issues. a capital improvement program that outlines the capital projects needed to implement the goals and In consultation with the Regional Transportation policies of the jurisdiction's General Plan for at least Planning Committees, each jurisdiction will use the the following five-year period. The Capital Improve- travel demand model to evaluate changes to local ment Program shall include approved projects and an General Plans and the impacts of major development analysis of the costs of the proposed projects as well projects for their effects on the local and regional as a financial plan for providing die improvements. transportation system and the ability to achieve the The jurisdiction shall forward the transportation Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives estab- component of its capital improvement program to lished in the Action Plans. the Authority for incorporation into the Authority's jurisdictions shall also participate in the Author- database of transportation projects. ity's ongoing countywide comprehensive transpor- tation planning process. As part of this process, the Authority shall support countywide and subregional 7. ADOPT A TRANSPORTATION planning efforts, including the Action Plans for SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM) Routes of Regional Significance, and shall maintain a ORDINANCE O R RESOLUTION travel demand model. jurisdictions shall help main- To promote carpools,vanpools and park and.ride tain the Authority's travel demand modeling system lots, each jurisdiction shall adopt a local ordinance by providing information on proposed improve- or resolution that conforms to the model Transporta- ments to the transportation system and planned and tion Systems Management Ordinance that the Trans- approved development within the jurisdiction. portation Authority has drafted and adopted. Upon approval of the Authority,cities with a small employ- ment base may adopt alternative mitigation measures 5. ADOPT AN URBAN LIMIT LINE in lieu of a TSM ordinance or resolution. (ULL) Each jurisdiction must continuously comply with either a new"Countywide mutually agreed upon voter approved Allocation of Funds ULL" or the "local jurisdiction's voter approved ULL" before Portions of the monies received from the retail that jurisdiction would be eligible to receive the 18% transaction and use tax will be returned to the lo- return to source funds or the 5% TLC funds. In the cal jurisdictions (the cities and the county) for use absence of a new local voter approved ULL, submit- on local, subregional and/or regional transportation tal of an annexation recuest to LAFCO outside the improvements and maintenance projects. Receipt of countywide voter approved ULL will constitute non- all such funds requires compliance with the Growth compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Management Program described below. The fiends Plan. MAY 26, 2004 23 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN are to be distributed on a formula based on popula- its share of local street maintenance and improvement tion and road miles. funding.jurisdictions may use funds allocated under Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate its compli- this provision to comply with these administrative ante with all of the components of the Growth requirements. Management Program in a completed compliance If the Authority determines that the jurisdic- checklist. The jurisdiction shall submit, and the Au- tion does not comply with the requirements of the thorny shall review and make findings regarding the Growth Management Program, the Authority shall jurisdiction's compliance with the requirements of withhold those funds and also matte a finding that the Growth Management Program, consistent with the jurisdiction shall not be eligible to receive Con- the Authority's adopted policies and procedures. tra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities If the Authority determines that the jurisdiction until the Authority determines the jurisdiction has complies with the requirements of the Growth Man- achieved compliance. The Authority's findings of agement Program, it shall allocate to the jurisdiction noncompliance may set deadlines and conditions for achieving compliance. Withholding of funds, reinstatement of com- pliance, reallocation of funds and treatment of un- allocated funds shall be as established in adopted Authority's policies and procedures. 24 MAY 26, 2004 __ ....... TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN ATTACHMENT A PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE URBAN LIMIT LINE 1. The Board of Supervisors shall have, with the ULL will be considered as the Countywide Voter concurrence of each affected city, adjusted the Approved ULL once it is ratified by the voters. existing County ULL on or before September 6. If a Town or City disagrees with the mutually 30, 2004, or as expeditiously as possible given agreed upon ULL, it may, as an alternative, de- the requirements of CEQA, to make the existing velop and submit to its voters an "alternative County ULL coterminous with city boundaries ULL", or rely upon an existing voter approved where it previously intruded inside those incor- ULL, porated boundaries. 7. If no Countywide mutually agreed upon ULL 2. The process to develop the ULL shall have begun is established by March 31, 2009, only local by July 1, 2004 with meetings in each sub region jurisdictions with a voter approved ULL will be between one elected representative of each city eligible to receive the 18%n return to source funds and the county. The subregional meeting(s) will or the 5%TLC funds, be followed by meetings between all of the cities 8. The new Measure C Growth Management Pro- and the county, each being represented by one gram will include a requirement that all jurisdic- elected representative. The discussion will in- tions must comply with either the "Countywide clude both the suggested ULL as well as criteria ULL" or the "local jurisdiction's voter approved for establishing the line and future modifications ULL" before that jurisdiction would be eligible to the ULL. to receive the 18% return to source funds or the 3. On or before December 31, 2004, the County 5% CC-TLC funds. In the absence of a local and the cities will cooperate in the development doter approved ULL, submittal of an annexation of a new mutually agreed upon ULL and criteria request to LAFCO outside the countywide voter for future modifications.To be considered a final approved ULL will constitute non-compliance proposal, the plan must be approved by 4 mem- with the Measure C Growth Management Plan. bers of' the Board of Supervisors and 3/4 of the 9. The new ULL, unless amended, will be in place cities representing J/4 of the incorporated popula- through the end of the sales tax extension (March tion. 31, 2034). 4. The County will be the lead agency in preparing 10. The Countywide voter approved ULL Measure a Master Elft on the proposed Countywide "mu- will include provisions for periodic review (5 tually agreed upon ULL",, years) as well as provisions for minor (less than 5. After certification of the Master EIR, the proposal 30 acres) nonconsecutive adjustments. shall be submitted to the voters for ratification by November 2006.The new mutually agreed upon MAY 26, 2004 25 _ _. TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN 26 MAY 26, 2004 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN PART IV SUMMARY OF THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM The Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Commu- CC-TLC Goals nities (CC-TLC) Program would fund transportation enhancement projects in urban, suburban and rural The goals of the CC-TLC Program are to support communities, would support a balanced transporta- transportation enhancement projects and planning tion system, would foster the creation of affordable that will: housing, and would help make Contra Costa's com- ■ Help create walkable, pedestrian-friendly neigh- munities more pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit- borhoods and business districts; friendly. The CC-TLC program is intended to support ■ Promote innovative solutions, including com- local efforts to achieve more compact, mixed-use pact building design and context-sensitive site development, and development that is pedestrian- planning that is integrated with the transporta- friendly or integrated into transit networks. This tion system; type of development provides residents with a broad range of housing choices, easy access to public facili- ■ Help create walkable, pedestrian-friendly access ties, and alternatives to the use of the automobile for linking housing and job centers to transit; commuting, shopping or recreation. Finally, the CC- ■ Help create affordable housing; TLC program can strengthen existing communities through infill development and discourage the loss of ■ Encourage a mixture of land uses and support open space and agricultural land on the urban fringe. a community's development or redevelopment These principles can be applied throughout Contra activities; and Costa, not only in existing urban areas but also in ■ Provide for a variety of transportation choices to suburban and rural parts of the county, enhance a community's mobility, identity, and quality of life. The CC-TLC Incentive Program can aid propo- nents of' affordable or workforce housing projects that may need specific transportation improvements I The program is expected to emphasize investments as a condition of'project approval and would be ex- that support program goals; hovvever, where appro- pected to be a catalyst that might assist communities priate, a limited portion of the grants may be used for with infill and transit-oriented development. project-related betterments, such as undergrounding utilities. MAY 26, 2004 27 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN 4.W£APk'�6' ,... bkiY. J4F.f#GkYdi'dd�'M.rki'S�AA4,�.SA .d9�^ 'A� To ensure that all jurisdictions can compete for basis. Funds available to the subregion for program- the funds, project definitions include projects for ur- ming would be based upon the population of each ban, suburban, and rural land use types, subregion at the beginning of each five-year funding cycle. Working with the RTPCs, the Authority would What Will the CC-TLC Incentive prepare guidelines and establish overall criteria for Program Fund? the program. The RTPCs would review project pro- The CC-TLC Incentive Program would fund both posals and make funding recornmendations to the planning and capital grants. Planning grants would Authority. The Authority review the recommenda- support development of community-oriented plans tions of the RTPCs, and authorize expenditures that link transportation investments with land-use through the Authority's Strategic Plan. decisions. Capital grants would hand transportation- Preference would be given to projects that related improvements,such as streetscapes,plazas and maximize transportation benefits linked to provid- squares, transit access, parking and bicycle facilities, ing affordable housing near transit or in downtown traffic calming programs and related infrastructure areas. Retails would be worked out by the RTPCs. improvements. More specifically, incentive funds The application process would be on a three-or five- would be available for the planning and construc- year cycle, at the option of the RTPCs. Applications tion of the following types of transportation-related would only be accepted by the RTPCs from local ju- infrastructure improvements to catalyze, facilitate or risdictions or transit operators,and.the RTPCs would support projects that meet the CC-TLC program's forward recommended programs to the Authority. goals: ' Mon,-profit corporations and other entities could also be eligible for transportation funding but would Local transit facilities need a public sponsor. Intersection improvements and pedestrian facili- ties Eligibility of Sponsors for Funds ► Pedestrian plazas,walkways and other streetscape An- improvements that encourage walking Jurisdictions are eligible for CC-TLC funds if the Au- thority has found them in compliance with the GMP b Traffic calming measures at the time of grant approval. ! Bicycle facilities While sales tax funds cannot be used to directly fund housing, office, or commercial developments, as noted above, the program could fund the infra- structure necessary to support affordable housing and other development desired by local communities. Program Funding Funding would be allocated to the subregions and then distributed to individual, qualifying projects after Authority approval. It would not be allocated to local jurisdictions on an "as-of-right" formula 28 MAY 26, 2004 CONTRA trtsra rRaNspQRrarroN AurNoRrrY Commissioners Amy Worth, Chair Southwest Contra Costa, City of Orinda Janet Abelson, Vice-Chair . West Contra Costa, City of El Cerrito Charlie Abrams Central Contra Costa, City of Walnut Creek Maria Al.egria Conference of Mayors, City of Pinole Donald P. Freitas Fast Contra Costa, City of Antioch John Gioia Board of Supervisors Federal Glover Board of Supervisors Brad Nix .. East Contra Costa, City of Oakley Julie Pierce Central Contra Costa,City of Clayton Karen Stepper .. .... ... Southwest Contra Costa, Town of Danville Kris Valstad West Contra Costa, City ofHercules Ex-Officio Members Irma Anderson Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Con- ference of Mayors, City of Richmond Joel Keller Bay Area Rapid Transit District Arne Simonson Bus Transit Operators, Tri Delta Transit, City of Antioch Authority Staff Robert K. McCleary Executive Director Paul F. Maxwell. Chief Deputy Director, Projects Martin R. Engelmann Deputy Director, Planning Arielle E.L. Bourgart Assistant Director, Community & Governmental Affairs David Murray. Chief Financial Officer Susan Miller Engineering Manager Hisham Noein-ii Senior Transportation Engineer Brad Beck Senior Transportation Planner Lorraine Brauer Computer Systems Specialist&Database Manager Ed Heyman Accountant Anita Fitzgibbons Execrative Secretary Ellen Wilson Administrative Assistant, Projects Jane Pennington, Connie Peterson Administrative Assistant, Planning Authority Offices 3478 Buskirk Avenue 925 447 0121 PHONE Suite 100 925 407 0128 FAX Pleasant Hill CA 94523 http://www.ccta.net EXHIBIT F CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. 04.02 Authorizing the Amendment of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (No. 88-01),as amended,the Continuance of the Existing Measure C Sales Tax and the Implementation of a New Transportation Expenditure Plan Preamble: A. On August 3, 1988,the Contra Costa Transportation Authority{'Amthorit)�') unanimously passed and adapted the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance(No.88-01). The purpose of that ordinance was to establish and implement a half-percent retail transactions and use tax in Contra Costa County. As required by Public Utilities Code Section 180205,the Authority has used the revenues derived from the transactions and use tax 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. The ordinance became effective on November 8, 1988,the day it was approved by a majority of the voters in that election. The ordinance thereafter became operative on April 1, 1989,and the imposition of the tax is currently set to expire on March 31,2009. B. The expenditure of the revenues derived from the sales tax is governed by the terms and conditions of a sales tax transportation expenditure plan O',LEP."). The Authority originally adopted the TEP after the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities within the county having a majority of the population within the incorporated portion of the county approved the TEP,subject to the voters' subsequent approval of the retail transactions and use tax at the November 8, 1988 general election. C. The Authority now wishes to amend Ordinance No. 88-01,as amended,by continuing the existing sales tax in effect for a 25-year period pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180201. The Authority also wishes to implement a new TEP in connection with this extension of the sales tax. Subject to voter approval,the new TEP will become effective on April 1,2005. Based on the foregoing,the Authority ordains as follows: I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Ordinance is to continue in effect the existing retail transactions and use tax(commonly referred to as a"transportation sales tax")through an amendment to Ordinance No. 88-01. It also authorizes implementation of the new TEP setting forth the projects and programs to be funded through March 31,2034 during which period this transportation sales tax is to be imposed and collected. II. EFFECT OF NEW TEP. The new TEP is attached hereto as Exhibit A and augments the existing TEP adopted in 1488. The new TEP,as adopted by the Authority,is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein,and as it may be amended from time to time pursuant to applicable law. Ordinance No.04-02 Page 1 of 7 167633-1 III. SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO.98-01. The below-identified sections of Ordinance No. 88-01 are specifically amended and restated in their entirety as follows [bracketed text included for information only-no changes made by this ordinance]. SECTION 1. TITLE. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the"Measure C Sales Tax Renewal Ordinance(#88-01 as amended by#04-02),"which continues in effect the existing retail transactions and use tax. [SECTION 2. EXPEDITURE PLAN PURPOSES. Unchanged.] SECTION 3. CONTINUATION OF RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. In addition to any other taxes authorized by law,there is hereby continued in effect in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa,in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6(commencing with Section 725 1)of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,which provisions are adopted by reference,and Division 19 of the Public Utilities Code commencing with Code Section 180000,a retail transactions and use tax at the rate of one-half of one percent(1/2%)for a period not to exceed twenty five years commencing on April 1,2009,in addition to any existing or future authorized state or local transactions and use tax.This tax continues in effect the transportation sales tax currently set to expire on March 31,2009,as approved by the voters as Measure C at the November 8, 1988 general election. Subject to voter approval,the existing retail transactions and use tax is hereby continued in effect and reimposed at the rate of one-half of one percent(1/2%)for an additional period of 25 years,commencing on April 1,2009,and continuing through March 31,2034. A. Amendments. All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance to Part I of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,and all amendments to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,shall automatically became a part of this Ordinance;provided,however,that no such amendments shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance. B. Enjoining Collection Forbidden. No injunction of writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit,action or proceeding in any court against the State or the Authority,or against any officer of the State or the Authority,to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance,or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to collected. SECTION 4. REQUEST FOR ELECTION. The Authority requests the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors place this Ordinance before the voters for approval on the November 2,2004 ballot.The proposition to be placed on the ballot shall read substantially as follows: "Shall voters authorize implementing a 25-year Transportation Expenditure Plan to: ■ Extend and improve the BART system ■ Add a Fourth Bore to the Caldecott Tunnel • Widen and improve Interstates 80 and 680 and Highway 4 Ordinance No.04-02 Page 2 of 7 167633-1 ■ Pay for local street and road maintenance ■ Improve Transit for seniors and disabled persons Approval authorizes continuation of the 1/.2-cent transportation sales tax for implementation of the Transportation Expenditure Plan and shall not increase current sales tax." The election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct of elections by a county. Pursuant to Section 180243(c) of the Public Utilities Code, the sample ballot to be mailed to the voters shall be the full proposition,as set forth in the ordinance calling the election,and the voter information handbook shall 'include the entire new TEP as adopted by the Authority. Approval of the above preposition,and the imposition of the extension of the Measure`tC"retail transactions and use tax described herein,shall require the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the electors voting on the attached proposition at the election described in this section. SECTION 5. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PURPOSES.The revenues made available for specified highway,transit and trail projects and programs shall be allocated in accordance with the Expenditure Plan,subject to the following provisions: A. For all projects: I. No revenues shall be allocated for any state projects until the Authority has certified that Contra Costa is receiving, at a minimum, its fair share of funds from state and federal sources for transportation projects and programs. The determination of fair share shall consider all relevant factors including the degree to which the Contra Costa region is receiving its statutory county minimum funding for all budgeted, expended, and programmed state funds and federal funds available for capital projects and operating subsidies. The policies and project approval actions of the California Transportation Commission, the State Department of Transportation (hereafter referred to as Caltrans)and the federal Department of Transportation(e.g. Federal .Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation Administration) will also be reviewed to ensure that Contra Costa is receiving full consideration in the allocation of any additional uncommitted state and federal funding. Part of the certification shall include a finding that the state has not reduced any state fund allocations to the Contra Costa region as a result of the addition of any local revenues as provided herein.The certification shall be made annually. 2. If the Authority finances the construction of transportation facilities by the issuance of bonds or any similar financing device, the Authority shall first allocate the funds necessary to meet all debt service requirements. 3. Each project shall have a local jurisdiction(s) or special district as a sponsor of the project. If there is no local jurisdiction or special district as a project sponsor for a specific Project or Program, the Authority shall be the sponsor for that Project or Program. Ordinance No.04-02 Page 3 of 7 167633-1 4. All state improvements to be funded with revenues as provided in this Ordinance, including project development and overall project management, shall be a joint responsibility of Caltrans, the Authority and the affected local jurisdiction(s) or special district(s). All major project approval actions including the project concept, the project location, and any subsequent change in project scope shall be jointly agreed upon by Caltrans, the Authority and the project sponsors, and where appropriate, by the Federal Highway Administration and/or the California "Transportation Commission. 5. The Authority may use the proceeds of this Ordinance to accelerate projects which are anticipated to be funded through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). It must be demonstrated by Caltrans that a meaningful acceleration can be accomplished using Authority funds and the State must commit to refunding those proceeds in dollars or in the acceleration or completion of other :Expenditure Plan Projects and Programs and/or STIP projects. In the event that the refund of acceleration funds impacts the implementation of any Expenditure Plan Project or Program,the Authority shall amend the Expenditure Plan under Section 8. 6. Any local funds already allocated, committed or otherwise included in the financial plan for any project on the Expenditure Plan shall be made available for project development and implementation as required in the project's financial and implementation program. All local jurisdictions and special districts are encouraged to seek all available funding from private and public sources to further the purposes of the Expenditure Plan and this Ordinance. B. For Highway Projects: Cance any state highway facility or usable portion thereof is constructed to at least minimum acceptable state standards, the state shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. C. For Transit Projects: Prior to the construction of any transit facility or usable portion thereof, the Authority, in cooperation with affected transit operators and agencies, shall determine the entity to be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. D. For Trail Projects: Prior to the construction of any trail facility or usable portion thereof, the Authority, in cooperation with affected agencies,shall determine the entity(ies)to be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. [Former sections 5B and 5C will be incorporated into the existing 1988 Measure C TEP.1 [SECTION 6. TRANPORATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROCEDURES. Unchanged. This section deals with local jurisdiction"maintenance of effort" requirements.] Ordinance No.04-02 Page 4 of 7 167633-1 _ . SECTION 7. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PURPOSES AND PROCEDURES. For the Transportation Expenditure Plan applicable to the revenues from the extension of the sales tax,compliance with the growth management program is required for the receipt of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and Transportation for Livable Communities funds.The Growth Management Program defined by the original Ordinance 88-01 continues in effect along with its linkage to Local Street Maintenance and Improvement funds through FY 2008-09. [SECTION 8.AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPENDITURE PLAN AND ORDINANCE. Unchanged.] [SECTON 9. AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. Unchanged.] [SECTION 10. AUTHORITY COMMITTEES. Unchanged.] [SECTION 11. PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING. Unchanged.] SECTION 12. BONDING AUTHORITY. This section incorporates by reference all of the relevant provisions contained in Public Utilities Code Sections 180200("Pay-as-you-go" financing)and 180250 through 180264. This Ordinance authorizes the Authority to 'issue limited tax bonds to finance capital outlay expenditures as may be provided for in the adopted transportation expenditure plan,payable from the proceeds of the tax. In accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 180250(b)the maximum bonded indebtedness which may be outstanding at any one time shall be an amount equal to the sum of the principle of,and interest on,the bonds,but not to exceed the estimated proceeds of the tax,as determined by the plan. The amount of bonds outstanding at any one time does not include the amount of bonds,refunding bonds, or bond anticipation notes for which funds necessary for the payment thereof have been set aside for that purpose in a trust or escrow account. [SECTION 13. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. Unchanged.] [SECTION 14. ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS. Unchanged.] [SECTION 15. IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES. Unchanged.] SECTION 16. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. If at least a two-thirds majority of the electors voting on this measure at the election scheduled for November 2, 2004 vote to approve this Ordinance,then it will become effective the next day on November 3,2004. If so approved,this Ordinance becomes operative on April 1,2005 pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180204(x). [SECTION 17.DESIGNATION OF FACILITIES. Unchanged.] [SECTION 18.CONTRACTS,LOCAL PREFERENCE. Unchanged.] [SECTION 19.SEVERABILITY. Unchanged.] [SECTION 20.ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. Unchanged.] [SECTION 21.COORDINATION. Unchanged.] Ordinance No.04-02 Page 5 of 7 157633-1 [SECTION 22.ALLOCATION OF RELEASED FUNDS. Unchanged.] [SECTION 23.ALLOCATION OF EXCESS FUNIS. Unchanged.] [SECTION 24.TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EMINENT DOMAIN. Unchanged.] SECTION 25. SUNSET OF THE AUTHORITY. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. [This section terminated the Authority in the event the tax did not receive approval by the voters in 1988.1 SECTION 26. CALDECOTT TUNNEL. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. [Ordinance 88-01 encouraged the Authority to secure state and federal funds for the tunnel,and authorized loaning money to the state for delivery. These provisions are no Ionger necessary.] SECTION 27. MAJOR ARTERIALS. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. [This section dealt with defining the Southwest Arterials category and arterial funding from the I-680 category. It will be moved to the existing 1988 TEP.] SECTION 28. DEFINITIONS. A. Authority. Means the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The Authority shall continue in effect as currently constituted. The Authority has all of the powers set forth in Division 19 of the Public Utilities Code(commencing with Section 1.80000). B. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Facilities. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design,right-of-way acquisition and construction of facilities intended for use by bicycles and pedestrians. Bicycle facilities shall also mean facilities and programs that help to encourage the use of bicycles such as secure bicycle parking facilities,bicycle promotion programs and bicycle safety education programs. C. Bonds. Means indebtedness and securities of any kind or class,including but not limited to bonds,nates,revenue anticipation notes,commercial paper,and certificates of participation. D. Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Means the long-range transportation-planning document prepared and adopted by the Authority and updated from time to time. E. Expenditure Plan. Means the expenditure plan required by Section 180206 of the Public Utilities Code to be adopted prior to the call of an election on this Ordinance. The expenditure plan includes the allocation of revenues for each authorized purpose. As of April 1,2004,the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan augments the expenditure plan adapted in 1988. Any reference to"Expenditure Plan"in this Ordinance,unless the context otherwise requires,refers to the 1988 and 2004 plans. F. Highways and Arterials. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right-of-way acquisition,and construction of highway and arterial street facilities, including all interstate highway routes and any other facilities so designated in the Expenditure Plan. Ordinance No.04-02 Page 6 of 7 167633-1 _._. EXHIBIT C CONTRA COSTA Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance ##88-0I aAs amended bv: Ordinance 92-01 March: 18 1992 Ordinance 94-01, lune 15, 1994 Ordinance 94-02 October 19 1994 Ordinance 97-02,April 16 1997 Ordinance 0 1-0 i January 17 20 01 And Ordinance 04-02 on May 26 2004 ORD The Contra Costa Transportation Authority ordains as follows: SECTION 1.TITLE. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the rn,,traGast :F .. - '.. "Measure C Sales Tax Renewal Ordinance (#88-01 as amended by#04-02),"which shall.esti I:hsi ^>„z - �. . continues in effect the existing retail transactions and use tax. SECTION 2.EXPENDITURE PLAN PURPOSES. This Ordinance provides for the implementa- tion of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Expenditure Plan,as approved and adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority,which will result in countywide transportation facility and service improvements including highway improvements, public transit improvements,trail facility improvements,local street maintenance and improve- ments and related transportation programs.These needed improvements shall be funded by the retail transactions and use tax provided for in Section 3 of this Ordinance.The revenues shall be deposited in a special fund and used solely for transportation projects and programs.The specific projects and programs to be implemented as well as the required growth management program are described in the Expenditure Pian which is considered a part of this Ordinance and hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. The revenues received by the Authority from this Ordinance, after deduction of required Board of Equalization costs for performing the functions specified in Section 180204 of the Public Utili- ties Code, and for the administration of the Contra Costa Expenditure Plan commencing with Public Utilities Code Section 180200, in an amount not to exceed one percent (1%), shall be used for transportation projects and programs countywide as set forth in the Expenditure flan and in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan developed by the Au- thority. Expenditures for staff salaries and benefits for projects, programs and planning, including Growth Management Program functions and as the County's designated Congestion Management 1 .. .. _. ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 Agency shall be included within and subject to funding under the applicable allocation provided for in the Expenditure Plan, or from other sources. SECTION 3.$ OSTT4Oid-CONTINUATION OF RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. 1n addition to any other taxes authorized by law,there is hereby+mac -.-continued in effect in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa,in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7 2 5 1) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,which provisions are adopted by reference,and Division 19 of the Public Utilities Code commencing with Code Section 180000,a retail transactions and use tax at the rate of one- half of one percent(1/2%) for a period not to exceed twenty five years commend ng on April 1 2009,in addition to any existing or future authorized state or local transactions and use tax.This tax continues in effect the transportation sales tax currently set to expire on March 31 2009 as approved by the voters as Measure C at the November 8 1988 general election.Subject to voter approval,the existing retail transactions and use tax is hereby continued in effect and reimpgsed at the rate of one-half of one percent (1/2'/01 for an additional period of 25 years commenci n on April 1. 2009 and continuing through March 31 2034. A.Amendments.All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,and all amendments to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,shall automatically become a part of this Ordinance;provided,however,that no such amendments shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance. B.h opining Collection Forbidden.No injunction of writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit,action or proceeding in any court against the State or the Author- ity,or against any officer of the State or the Authority, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to collected. SECTION 4.REQUEST FOR ELECTION. The Authority hem requests the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors place this Ordinance before the voters for approval on the November 92, 448-8-2004 ballot. The proposition to be placed on the ballot shall read substantially as follows:. "Shall voters authorize implementing a 25-year Transportation Expenditure Plan to: • Extend and improve the BART s sy tern x Add a Fourth Bore to the Caldecott Tunnel ■ Wi.den azsd improve Interstates 80 and 680 and Highway 4 ■ Fav £ar local street and road maintenance 2 ................................. ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 "rove Transit for seniors and disabled persons "Approval authorizes continuation of the'/2-cent transportation sales tax for imple- mentation of the Transportation Expenditure Plan and shall not increase current sales tax.." The election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as.provided b law for the con- duct of elections by acounty. Pursuant to Section 180203 c of the Public Utilities code the sample ballot to be mailed to the voters shall be the full proposition as set forth in the ordinance calling the election and the voter inforrnation handbook shall include the entire new TEP as adopted by the Authority. Approval of the above proposition and the imposition of the exten- sion of the Measure"C"retail transactions and use tax described herein shall require the aiTirrna-- rive vote of at least two-thirds of the electors voting on the attached proposition at the election described in this section. Edi tltastai'ti orttic.�i 1t t �t i r « i +T� .17L.. t-�"cYLil't�i'fx`r.cti`itYc-S u'Grrriri�zr"�c Y :sr� t1"�ik3� i tiairti v x£'pf i Eet�t f ` i 1'i2 -'ns"d:{3<1" ph-eed in. 15: 711 SECTION 5.jFormerly S.A) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PURPOSES. The revenues made available for specified highway,transit and trail projects and programs shall be allocated in accordance with the Expenditure Plan, subject to the following provisions: A. For all projects: 1. No revenues shall be allocated for any state projects until the Authority has certified that Contra Costa is receiving, at a minimum, its fair share of funds from state and federal sources for transportation projects and programs. The determination of fair share shall consider all relevant factors including the degree to which the Contra Costa region is re- ceiving its statutory county minimum funding for all budgeted, expended, and pro- grarnmed state funds and federal funds available for capital projects and operating subsi- dies.The policies and project approval actions of the California Transportation Commis- sion, the State Department of Transportation (hereafter referred to as Caltrans) and the federal Department of Transportation (e.g.Federal Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation Administration)will also be reviewed to ensure that Contra Costa is receiving full consideration in the allocation of any additional uncommitted state and federal funding. Part of the certification shall include a finding that the state has not re- duced any state fund allocations to the Contra Costa region as a result of the addition of any local revenues as provided herein. The certification shall be made annually. 2. If the Authority finances the construction of transportation facilities by the issuance of bonds or any similar financing device, the Authority shall first allocate the funds neces- sary to meet all debt service requirements. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 3. Each project shall have a local jurisdiction(s) or special district as a sponsor of the pro- ject. If there is no local jurisdiction or special district as a project sponsor for a specific Project or Program, the Authority shall be the sponsor for that Project or Program. 4. All state improvements to be funded with revenues as provided in this Ordinance, in- cluding project development and overall project management,shall be a joint responsi- bility of Caltrans,the Authority and the affected local jurisdictions)or special district(s). All major project approval actions including the project concept, the project location, and any subsequent change in project scope shall be jointly agreed upon by Caltrans,the Authority and the project sponsors, and where appropriate, by the Federal Highway Administration and/or the California Transportation Commission. 5. The Authority may use the proceeds of this Ordinance to accelerate projects which are anticipated to be funded through the State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP). It must be demonstrated by Caltrans that a meaningful acceleration can be accomplished using Authority funds and the State must commit to refunding those proceeds in dollars or in the acceleration or completion of other Expenditure Plan Projects and Programs and/or STIP projects. In the event that the refund of acceleration funds impacts the implementation of any Ex- penditure Plan Project or Program,the Authority shall amend the Expenditure Plan un- der Section 8. 6. Any local funds already allocated,committed or otherwise included in the financial plan for any project on the Expenditure Plan shall be made available for project development and implementation as required in the project's financial and implementation program. All local jurisdictions and special districts are encouraged to seek all available funding from private and public sources to further the purposes of the Expenditure Plan and this Ordinance. B. For Highway Projects: Once any state highway facility or usable portion thereof is con- structed to at least minimum acceptable state standards,the state shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. C.For Transit Projects: Prior to the construction of any transit facility or usable portion thereof, the Authority, in cooperation with affected transit operators and agencies, shall determine the entity to be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. D. For Trail Projects: Prior to the construction of any trail facility or usable portion thereof,the Authority, in cooperation with affected agencies, shall determine the entity(ies) to be re- sponsible for the maintenance and operation thereof (Sections 5H and SC will be incorporated into►the existing Measure C.) 4 ORDINANCE N4. 88-01 AS AMENDED 8Y ORDINANCE NO. 04-02�r��e --aaa�-t;�-tart-tie-ac�taa-iat�t�at A z� �-- .���}1°t's4��£-�if,=A�3-Yst#�=E ivc—a-e,a:*i:ic•-iris£-1{�3iii�� '� , , .. i��t3fi� �-t33't£�x ��:�?ti; �'4t�-�E3-j{if�t�F.i•3f t�}Hf?'.�- -'�#�t=�l't��d'.?�'f�-���4' t�2?-�-���r��-t3ii F3 E-�����3€jt�-c�iE� o etarr-ettt...#igo-re .`'rxi...w:r.s�:x�✓is�erxzcc--4-V.cs' ull. .sf!3"-4e�3.$t�:4...C'3�-t�7' la�`."c' c. .. .. .... ... a _ 3.........._ d � ceti-t sera :e-- nese...€tan ... reatettelert�-.arre aratat off ttl+e eitt«€ e ti. ...t re e3 tte tEa t17p4 rc� atri. c� a jtt et#c� 4 ai m s rr 3era car are e.� . "----�.i':r�r�ec�'c'^'i•i-'�t:.rv�'x sr'ze`'.r.`�^�-e,�'••�, . , .. _ .,... .. ... �cxcrzric,'r.e-�-eu�:,-icr.'c-c'c3 5 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED 8Y ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 1�c>t}e-wor fl-�rrc r e_. ...�is -a.�e�t ari e: r j...ti e ;i � - ccs a3tt ��}��i}.�_��...�.��zt ra•-<::e Ott tit�<...���ve-}. &tr4ficeontt,-461t- __-_._�? :�-��-���`tet:«�e-�t:�-�}i;-� ��-art --�sx���r+rc ���-�•��:-�`c�r�c�.•��t-err-�r�r}-��t��--a��-- e, d �i -�fficcrmz'-rYc:cxci-i-�rz-tc'sTac�xs.-� _ �'-•�k�•1�'tit��-£1��tik3�y-��. an -(6144TAt } te -a1- eu+e I�,-a ;it-E'trt��€.I...cr�rrgi5ee1 c£Ede E �t1... a-li-ager4.... .- ¢13e d ux e e}f esent i•Isle-a*kanv,•- AC- art -t�t��c�r��:�;•�,�,��-�z^.,: � •-�r�a `. '... ...: �.. � . . x � leaI rN}r�yer�:ie.43tr -��. �;��-��is�f-v�tk�•-tea�rr�e� �t-c��el��•;-�c �a�e�t��- atm=-fie Tf e�3• i•�xe t.� a�c�4"_�c��� ��r�-1=rc>ar-c��-�r��-�1�•�-:�tz�hc���•�:�,'�'Ire��'�aat��t����tc�•rc#�-i���:c»i�ttr��:- f�f?1:�-'vd:cet•-� �G."�'�r°c�� V-�y}3�--��E?-••1^ A�fi!v�z i•�-rr9i�-ci%t=-.:-�Lfr��''.i�.•t-t:3�•e;i�.`rs�x�i�i-€�•}£ • - c-�� �; '.. •art-�• �••�-I�- . �-�i .�-�=r�r ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 °sidaxa+". .f'€fff,:x"ci, Gast per Vehiel flour--s- 3 Tr-ips...per-Rieverz-tfe e fi le �r r -�--"asicis"si>c- �i£'-��rE�3ase-ai3f�•-F)�3f'Fz�fi��342-f3�-{�'•�fiS;za-sri•:•rccier, 3---��rtf:;�-fix*-Et4ec�•-#�•3�t�•fora=:-���t.a -,fi��.��n����=- �-:---a�4�•�t...�•�e-f�l�er���3r�--ire•• -����•er:�:��•�•��c�-fi���ev ek��ed-}�} ��: t . �c ��i��;€ ��r-c•��k�i��crrr�-•�-r��� ����e.�r}-�t•��fxi�?•�-�:•�tif�r•��:�•-�:;�� u er-rare A-whorit a�artc a qtr } 3r e€€f3rt ...x�... elc r..at c...t it i- 3 �x� e3ir� rlat3� tai �,-�•t����e-c•�� -a•�xf- )�-et�tfr�t�-t��f=e=�����-=,I��-•�trF�•ek •�--a�-�.e��-��•rte -ria-�:-eei=rrt�-- � r.;�c.•�r�r �rt �--�?}err. 7 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 R� i•��r�a•1-ci•a���frc7r-taxi<>�r...1.�{ar��-x���;_rrfiay_also-i�cl�•i�R.c.�t3�e1 -€�I•t��ajc�r n€:�...t:.�at��•faertatit�n:-fat-rl;... t4". a3xd Programs, SECTION 6.TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROCEDURES. ' A. It is the intent of the Legislature and the Authority that revenues provided from this Ordi- nance be used to supplement existing revenues being used for transportation improvements and programs.Each local jurisdiction receiving Local Street Maintenance and Improvements funds pursuant to Section 5 shall meet the requirements of that section. B. Under state enabling legislation, funds generated pursuant to Measure C are to be used to supplement and not replace existing local revenues used for transportation purposes.2 To meet the requirements of state law, a jurisdiction must demonstrate maintenance of mini- mum level of local street and road expenditures in conformance with the requirements be- low. C. The local jurisdiction shall expend each fiscal year from its general fund for street and high- way purposes an amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund during the 1987-88, 1988-89,and 1989-1990 fiscal years,as reported to the Control- ler pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 2151. Minimum annual average general fund expenditures for each of the local jurisdictions,calculated as set forth herein are as fol- lows: Concord $4,374,420 Walnut Creek $2,309,350 Antioch $2,271,666 Richmond $1,420,937 San Ramon $1,053,697 Pleasant Hill $1,019,834 Martinez $1,013,178 Pittsburg $0,961,877 County of Contra Costa $0,420,064 Pinole $0,414,486 Lafayette $0,329,600 San Pablo $0,201,641 Danville $0,185,742 Brentwood $0,177,369 Ordinance 94-01,Amending Ordinance 88-01 With Reference To Maintenance Of Effort Covers Sec- tions 6 And 6.1 Ordinance 97-02 Amended Ordinance 88-01 With Reference To Maintenance Of Effort Contained In Sections 6 And 6.1. 8 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 El Cerrito $0,173,871 Moraga $0,123,808 ©rinda $0,095,823 Hercules $0,085,423 Clayton $0,000,000 D. For purposes of this section,in calculating a local jurisdiction's annual general fund expendi- tures and its average general fund expenditures for the 1987-88, 1988-89,and 1989-90 fis- cal years,any unrestricted funds which the local jurisdiction may expend at its discretion,in- cluding vehicle in-lieu tax revenues and revenues from fines and forfeitures,but excluding any Local Street Maintenance and Improvement funds, expended for streets and highway purposes are expenditures from the general fund. E. If a local jurisdiction fails to comply with the maintenance of effort requirements in a par- ticular fiscal year,the local jurisdiction may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year, a total amount which is not less than the total amount required to be expended for those years for purposes of complying with its maintenance of effort requirement. 1. At the end of the first fiscal year in which the local jurisdiction does not expend the amount required, the local jurisdiction shall have its Local Street Maintenance and Im- provement distribution reduced by the amount by which the jurisdiction has not met its required Maintenance of Effort. 2. Provided the local jurisdiction has met the requirement of this subdivision to expend an amount in the two-year period sufficient to meet its maintenance of effort obligation for such two-year period,the amount withheld shall be distributed to the local jurisdiction, without interest,following the end of the next fiscal year.Such distribution shall be re- ferred to herein as the "make-up payment." P. Any local jurisdiction which fails to comply with its maintenance of effort requirement,us- ing the two-year period, shall have its Local Street Maintenance and Improvements funding reduced by the aggregate amount by which the jurisdiction failed to meet its required Main- tenance of Effort for such two-year period. I. The amount of the second year distribution shall be adjusted as follows: (i) if the local jurisdiction's second year maintenance of effort expenditures are less than or equal to its required maintenance of effort for such year, the second year distribution shall be re- duced by the amount, if any, by which the second year maintenance of effort require- ment exceeds the local jurisdiction's actual expenditures; (ii) if the local jurisdiction's second year maintenance of effort expenditures are greater than its required maintenance of effort for such year,but less than an amount which, together with its actual first year maintenance of effort expenditures,would be equal to or greater than its two year main- tenance of effort requirement, the amount of the second year distribution shall be in- creased by the amount by which the local jurisdiction's actual second year maintenance of effort expenditures exceed its required maintenance of effort for such year. 9 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED 8Y ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 2. Any remaining undistributed funds shall revert to the Authority for allocation to projects contained in the Expenditure Plan which are not fully funded and which are of regional significance. G. The Authority may request fiscal data from local jurisdictions, in addition to data provided pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2151 for the 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 fiscal years. Each local jurisdiction shall furnish the data to the Authority not later than 120 days after receiving the request.The Authority may withhold payments to local ju- risdictions that do not comply with requests for information or which provide incomplete information. H. At the conclusion of each fiscal year each local jurisdiction shall verify compliance with sub- division C.Subject to compliance with the provisions of subdivision C and to any adjustment in the amount of such payments in accordance with this Section 6, the Authority shall dis- tribute Local Street Maintenance and Improvement payments pursuant to Section 5 of this Ordinance. 1. For any local jurisdiction incorporated after July 1, 1987, the Authority shall calculate the annual average of expenditures pursuant to subdivision C for the period between July 1, 1987 and June 30, 1990 that the local jurisdiction was incorporated. J. Revenues from a fee imposed or contribution first received by a local jurisdiction on or after January 1, 1990 which are used on or after July 1, 1990,by that local jurisdiction for main- tenance or improvement purposes on its streets and highways shall be considered as general fund expenditures for the purposes of compliance with the provisions of this Section in the fiscal year in which such expenditures are made. K. A local jurisdiction shall provide all necessary information requested by the Authority if the local jurisdiction requests an adjustment to its average base year or annual expenditures that are the result of any amendment of this Section after January 1, 1994. The Authority shall not make any change to the average base year or annual expenditure until the Authority has received and verified the accuracy of the necessary data. SECTION 6.1.MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT COMMITTEE. A. The Authority finds and declares all of the following: 1. That Measure C provides that a portion of monies received from the retail transactions and use tax imposed by Measure C be returned to local jurisdictions for use on local, subregional and/or regional transportation improvements and maintenance projects, subject to compliance with the Growth Management Program described in the Measure. 2. As required by the statutes pursuant to which the Authority is organized and in order to provide assurances to the voters in Contra Costa that such street maintenance and im- provements revenues would be used for increased transportation expenditures and not 10 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 be used to relieve local jurisdiction general fund contributions for transportation, a maintenance of effort requirement was included in Section 6 of the Ordinance. 3. Due to the complexity of local jurisdiction financing practices, it is not practicable to adopt a countywide ordinance that accurately identifies local jurisdiction funding sources and practices for all occasions. 4. It is the intent of the Authority that an impartial committee be formed to evaluate and to make recommendations for action by the Authority with respect to unusual local juris- diction funding practices and make adjustments to the maintenance of effort require- ments of Section 6 of the Ordinance without violating objectives of that Section. B. A local jurisdiction seeking a modification of its maintenance of effort requirement pursuant to this Section,may request that Authority staff review the request and make a recommenda- tion for action to the Authority. C. If the local jurisdiction asserts and the Authority finds that the requested determination would involve sensitive policy or administrative issues, the Authority may appoint a Mainte- nance of Effort Committee to review the request and to make a recommendation for action to the Authority. The committee would be comprised of the following five members: I. Two(2)members appointed from the membership of the City-County Engineers Advi- sory Committee of Contra Costa County and selected by the members of such commit- tee. 2. Two (2) members appointed by the Public Managers Association of Contra Costa County;each such appointee shall be a finance director or city manager of a local juris- diction. 3. One(1)member appointed from the membership of the Transportation Partnership Ad- visory Committee of the Authority and selected by the members of such committee. D. The Maintenance of Effort Committee chair shall be selected from among the members of the committee by vote of a majority of the members of the committee. E. Any local jurisdiction wishing to adjust its maintenance of effort requirement shall submit to the Authority a request for adjustment and the necessary documentation to justify the ad- justment.The Authority staff,or,if the Authority determines and finds that it is necessary to refer the matter to a committee, the Maintenance of Effort Committee, shall review the re- quest and shall make a recommendation to the Authority.Recommendations shall be advi- sory only and shall not bind the Authority to any course of action.Taking into consideration the recommendation, the Authority may adjust the annual average of expenditures for the 1982-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 fiscal years reported pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2151. The Authority shall make an adjustment if one or more of the following conditions exists: 11 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 1. The local jurisdiction has undertaken one or more major capital projects during those fiscal years,that required accumulating unrestricted revenues to support the project dur- ing one or more fiscal years. 2. A source of unrestricted revenue used to support the major capital project or projects is no longer available to the local jurisdiction and the local jurisdiction lacks authority to continue the unrestricted funding source. 3. One or more sources of unrestricted revenues that were available to the local jurisdiction is producing less than 9 S percent of the amount produced in those fiscal years,and the reduction is not caused by any discretionary action of the local jurisdiction. The amount of the adjustment shall be limited to the proportionate impact of extraordi- nary expenditures as set forth in paragraph 1 or the reduced revenue as set forth in para- graphs 2 and 3. F. Because of the loss to local jurisdictions of unrestricted revenues for road maintenance and improvements due to the diversion of property tax revenues by the state Legislature in order to balance the state budget; and in light of the potential impacts of the requirements of Proposition 218 with respect to the establishment and maintenance of assessment districts and fee programs to defray revenue lost as noted above,the Authority will consider requests for adjustments to the expenditure requirements of local jurisdictions to address these prob- lems.Accordingly: 1. Any local jurisdiction may request an adjustment in its expenditure requirement if cal- culation of its maintenance of effort requirement on the basis of(i) the ratio of popula- tion and street mileage of such local jurisdiction, weighted 50% to each, to the total population and street mileage within the entire county, (ii) multiplied by the total of av- erage expenditures of all jurisdictions within the county,results in a lower requirement than that calculated based on an average of expenditures for fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90.For purposes of making the calculation provided herein,the fol- lowing data shall be used: Miles of Street Weighted Average of Population* Maintained Population and Miles Concord 111,300 329.7 $2,183,881 Antioch 62,000 164.9 1,159,076 Walnut Creek 63,800 172.3 1,201,784 Martinez 31,000 94.0 614,915 Pleasant Hill 32,300 92.8 624,952 San Ramon 35,000 120.0 747,292 Pittsburg 45,700 123.6 860,639 Pinole 17,000 51.9 338,288 Brentwood 7,100 23.S 146,872 12 _.. .. _ ... ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 4402 Miles of Street Weighted Average of Population* Maintained Population and Miles San Pablo 21,600 48.8 377,316 Moraga 16,400 50.0 326,140 Hercules 16,900 52.2 338,152 Lafayette 23,300 92.1 527,872 Clayton 6,900 32.5 172,329 County 154,600 727.4 3,920,003 Orinda 17,800 92.9 472,306 Richmond 84,300 248.1 1,649,140 Danville 31,600 107.3 661,930 El Cerrito 23,400 71.2 464,912 * 1990 Statistics 2. The Authority may reduce the local jurisdiction's expenditure requirement pursuant to a request under this subdivision by an amount not in excess of the difference between (i) the amount required to be expended by such local jurisdiction as set forth in Sec- tion 6C. and (ii) the amount which would be required based on the weighted road miles-population calculation described in subdivision I above. 3. In determining the amount of the reduction in such local jurisdiction's expenditure re- quirement,if any, the Authority may consider factors such as evidence that the amount of expenditures in the base years exceeded average expenditures over a multi-year pe- riod,the stage of development or"build-out"of the local jurisdiction,and hardship fac- tors. 4. No adjustment to a local jurisdiction's expenditure amount pursuant to this subdivision shall require any adjustment to the expenditure requirement of any other local jurisdic- tion. S. No adjustment under this subdivision shall affect the right of local jurisdiction to seek an adjustment under subdivision E above,and no adjustment approved pursuant to sub- division E above shall affect the right of local jurisdiction to seek an adjustment under this subdivision. G. The request reviewing body may recommend,and the Authority may also grant a reduction in expenditure requirements for a single fiscal year under extraordinary circumstances, if both the following conditions are met: 1. The local jurisdiction submits a request for adjustment and the necessary documentation to justify the adjustment. 2. The local jurisdiction has suffered an extraordinary loss of revenues or incurred an ex- traordinary expenditure due to circumstances beyond its control. 13 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 H. Members of a Maintenance of Effort Committee shall serve without compensation,but may be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred as a result of attending meetings of the commit- tee. The Authority shall administer the provisions of this section.' SECTION 7.GROWTH MANAGEMENT PURPOSES AND PROCEDURES. x:�rr;:xxt to r=. ee seetion links For the Trans ortation Ex enditure Plan ap plicable to the revenues from the extension of the sales tax eom liance with the rowth mane ement ro ram is required for the q-.>-receipt of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement:Funds and Transpor- tation for Livable Communities funds.The Growth Manavement Program defined by the original Ordinance 88-01 continues in effect along with its linkage to Local Street Maintenance and Im- provement funds through FY 2008-09.11 shoal b :no _d to the :::.._:.::_.._- u..:._r._..:..____.._ a SECTION 8.AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPENDITURE PLAN AND ORDINANCE. The Authority may annually review and propose amendments to the Expenditure Plan to provide for the use of additional federal,state and local funds,to account for unexpected revenues,or to take into con- sideration unforeseen circumstances.The Authority shall establish a process for proposed Expen- diture Plan amendment(s) which ensures that the affected Regional Planning Transportation Committee(s)participate in the development of the proposed amendment(s).Upon completion of this process,amendment(s) to the Expenditure Plan must be passed by a roll call vote entered in the minutes and must have a majority of the Authority concurring with the proposed amend- ment(s).Subsequently, the Authority shall notify the Board of Supervisors, the City Council of each city in the county and the Mayors'Conference and provide each entity with a copy of the proposed amendments.Pursuant to Public Utilities Code 180207, proposed amendments shall become effective 45 days after notice is given, unless successfully appealed under the process outlined in the following paragraph.The Authority shall hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment(s) within this 45-day period. In the event that a local jurisdiction does not agree with the Authority's amendments(s), the ju- risdiction's policy decision-making body must,by a majority vote,determine to formally notify the Authority of its intent,in writing via registered mail,to obtain an override of the Authority's amendment(s).The appealing jurisdiction will have 45 days from the date of its determination to appeal the proposed amendment to obtain resolutions supporting its appeal for an override of the amendment(s) from a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county and from the Board of Supervisors.If a jurisdiction does not ' End Of Changes Made By Ordinance 97-02 Amending Maintenance Of Effort Requirements 14 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 obtain the necessary resolutions supporting its appeal,the Authority's amendment(s) to the Ex- penditure Plan will stand. SECTION 9.AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. With the exception of Section 3,which requires a majority vote of the electors of the County of Contra Costa to be amended, this Ordi- nance may be amended to further its purposes. The Authority shall establish a process for pro- posed Ordinance amendments which ensures that the Regional Planning Transportation Commit- tees participate in proposed Ordinance amendment(s).Upon completion of that process,amend- ments) to this Ordinance must be passed by a roll call vote entered in the minutes and must have two-thirds of the Authority concurring with the proposed amendment(s). In the event that a local jurisdiction does not agree with the Authority's amendments(s),the ju- risdiction's policy decision-making body must,by a majority vote,determine to formally notify the Authority of its intent,in writing via registered mail,to obtain an override of the Authority's amendment(s).The appealing jurisdiction will have 45 days from the date the Authority adopts the proposed amendment to obtain resolutions supporting its appeal for an override of the amendment(s) from a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population residing within the incorporated areas of the county and from the Board of Supervisors.If a jurisdiction does not obtain the necessary resolutions supporting its appeal,the Authority's amendments)to the Ordinance will stand. SECTION 10. AUTHORITY COMMITTEES. It is the intent of the Authority to continue the committees which were established as part of the Transportation Partnership Commission organi- zation. The committees are: A. The Regional Planning Transportation Committees which were established to develop transportation plans on a geographic basis for sub-areas of the County. B. The Transportation Partnership Advisory Committee which will serve as the Authority's citizens advisory committee; C. The Technical Coordinating Committee which will serve as the Authority's technical advisory committee. SECTION 11.PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING. Revenues provided from this Ordinance shall not be used to replace private developer funding which has been or will be committed for any pro- j ect. SECTION 12.BONDING AUTHORITY. -�-th -tn�... �a�}�14�'E�Fi.�Y3-7fit3�}E2c?i3t4-�33f���3- ids. 'w�",.Y.,.-•�-rr�Tren -iiy-i�i�-��Sca- If�- ?zEi '. ,die zL; The Au �_.. :This section incor- 15 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 porates by reference all of the relavant provisions contained in Public Utilities Code Sections 180200 "Pay-as-you-go" financings and 180250 through 18026 .'Phis Ordinance authorizes the authority to issue limited tax bands to finance capital outlav expenditures as may be provided for in the ad.olted.transportation expenditure plan, payable from the proceeds of the tax.In ac- cordance with Public Utilities Code Section 180250 (b) the maximum bonded indebtedness which may be outstandin at an r one time shall be an.amount equal.to the sum of the pri_n.ci le Of-and interest on the bonds but not to exceed the estirnated roceeds of the tax as determined by the elan. The amount of bonds OLItStandii 1Z at an one time does not include the amount of' bonds refunding bonds or bond anticipation notes for which funds necessar for the pa,merit thereof have been sex aside far that purpose in a trust or escrow account. SECTION 13.ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.4 Revenues maybe expended by the Authority for salaries,wages,benefits,overhead and those services including contractual services necessary to administer the Ordinance;however,in no case shall the annual expenditures for the salaries and benefits of the staff necessary to perform administrative functions for the Authority exceed one percent of the annual revenues provided by the Ordinance.Administrative functions are provid- ing overall program direction and management necessary to implement Authority policy;formu- lating organizational goals and objectives; coordinating the activities of regional transportation planning committees,performing finance,accounting,purchasing,personnel,government and community relations; and legal matters. Managing, supervising, performing or contracting for projects,planning and growth or congestion management functions are not administrative func- tions and shall be paid from the revenues allocated to the appropriate purpose as set forth herein. SECTION 14.ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS. The Authority shall allocate funds to Expenditure Plan Projects and Programs as necessary to meet contractual and program obliga- tions. The Authority may allocate funds as described but may reserve the right not to disburse monies until needed to meet contractual project or program obligations, exclusive of the Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds. Each agency receiving funds from this Ordinance shall deposit said funds in a separate interest bearing Transportation Improvement Account.Any interest earned on funds allocated pursuant to this Ordinance shall be expended only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated or shall be returned to the Authority.The Authority reserves the right to audit such accounts. SECTION 15.IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES. Upon approval of this Ordinance by the voters the Authority shall,in addition to the local rules required to be provided pursuant to this Ordi- nance,adopt implementing ordinances,rules and administrative procedures,including Authority terms of office, and take such other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities to implement the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Man- agement Expenditure Plan, 4 Ordinance 92-01 Amending Annual Expenditures For Salaries&Benefits Of Staff 16 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 A5 AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 SECTION 16.EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. oii zi...h- ld Of-k- ta If-:,o-;r����-;...t-1ie:-ter-c�isia�: ��.�•- d riKnee e t t+r�e-ou 4 -i1 1, ]-,sq.If at least a two-thirds;najority of the electors voting on this measure at the election scheduled for November 2. 2,004 vote to approve this Or- dinance,_then it will become effective the next day on November 3, 2004. If so approved., this Ordinance becomes operative on April 1 2005 ursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180204(a). SECTION 17.DESIGNATION OF FACILITIES. Each project or program in excess of$250,000 funded in whole or in part by revenues from the Ordinance shall be clearly designated in writing via signs and/or documents,during its construction or implementation as being funded by reve- nues from the Ordinance. SEC'T`ION 18.CONTRACTS,LOCAL PREFERENCE.It is the preference of Authority,where fea- sible,and allowed under applicable law, to contract with Northern California organizations and businesses and to maximize contract opportunities for minority and women owned businesses. The Authority shall develop administrative procedures for contracts. SECTION 19.SEVERABILITY. If any section,part,clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional,the remaining portions shall not be affected but shall re- main in full force and effect. If state law is passed in the future which prevents local jurisdictions from establishing standards for any of the six-Growth Management Performance Standards in the Authority's Growth Man- agement Program the Authority may elect to delete or modify the requirements for that Perform- ance Standard. SECTION 20.ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. Article XIII(B)of the California Constitu- tion requires the establishment of an annual appropriations limit for certain governmental enti- ties. The maximum annual appropriations limit for the Authority has been established as $765 million.The appropriations limit shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law.All ex- penditures of the retail transactions and use tax revenues imposed in Section 3 are subject to the appropriations limit of the Authority. SECTION 21.COORDINATION. The Authority shall consult and coordinate its actions to se- cure funding for the completion and improvement of the priority regional projects with the Cali- fornia Transportation Commission,transit operators and other interested and affected parties for the purpose of integrating its transportation improvements with other planned improvements and operations impacting the county. In addition, the Authority shall seek all ways to expedite the completion of Expenditure Plan projects,the implementation of which is the responsibility of other agencies. Use of acceleration as described in Section S.A.Le as well as supporting and ad- vocating for Caltrans to contract out are both means through which the Authority can work to achieve timely project implementation. 17 _ ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 SECTION 22.ALLOCATION OF RELEASED FUNDS. If additional funds become available for a specific project or projects on the Expenditure Plan,the Authority may reallocate the retail trans- action and use tax funds released by the receipt of those additional funds.In the allocation of the released funds, the Authority shall give first priority to Expenditure Plan Projects and Programs which provide congestion relief in the geographic region which received the additional funds. Second priority shall be given to other projects and programs within the affected geographic re- gion which may be placed on the Expenditure Plan through the amendment process described in Section 8.Third priority to all other Expenditure Plan Projects and Programs.Fourth priority shall be given to other projects of regional significance which maybe placed on the Expenditure Plan through the amendment process described in Section 8. SECTION 23.ALLOCATION OF EXCESS FUNDS. In the event, that the retail transactions and use tax revenues generated by this Ordinance are greater than projected or contingency fund re- quirements are less than projected,the Authority may allocate those excess funds.Determination of when the contingency funds become excess funds will be established by a process to be devel- oped by the Authority. In the allocation of excess funds, the Authority shall give first priority to Expenditure Plan Pro- jects and Programs,and second priority to other projects of regional significance which are con- sistent with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan of the Authority and may be placed on the Expenditure Plan through the amendment process described in Section 8. SECTION 24.TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EMINENT DOMAIN. The Authority will not use its power of eminent domain as provided in Public Utilities Code Section 180152. SECTION 25.9I;TNr1 #3F 3E t1UI(IRI3 ....Iz...ehe eaent...tla3rc13 ,�t e...elc�es...t3c:3t nuc t'.k?E1 the i33rria 1988 k-gal endi know .. the r L .. 'r ' rr, It r 't fvi t,a„ Z G day-,fte et=c t n.INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.(This section terminated the Authority in the event the tax did not receive approval by the voters in 1988.} SECTION 26. :" vvazi.c i7ezrcr n f;' `3' "'�,13x f ttlaflj,Alame, -GA" ,t"r fJ-zt`sS44t i13Er e f_ .T4ieA-itE13i>rity may,is tb)eet to the pfe`•i53(3�i�s��-ttt#S ry c, �te o£ <"Ao € 11113eftee the l r li y g ft3rl��',et INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.jOrdinance 88-01 encouraged the Authority to secure state and federal funds for the tunnel. and authorized loaning money to the state for delivery. These,provisions are no longer neces�___sarywj_ SECTION 27.MAJOR ARTERIALS. I.b -5 rt s� i erl rar sp atiFrrrPla 3('o tt �ittt'e 18 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 ('>rr��ty..l%rre tai I illi.sge £"asxyc>r�:F4cl: o ielen an<%..e�tstl�F»3n.<r...Pott:ce...2..i cr4:f r :rr.�.l�.tt.. 5< rkw<.>cacl...an'd ttl}grade sisals; - d- r3ieic c7c l��e•�--��B-E:t-ser-:.c�c}r.-��rejfh=t;-rl�e-t�rxra �rty--F�e� �l=��l �t-a -�tt��rrr�t�tit�ei:. rrl; `-nu rrtty-ftb-1s-€c�r :.. . '.. s INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. This section dealt with defining the Southwest Arterials category and arterial funding from the 1- 680 cate pry. It should be omitted or moved to the existing TEP. SECTION 28.DEFINITIONS. A. Authority.Means the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.The G"yntra.-G(-)sLa Irei�s}�t�rra- ti«r�-I�ar�ta�tersl�i�r E=F>r�3���issic�-kTa�•-l3eer�-de5i�;raare�l•as•tl7e-�'t�•r7tra-Cceta-T'rar�sp�-�ra�ie3ri-A�rl�c:�r- ity-by--rhe...t"ctra-C< ta£- }irrty Frarel-ol=S3rpervrsc�rs....�vz:th:-rlxr.cenc;f�:rrcei3ee of a... �ajc�rity...c�f tie, ei ti::i'-"". 'v "--a'-•mato".-- of-tile ,lar; ;rI-,;.. -ii's:4�rcc'e.T.%`lii•.'�a'i'�'.x�r-iui=Fr-i-if-zt el'.ec� 3aty.Authorky shall continue in effect as currently constituted.The Authority has all of the 2Qwers set forth in Division 19 of the Public Utilities Code (commencing with Section 180000). B. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Facilities. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design,right-of-way acquisition and construction of facilities intended for use by bicycles and pedestrians. Bicycle facilities shall also mean facilities and programs •llich-that help to encourage the use of bicycles such as secure bicycle parking facilities, bicycle promotion programs and bicycle safety education programs. C. Bonds.Means indebtedness and securities of any kind or class, including but not limited to bonds,notes,revenue anticipation notes,commercial paper,and certificates of participation. D. Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Means the long-range transportation planning docu- ment prepared and adopted by the Authority and updated from time to time. E. Expenditure Plan. Means the expenditure plan required by Section 180206 of the Public Utilities Code to be adopted prior to the call of an election on this Ordinance.The expendi- ture plan includes the allocation of revenues for each authorized purpose. As of A rits l 1, 2005 the 2004 Transrsortation Expenditttre Plan augrtients the expenditure plan adopted in 1988.Any reference to"Expenditure Plan"in this Ordinance unless the context otherwise requires, refers to the 1988 and 2004 plans. F. Highways and Arterials.Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design,right-of- way acquisition,and construction of highway and arterial street facilities,including all inter- state highway routes and any other facilities so designated in the Expenditure Plan. C. Local Street Maintenance and Improvements.Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the maintenance,operation and construction of local streets and roads and transit purposes. 19 ORDINANCE NO. 88-01 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04-02 Local street and road purposes shall include all purposes allowable under Article XIX, Sec- tion I(a) of the State Constitution. H. Transit. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the construction, operation and maintenance of transit services and facilities including the acquisition of vehicles and right- of-way. Transit services include, but are not limited to, bus, light rail, rapid transit and commuter rail services and facilities. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Contra Costa Transportation Partnership Commission,the 3 rd day of August, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Sharon Brown, Taylor Davis, Cathryn Freitas, Beverly Lane, David Mac Diarmid,Anna McCarty,Sunne Wright McPeak,Ed Skoog,Tom Torlakson, Avon Wilson, and Ronald K. Mullin, Chair NOES: None ABSENT: None /s/Ronald K. Mullin Chair August 3. 1988 Date Amended by Ordinances of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority as follows: Ordinance 92-01, March 18, 1992 Ordinance 94-01,June IS, 1994 Ordinance 94-02,October 19, 1994 Ordinance 97-02,April 16, 1997 Ordinance 01-01,January 17, 2001 Ordinance 04-02, May 26, 2004 20 EXEUBIT H CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATIONAUTHORITY SUMMARY MINUTES May 19,2004 Commissioners Present: Array Worth,Chair,Janet Abelson,Vice Chair Julie Pierce,Donald P. Freitas,Karen Stepper,Maria Alegria, Charlie Abrams,Federal Glover,John Gioia,Brad Nix,Kris Valstad Commissioners Absent: Alternates Present: Ex-Ofliiclo Member Present: Arne Simonsen,Joel Keller,Irma Anderson Staff Present: Bob McCleary,Paul Maxwell,Martin Engelmann,Arielle Bourgart, Susan Miller,Dave Murray,Brad Beck,Hisharrr Noeimi,Stan Taylor (Authority Counsel),Anita Fitzgibbons(Executive Secretary) A. CONVENE MEETING: The meeting convened at 6:20 p.m. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C. PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are invited to address the Authority regarding any item that is not listed on the agenda. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Authority Minutes of April 21,2004. ACTION: Commissioner Freitas moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Stepper seconded the motion which passed I1-0. 2. Consent Items recommended by the following committees: ACTION: Commissioner Freitas moved to approve the Consent Calendar without Item 2.2 which was pulled by CommissionerAlegria for discussion. Commissioner Stepper seconded the motion which passed 11-0. 2.A 2.A.1 Monthly Project Status Report. 2.A.2 Warrants Issued for Month of March 2004. 2.A.3 Modification to Existing Resolutions. Consistent with Authority policy,appropriation resolutions may be modified to extend their expiration date or reflect actual construction bid amounts,or be terminated if the activity that was funded Inas been completed. Recommended changes are summarized. AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page I __ 2.A.4 Quarterly Financial Report. The Quarterly Financial Report focuses on trends in sales tax receipts and investment income for the Third Quarter FY 2003-04. Quarterly financial status reports are also provided. 2.A.5 Monthly Investment Transactions Reports for March 2004. State law,and the Authority's Investment Policy require this report. 2.A.6 State Route 4(e)Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road-(Project#1403) 2.A.6.1 Work Orders#8 and 9 for Construction Management Services Agreement No. 140 with Jacobs Civil,Inc. In November 2003 the Authority authorized execution of Amendment 3 to Agreement No. 140 with Jacobs Civil,Inc. for Construction Management and Staking services for the SR4 Railroad to Loveridge Project:Mainline Widening for$3,760,000. Consistent with procedures adopted at the time of contract approval,staff'hereby notifies the Authority that work orders for Construction Management and Construction Staking Services for the Mainline Widening contract have been issued for amounts not to exceed$1,276,000 and$286,000,respectively. 2.A.6.2 Work Orders#4 and 6 for Consulting Services Agreement No. 143 with Mark Thomas&Company. In October 2003 the Authority authorized execution of Amendment 2 to Agreement No. 143 with Mark Thomas&Co. for Engineering Services during Construction for the SR4 Railroad to Loveridge Project: Mainline Widening for$500,000. Consistent with procedures adopted at the time of contract approval,staff'hereby notifies the Authority that work orders for Construction Engineering Services and Traffic Monitoring on the Mainline Widening contract have been issued for amounts not to exceed$350,000 and $90,000,respectively. 2.A.7 City of Martinez-Alhambra Road Widening Project(Project 1213): Request for Additional Appropriation. The City of Martinez is requesting an additional appropriation in the amount of $4$,000 for preliminary engineering and environmental clearance.Resolution#03-03-P(rev. 1). 2.A.8 City of Concord-Commerce Avenue Extension(Project 1214): Request for Appropriation of Funds. The City of Concord is requesting an appropriation in the amount of$25,000 for right- of-way activities. Resolution#0410-P. 2.A.9 Town of Danville-Camino Tassajara Circulation Improvements(Project 1717) 2.A.9.1 Approval of Peer Review: A peer review committee has completed the review of the final design plans for the project. Staff requests approval of committee recommendations. 2.A.9.2 Request for Appropriation. The Town of Danville is requesting appropriation of Measure C funds in the amount of$300,000 for construction activities. Resolution#04.08-P. 2.A.10 Approval to Advance Measure C funds to Compensate for Loss of STIP Funds for Two Projects. When the Authority adopted its recommendations in January for the 2004 STIP,it agreed to advance Measure C funds for a number of projects that otherwise would have to be delayed because of the lack of STIP funding. 2.A.10.1 City of Martinez-San Francisco Bay Trail Phase II: Request for Appropriation. The City of Martinez is requesting appropriation of Measure C funds in the amount of$300,000 for the Bay Trail project. Resolution#04-09-P. AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 2 2.A.10.2 City of Lafayette—Rellez Valley Road Trail(Project 3103). Request for Appropriation.The City of Lafayette is requesting appropriation of Measure C funds in the amount of$109,000. The City has already completed the project using a mix of Measure C, local and federal funds. Resolution#04-11-P. 2.A.11 Larnorinda School Bus Program—Approval of FY 2004-05 Funds(Project 1603). The Authority approved Cooperative Agreement 16.00.07 at its June 16, 1999 meeting which continued funding for this program.through FY 2004. The Agreement was subsequently amended on May 15, 2002 to make it consistent with the 2002 Strategic Plan. Now that the Authority adopted the 2004 Strategic Plan,the Cooperative Agreement needs to be amended again. Staff recommends approval of Amendment#2 to Cooperative Agreement 16.00.07 and an appropriation of$901,926 for FY 2004-05. Resolution#04-06-P. 2.A.12, State Route 4(e)—Bailey to Railroad—Cooperative Agreement No.90.14.13 with Caltrans for Design and Construction of North Side Sound Wall (Project 1403). Staff seeks approval for the Chair to execute Cooperative Agreement No.90.14.13 with Caltrans for the design and construction phases of the new sound wall along the north side of the freeway. 2.A.13 Preliminary Authority Budget for FY 2004-05. The proposed preliminary budget for FY 2003- 04 has been prepared and reviewed with the APC. The final draft budget will be presented in June, with Authority adoption scheduled for June 18 after a public hearing. 2.A.14 FY 2003-04 Third Quarter Internal Accounting Report. The report includes a comparison of Authority budgeted and actual unaudited revenues and expenditures for the third quarter of FY'2003-04. 2.A.15 Federal Surface Transportation Program(STP)Funds--Call for Projects for Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation. MTC will release a call for projects for the 2,d cycle STP funds on May 1, 2004. TCC has recommended eligibility criteria and timeline for project submittals by project sponsors. 2.A.16 Richmond Greenway and Bikeway-Request to Program Transportation Enhancement Activities Funds Reserve. Staff requests approval to program$423,000 in TEA funds for project. The City of Richmond has committed the balance of funds needed to construct the project. 2.1 MTC's Regional Transportation Plan("T-2030").Summary of Recommendations on Contra Costa's"Big Tent"Project List. Staff requests authorization to forward a compiled list of"Big Tent"projects to MTC. The recommendations are based on input received from the Regional Transportation Planning Committees(RTPCs)and/or their TACs. (Please note that this item is being transmitted directly to the full Authority) Commissioner Alegria pulled Item 2.2 from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 2.2 Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore. Approval to Issue a Request for QuaUf1cations(RFQ). Staff has been working with Caltrans to continue project development activities on the Fourth Bore of the Caldecott Tunnel. Authority and Caltrans staffs recommend that the Authority retain engineering consultants(to be funded with either Regional Measure 2 bridge tolls,or Traffic Congestion Relief Funds). Staff seeks approval to issue a Request for Qualifications(RF+Q). AUT 4ORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Alegria asked for clarification on the issue of local preference. Paul Maxwell responded,saying that local preference is not allowed when using state funds. ACTION: Commissioner Stepper moved to approve item 2.2,second by Commissioner Alegria. The motion passed 11-0. 2.11 5nn�ti 2.8.1 Approval of the FY 2004-05 Allocation for Bus Transit Service,Resolution No.04.02-G.A funding allocation of$3,209,473 is proposed for transit bus service in FY 2004-05,the fourteenth year of the funding under Measure C. 2.8.2 Approval of the FY 2004-05 Allocation for Elderly and Handicapped(Paratransit)Service, Resolution No.04-01-G. A funding allocation of$2,325,662 is proposed for paratransit services in FY 2004-05,the fourteenth year of paratransit funding under Measure C. 2.8.3 Paratransit Consulting Services Contract Extensions/Expansion: 2.B.3.1 Extension of Contract for Paratransit Coordination Consulting Services,Contract No.27, Amendment No. 13. 2.8.3.2 Funding for Additional Project Management Services,Contract No. 138(proposed to be covered under Director's authority). Deferred by Planning Committee. 2.11.4 Approval of Amendment No.I to Authority Agreement No. 165 with Dyett&Bhatia to complete the Final EIR for the 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $5,500.00 to Agreement No. 165 to cover unanticipated additional costs of completing the Final Environmental impact Report(EIR.)for the 2004 Update to the Countywide Transportation Plan. 2.B.5 Reallocation of Measure C FY 2004-05 TDM(Carpool,Vanpool,etc.)Funds in West Contra Costa to the Richmond Greenway and Bikeway Project. Approximately$40,000 to$60,000 in additional funding appears to be necessary to complete the environmental review and engineering for this project. WCCTA+C approved$48,000 including$10,000 in FY 2004-05 Measure C TDM funds. At risk is a$1.9 million federal grant through MTC's TLC program,which could be withdrawn if the project is not ready to proceed to construction by June 30th. The APC approved $423,000 in Federal TE funds from our unprogrammed reserve in the snp to offset part of the projected increase in the construction costs.The City of Richmond has agreed to provide$1.6 million in capital funding for the project.See also, Item 2.A.16 2.11.9 Richmond-Area Community-Based Transportation Plan. In 2003,MTC contracted with Nelson/Nygaard and Neighborhood House of North Richmond to prepare the first of five pilot transportation planning reports in low-income Bay Area Communities.The planning effort took place between April and December 2003,and built upon the findings in MTC's 2001 Lifeline Transportation Network Report. WCCTAC requested a presentation to the Planning Committee, which was received. AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 4 G. Local Street Maintenance and Improvements. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the maintenance,operation and construction of local streets and roads and transit purposes. Local street and road purposes shall include all purposes allowable under Article XIX, Section 1(a)of the State Constitution. H. Transit. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the construction,operation and maintenance of transit services and facilities including the acquisition of vehicles and right-of-way. Transit services include,but are not limited to,bus,light rail,rapid transit and commuter rail services and facilities. Passed and adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on May 26,2004 by the following vote: AYES: Amy Worth(Chair),Janet Abelson(Vice-Chair),Charlie Abrams,Maria Alegria,Donald P. Freitas,John Gioia,Federal Glover,Brad Nix,Julie Pierce,Karen Stepper,Kris Valstad NOES:None. ABSENT:None By: Name:Amy Worth Title: Chairperson EXHIBIT A: 2004 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN Ordinance No.44-02 Page 7 of 7 167633-1 �n t3�``�t?l"���ix CAL�1�LlAft Chair Worth noted that the order of discussion items would be changed: Item 3.8.7 would be first,followed by 3.13.8; Item 3.A.1 would be next,followed by 3.a.17; and finally,Item 3.13.6 would be last. She added that the process would be: staff presentation,commissioner comments and then public comment,followed by a discussion/action by the members of the board. 3.0 3.11.7 Certiffeation of the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)for the 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Proposed Measure C Extension, Adoption of Resolution 04-03-G,and Approval of Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Staff prepared responses to comments received on the Draft EIR that was released on January 20,2004 for a 45-day review period.CEQA requires that responses to comments be transmitted to commenters on the Draft EIR ten days prior to EIR certification.Resolution 04.03-G. STAFF REPORT: Martin Engelmann introduced Michael Dyett,the consultant who prepared the Environmental Impact Report,and Brad Beck,Senior Planner for CCTA who prepared the addendum to the EIR. Mr. Engelmann reviewed the list of documents that were distributed for the meeting and noted that a binder had been prepared which contained: 1)the Draft Proposal for Adoption Countywide Plan. He explained that one of the steps required would be to adopt the Final Countywide Plan and assume that it will be amended to reflect the Final Transportation Expenditure Plan(TEP);and 2)a"partial agenda" that was mailed earlier and contained the Final EIR and its addendum. He noted that these two documents comprise the CEQA review for the plans to follow. Mr. Engelmann then presented an overview of the steps required,as presented in the packet. BOARD COMMENTS: Chair Worth asked if the Expenditure Plan and Growth Management Plan must be approved at the same time or separately. Stan Taylor, CCTA Legal Counsel replied that the documents can be approved separately. Commissioner Pierce requested confirmation that the environmental clearance paves the way for the TEP which includes the project list and the Growth Management Plan,but does not include those per se. Mr. Engelmann confirmed her understanding of the process. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: Kathleen Nirnr, Sierra Club, expressed concern about the EIR,saying that building wider roads will not eliminate congestion or improve air quality. She added that the process for monitoring the mitigation measures identified in the EIR should be more transparent,and made known to the general public. The EPAC identified measures to mitigate the impacts of the East County Corridor projects,but these measures were never discussed at the APC or PC level.Ms.Nimr requested that the EPAC proposals be considered by the Board. David Shonbrunn said that he does not support the EIR as presented. He felt that the EIR did not address the inevitable growth that will occur and the impacts it will have on land use. He observed that Contra Costa residents travel to other places in the region to work and that a regional traffic mitigation fee should be used to address those impacts. He was disappointed that the principles developed by Shaping Our Future were not incorporated. He also believed that the forecasts of transit ridership from AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 5 the travel model were not reasonable given the investment in Alternative C and the forecast increase in congestion. Mr. Shonbrunn went on to say that the resolution does not appear to adopt the addendum and he felt that the sequence of the process is wrong. He felt that the biggest impact was the conversion of agricultural lands and open space to urban uses,and that the mitigation measures identified are not adequate. He also felt that the use of an addendum instead of subsequent or supplemental EIR was not supported by the facts. He also wanted to know why the"findings'portion of the EIR were not available on the Authority's website. He asked if he could have time to review the document during the meeting and be allowed to address the Board again. STAFF RESPONSE: Brad.bear responded to the public comments,saying that as a congestion management agency the Authority must use the most current land use forecast prepared by ABAG. Neither Shaping our Future (SOF)nor ABAG's Projections 2003 were available when the EIR process began. With regard to the regional fee mitigation,we responded to that by noting that there is already a fee(program)in place that is part of the current Measure. The Draft EIR did address the potential effects of the Shaping our Future principles,and the Final EIR adds a more extensive discussion of SOF. That discussion found that land use changes would have positive effects. He went on to say that staff believes the transit results are correct and reasonable and show significant increases in transit ridership under any of the three alternatives. Mr. Beck noted that the EIR identified the conversion of agricultural land and open space to transportation uses as the impact and identified mitigation measures for that impact; it did not identify conversion of such lands to urban uses as a significant impact. Finally,he noted that because the proposed 2004 update and TEP would not require more than minor changes to the findings of the EIR.,an addendum is the required CEQA document. BOARD DISCUSSIONIACTION: Commissioner Abrams made a motion to approve Resolution 04-03-G regarding the certification of the Final EIR. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stepper. Commissioner Alegria asked if the EIR would include any type of transit oriented development around transit centers that possibly could be accommodated under the TLC model. Brad Beck replied that the model is not sufficiently fine-grained to look at those impacts—MTC is looking into such an approach and the Authority is interested in working with MTC to develop a system that better replicates transit-oriented development. Commissioner Nix asked Stan Taylor to confirm that the documents being reviewed tonight are Drafts, and whatever changes we wish to snake must be made tonight because we cannot make any amendments for the next 45 days. Mr. Taylor confirmed his statement,saying that the documents cannot be changed while being circulated to the cities(or thereafter). Commissioner Nix said,that being the case,Item 3.A.17(consideration of the Ordinance)is to be discussed last. Commissioner Freitas asked Mr. Taylor if,based on the public testimony heard so far, if there were any legal concerns before the Board takes action. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Dyett both replied that they had no concerns at this time. Chair Worth noted that there was a motion on the floor to approve Resolution 04-03-0. The motion was passed, I 1-0. AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes, May 19,2004 Page 6 3.11.8 Adaption of the Final Year 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Authority is scheduled to adapt the 2004 Update to the CTP at its May 19th,2004 meeting.The following items pertain to that action. 3.B.8.1 Process for Review of Proposal for Adoption 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.The Draft CTP was issued on December 15,2004 for review by all interested parties.The review period for the Draft CTP ended on March 8,2004.A total of 36 comment letters were received(see the April 7 Planning Committee packet). Where appropriate,staff incorporated the comments received,and presented the revised draft to the Countywide Plan Task Force for review on April 22,2004. The Proposal for Adoption highlights the proposed changes to the Draft Countywide Plan using italics/eteetit. (.separate Attachment for Authority Members/Alternates, and CTP Task Farce Members Only, copies available upon request and at www a net—No Action) 3.B.8.2 Review of Addendum to the FEIR for the 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.Adoption of Resolution 04.04-G Certifying the FEIR and the Addendum as the EIR for the Adoption of the 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Measure C Extension Expenditure Plan. Staff reviewed the FEIR to determine whether it provides a sufficient analysis of revisions to the CTP, including the draft-Final Transportation Expenditure Plan(TEP)and implementation measures proposed for the Growth Management Program(GMP),or if subsequent assessment is required. Staff has determined that there were no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than those described in the FEIR,and that only minor technical changes were required in the FEIR. The addendum incorporates those changes. If the draft-Final TEP is adopted,the certified FEIR and the addendum will collectively constitute the FEIR. Resolution 04-04-G 3.11.8.3 Review of the Proposal for Adoption 2004 CTP Update. (1)Approval of `Findings, Facts in Support of Findings,and Statement of Overriding Considerations;"(2)Adoption of the .Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,and(3)Adoption of the Final Year 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan,Resolution 04-06-G. Authority adoption of resolution 04-06-G constitutes adoption of the Final 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.Resolution 04-06-G. Commissioner Freitas made a motion to approve Resolution 04-04-G and Resolution 04-06-G. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nix. The motion passed I 1-0. 3.A.1 Review of Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for TDiscussion and Approval. The APC reviewed a draft Plan at its May 6th meeting and asked that certain changes be made prier to the Mayors' Conference. The revised language was reviewed at a special APC meeting held on May 17`h and was presented to the full board for approval. STAFF REPORT: Paul Maxwell reported that all the changes from the special APC meeting have been incorporated and distributed in the handout. He then proceeded to present an overview of those changes. BOARD COMMENTS: Commissioner Stepper referred to the allocations for school bus programs in southwest county, specifically the sentence"The Authority may establish criteria for the services including but not limited AUT1 ORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 7 to farebox return/parental contribution." She said,there are no other transit programs on which this criteria has been imposed,therefore SWAT requests that the language be deleted. Commissioner Clover referred to the Bike/Pedestrian category,saying that it was important to remember that all the subregions agreed to 1.5%and he encouraged everyone to remain flexible in order to allow each region to make choices. Commissioner Nix expressed concern regarding the term"subregion"which is used throughout the definitions.Recognizing that subregion means RTPC,he would prefer to see clarification of the term, ,giving two examples: "The Park District is to spend its allocation equally in each subregion,with the concurrence of the affected subregion,"and,"BART and the affected subregion(s)are expected to mutually agree on the proposed project(s)." Paul Maxwell replied that the intent is that the Park District and BART would be required to submit proposals to the regional committee(s)for approval. Commissioner Freitas noted that the APC discussed this issue as reflected in the summary paragraph under"Sub-regional ProjectvPrograms,"where each region is clearly defined as to which cities are included. Mr. Freitas then asked the Chair to confirm that line item#13 reads,$30 million(1.5°/x)and the distribution to each subregion is$2.5 million; that line item#26 reads,$800,000; and that line item #28 replaces$3.5 million with$6.0 million for west county. Commissioner Stepper said that these numbers(line 28)had been established based on a formula,she asked on what basis are these changes being made? After a brief discussion, it was decided that the $2.5 million allocation from each subregion,from Line 28 to Line 13,would be retained. Chair Worth noted that SWAT has suggested that these funds be allocated by population. However, she noted that the proposal is to allocate an additional$10 million to the East Bay Regional Parks District,with$2.5 million corning from each region,and$2.5 million would be spent in each region The members concurred,with clarification from Commissioner Abrams that he objects to this change being made at the last minute for one special interest group. Commissioner Alegria had two suggestions: 1) for consistency,she would like to see the language used in"Major Streets,"°`traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements,"applied to all references of the Major Streets category; 2) In the description of the TLC program,she suggested changing"e.g. affordable housing"to"such as affordable housing,"without the parenthesis.And,in the last sentence, she suggested adding the words"and transit-based affordable housing projects"after"specific transportation capital." Commissioner Pierce asked Stan Taylor if it is legal to use sales tax revenues to pay for housing. Mr. Taylor replied that based on the statute,sales tax revenues cannot be used for housing projects. Commissioner Alegria said that she is talking about the infrastructure that is required to develop transit- based affordable housing. Mr. Taylor replied that it would be acceptable to use the revenues for transportation infrastructure. AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page g Commissioner Gioia suggested that reference be made to the full TLC description as it appears in the Countywide Plan. This could be accomplished by adding a brief sentence noting a more complete description of the TLC program can be found in Chapter 5 of the CTP. Commissioner Pierce suggested adding a statement at the beginning of the TEP that would state,"This is the implementation document of the Countywide Transportation Plan." Stan Taylor cautioned the members that the Expenditure Plan is a stand-alone document that defines projects and programs that will be funded by Measure C Sales Tax revenues. If you cross-reference other documents,there is potential for confusion. Commissioner Freitas pointed out that the last sentence of the last paragraph reads,"Criteria are to include flexibility so that urban,suburban and rural communities can be eligible." He felt that the implementing documents are yet to come and they may resolve the issue. Paul Maxwell suggested adding"as more fully described in Chapter 5 of the CTP"at the end of the first sentence. After a brief discussion,Chair Worth polled the members for concurrence on adding the language suggested by Mr. Maxwell. There were 3 members in favor of adding the language,and 8 members who objected. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: Dr. Yahuda Sherman referred to the last sentence of the Local Streets Maintenance description,and suggested it should read. "As appropriate,components for routine accommodations for non-motorized travel must be included unless exceptional circumstances exist." Bill Stremmel said that the Coalition of Grassroots Organizations for a Livable Contra Costa have, in the spirit of compromise,asked the Authority to recognize the need for more transit service. It pays to have an Expenditure Plan that the community can support. Robert Rayburn expressed disappointment that the EPAC's recommendations were not included in the final Expenditure Plan. He said that the Bicycle stakeholders have asked for a there additional$20 million to help leverage the$20 million in RM2 that the voters supported. Bruce Ohlson urged the Authority to allocate more funding to bike/pedestrian projects and add language that states"bicycles will be routinely accepted on all roads unless exceptional risk exists." Annette Beckstrand, Brentwood Councilmember, noted that the City of Brentwood values its relationship with the EBRPD and has built many trails and parks without asking for Measure C funds. She urged the Authority to make it possible for the community to participate in developing alternative transportation routes,and asked for credit for local trail projects. Debbie Toth asked the Authority why it created the Paratransit Coordinating Council and the EPAC if it had no intention of listening to their recommendations. She was very disappointed and frustrated after spending many months on the PCC and EPAC only to have their proposals ignored. AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 9 Chair'North asked Ms.Toth exactly what language she would like to add to the protect descriptions. Ms. Toth replied that she would like to add "(e)technology plan" to the fifth bullet point that lists the distribution of excess funds. Chair Worth asked Bill Gray to work with Ms. Toth to identify the language she would like incorporated in the plan. Dan Richard, BART Director, said that although BART appreciates the$36 million allocated for capital and maintenance, it is far short of the actual needs throughout the county. He emphasized that the protects identified for funding are in response to the desires of BART riders. He added that BART has stood by the Authority in the past and hopes that this relationship would continue. Tommy Van de Brooke said that she has seen a tremendous effort by the stakeholders in Contra Costa to work together for the good of all parties. She recognized how difficult it is to make everyone happy, and in,general,the California Alliance for.lobs supports the current plan. .David,Durant, Pleasant Hill Councilmember, thanked the members and staff for two years of hard work. He then said that he was very sorry to see people standing here saying that they would not support this Measure unless they get what they want. He urged the members to stick to the plan as presented and put an end to the battle of special interest groups for one more piece of the pie. Many of their requests are already included in the plan;although they may not have a specific line item,they are included---most can be funded by subregional flexible funds. Laura Ho„ffineister, Concord Councilmember, agreed with Mr.Durant's comments and felt that the plan provides enough flexibility to satisfy everyone's needs. She suggested that the language that would link the TLC funds to the CTP could be put in a footnote. Newell Arnerich, Mayor of Danville, urged the members to close the door to any more changes,except for the suggestion by Ms.Hoffineister to include a footnote regarding the TLC program. He thanked the authority for their hard work and urged them to go forward with the plan as it stands—it's a good plan and the alternative is zero. Rick Ramacier, General Manager of County Connection, said that County Connection supports the Expenditure flan. However,he expressed concern about the language suggesting transit consolidation which has been a sensitive issue for a long time.He suggested substitute language to the first paragraph under"Other Countywide Programs,as follows." 1) the second sentence states in parenthesis"in cooperation with transit operators"...He would like to add"...through the Bus Transit Coordinating Committee.'; 2) the last sentence refers to farebox return and he would like to add in parenthesis "...for Measure C funded service only."; 3)add at the end of the first paragraph-"Operational efficiencies including greater coordination promoting seamless service." Rebecca Kaplan agreed that the transit operators need cooperation not consolidation. She said that one of the best things to come out of this process is the open dialog among the transit operators. Ms. Kaplan pointed out that the first Leasure did not have to account for ADA requirements but the current providers have to meet the criteria and this creates a much higher cost for the service. .Davin Favello noted that he had spent many hours working with staff to develop the recent Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan for Contra Costa County. He was disappointed to find that very little of that plan will have funding in the new Expenditure Plan. He supported the suggested language regarding"funds for routine accommodations for cyclists." AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 10 Evelyn Stivers said that as an EPAC member she is very disappointed to find the work of that committee being completely ignored,and noted its suggested language regarding the East County Corridor. She asked why the Authority created the EPAC if it never had any intention of accepting its recommendations. Chair Worth asked Ms. Stivers to submit proposed language to staff for review and possible inclusion in the Expenditure Plan. Commissioner Glover said he would like Authority and County staff to consider the language being proposed,especially with regard to Vasco Road and east county corridors,and bring back a recommendation. Ethan Vaneklausen acknowledged the hard work and collaborative attitude of the Authority and various stakeholder groups over the last two years. The Contra Costa Council supports the current expenditure plan,which almost meets the needs of the majority of the county. He added that due to limited funds, this plan offers the most balanced and equitable distribution of funds---which are critical to bringing other federal and state revenues to our county. Jeff Hobson felt that after a long and tedious process,he did not feel that consensus had been reached on the TEP. He was very concerned that the measure will not pass without including funding for affordable housing. Ed Dimmick asked two questions: 1)why was the Caldecott Tunnel project,that had been rejected early in the 1988 process,now included in the TEP;and 2) why doesn't the TEP include the Shaping our future principles? John Dalrymple said that although west county has been successful in attaining most of EPAC's goals, east county has fallen far short of meeting those needs in the TEP. He,said that the lack of operating revenue for eBART is a huge obstacle and therefore he cannot support the TEP. He pointed out that in spite of obvious growth in east county,the bus service is going to experience layoffs and fewer routes. He went on to say that school bus programs and senior services should take priority in low-income communities. Ron Brawn spoke about his experience on the EPAC and Shaping our Future,emphasizing the efforts to develop a set of principles as a guide. He was very disappointed that the efforts of the EPAC and Shaping our Future were ignored when developing the TEP. He said that the EPAC had developed language for the protection of open space relative to the east county corridor projects---language that was fundamental to the EPAC's support of the TEP'but,the language has been eliminated from the final TEP. BOARD DISCUSSION/ACTION: Commissioner Gioia suggested the following amendments to the TEP affecting the West County column and totals: Line 10,BART parking and other improvements-add$S trillion;Line 19, Bus Service,Existing programs- add$4 million.(with priority for WestCAT); Line 21, Safe Transportation for Children-w add$2 million;Line 9, Richmond Parkway—subtract$4 million; Line 16,Express Bus, subtract$2 million.; Line 22,Ferry Service—subtract$5 million. Areae Simonson asked Steve Morrison of the Water'Transit Authority to address the impact of these proposed changes. Mr. Morrison responded that a reduction of$5 million from the AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes, May 19,2004 Page 11 Ferry Service would delay of the implementation of Richmond Ferry service by at least one to two years. Chair Worth(rolled the members for consensus on the proposed changes. The members accepted the changes I 1-0. Regarding incorporating a reference to the TLC program into the Expenditure Plan, Commissioner Gloia asked Stan Taylor if he was aware of any potential legal issues. Mr Taylorreplied that his only concern related to linking the Expenditure Plan to the(separate) CTP. He suggested taking Chapter 5 (TLC)of the CTP and incorporating it into the Expenditure Plan. C'or rmissionerNrx addressed Mr.Taylor saying, all testimony heard here tonight would be on the record and can be used for interpretation of what the TLC program is; similarly, all discussions held at the PC meetings have been recorded and are considered legislative history. Mr Taylor agreed with.Mr.Nix'statement. Mr.Nix went on to say that numerous discussions have brought forth the intent of those discussions; therefore, we have done what was requested and there is no need to cloud the issue further. Commissioner Gioia said his understanding is that legislative history does not have the same level as the actual text of the ordinance itself. 111r: Taylor ageed. Commissioner Gioia clarified the statement by saying,if we wish to avoid confusion, it must be part of the ordinance and not just legislative history. He made a motion to 'include Chapter 5 as part of the.Expenditure Flan. For the record, Commt'ssionerFteltas summarized the previous comments, saying we are not gyring to make any reference to the(CTP)document,but we are going to include the TLC chapter as an appendix. r. Tayloragreed that the text could be.included in the Plan or as a separate TLC program attachment as an appendix. Chair Wotth asked Commissioner Gioia to restate his motion and then polled the members to determine consensus regarding inclusion of the TLC program(Chapter 5, excluding text on pages 2 and 3) as part of the Measure. Chair Worth polled the members who were split 5-5, and cast her vote to include a summary of the TLC program rather than the complete text. Commissioner Gloverasked Bill Gray to comment on the status of the east county corridor projects. Mr. Grayresponded that the`fiasco Road/East County Corridor issue has been discussed in several arenas—in east county,Alameda County,and by environmental groups and staff. He said that he had language developed by these various groups and he intended to consolidate them and present the final draft to the County Supervisors for approval. He offered to bring that language to the Authority at the next meeting for review and comment. He said the issue is creating protections against sprawl before the Authority expends Measure Csales tax money outside the current ULL for capacity enhancement of roadways. AUT HOR1TY MEETING,Surnrnary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 12 CornmissionerFreitas asked Mr.Taylor if OCTA has the authority to tell the County how to define zoning and urban limit lines. Mr. Taylorreplied that the GMP imposes conditions through the return-to-source program,so it would be hard to say you can't regulate land use decisions to some extent. However,clearly there is the general principle that a city cannot delegate its land-use authority to another agency. CommissionerAry tas asked, "Is there anything to preclude us from going forward with the Board of Supervisors acting as the responsible agency, if it simply passes a resolution to coincide with what we are trying to achieve? We take the recommendations from EPAC, specific to the County, it goes through the Board of Supervisors for its action and it runs concurrently with all the other considerations--versus incorporating it into the Measure itself?" Mr. Taylor agreed with that statement. Commissioner Abrams did not feel it was necessary to form a subcommittee to develop new language and was reluctant to continue the discussion. Commissioner Stopper agreed and moved that it was time to stop making changes, and asked if the Authority could at least adopt the Expenditure Plan without the project descriptions in order to start circulating it for approval by the cities. Mr. Taylorreplied that the Authority could adopt just the program and project list without the descriptions. Commissioner Freitas seconded the motion to at least adopt the Draft Expenditure Plan as amended(Attachment A), without the descriptions. Commissioner Glover said that it is very clear that there are a number of projects in East County that are long overdue, such as the Route 4 widening project,the Bypass, Vasco Road, and eBART. The regional committees have worked very hard to identify the most important projects in the county and the Authority has made every effort to develop a balanced plan based on those projects. He then said that that he was very upset with the people who come to these meetings to say they won't support this effort if they don't get what they want. The EPC has spent two years listening to the people of this county and they have made a lot of compromises. Mr. Glover concluded by saying that the people who oppose this renewal are going to have to answer to their communities when the people ask why projects aren't getting done. CommissionerAlegria said she would prefer to adopt the Expenditure Plan as a complete package with the definitions. She asked if a two-thirds vote would be required. Mr. Taylor replied that the sales tax Ordinance requires a two-thirds vote of this body in order to be adopted,the Expenditure Plan requires a majority vote. CommissionerFreitasclarified the motion made by Commissioner Stepper,emphasizing that the numbers need to be released and circulated for approval and the discussion needs to move on to other issues. Chair Worth polled the members who unanimously agreed to approve the Expenditure Plan as presented and circulate it to the cities for approval, by 11-0. AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 13 Stan Taylvradvised the Authority that a member of the public,Mr. Shonbrun, asked to address the Board regarding the EIR and that, although he felt that the comments were not timely, the Authority could agree to let Mr. Shonbrun speak. The members agreed to hear Mr. Shonbrun's comments. Mr. Shonbrun thanked the Authority for allowing him to speak although he doubted it would change their votes. "In the mitigation and monitoring program impact, 2.2-2 is not a mitigation—there are no mandatory actions, only permissible ones, operative word being could. There is no standard or goal here, which makes this meaningless as mitigation. The Measure specifically doesn't ask for maximum feasible reduction in trip and VMT growth. It also doesn't call for any reporting or monitoring of trip or VMT growth. Can page 4 of 42, we disagree that the project includes all feasible measures,not even those that are consistent with project objectives. On page 5 of 42, we disagree that OCTA does not have the authority to reduce growth in trips or VMT. Your staff admitted tonight that Shaping our Future and providing more transit can have positive impacts on transportation and air quality. The allocation of funds in the TEP could be made to incentivize land use consistent with Shaping our Future. The fact that it doesn't is a policy choice made by your body that results in significant environmental impacts for which you have no statement of overriding considerations." Chair Worth and the members agreed to continue the meeting on Wednesday,May 2e at 5.00 p.m. in order to address the items remaining on the agenda. Chair Worth asked Mr.Taylor to advise on protocol regarding public speakers who may not be able to attend the next meeting. Mr.Taylor said that the Authority could hear their comments tonight for the record if the members were willing. Additional Public Speaker: Allen Payton,Antioch,said that the current Growth Management Program has worked well and he would not change it. The ULL has not slowed growth in East County and should not be part of the discussion for renewing Measure C. Having grown up in Contra Costa County,he has seen growth and congestion in spite of decisions made to slow it down by not improving our highways. With the limited amount of money available,the general public wants to see basic transportation solutions. Commissioner Abelson said she would like to amend the TLC language–referring to page 8 of Draft ##18,paragraph 1. She suggested changing the second sentence to".....support and/or catalyze developments, especially affordable bousr'ng...." Chari Worth polled the members for consensus on accepting this amendment, and all members agreed. Arne Simonsen requested a straw poll of the members to determine if there is support for the language regarding transit coordination. He said if the members agree, he would like to submit substitute language for consideration. AUTHORMY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 14 Commr`ssionerPierce said that she and the other members are very sensitive to the comments made by Mr. Ramacier of County Connection and the Beard would be willing to consider the amendment next week. Arne Simonson reviewed the language changes on page 8 of Draft#17 under Other Countywide Programs: 1) "...(in cooperation with tFmsft oper-ate r-s the Bins Transit Coorrdinating Council}.."; 2) "...maintenance of effort, operational efficiencies including greater coordination promoting and developtrtgseamless service, a specified minimum ....."; and 3) "...farebox return (Measure C funded service only)..." CorrmissionerSteppersuggested including language that would allow for consolidation if it was cast effective. .r& Simonson objected, saying the transit operators would be opposed to that,since there is already a joint effort to work together and they would not consider consolidation. Commissioner Freitas suggested continuing the discussion next week. He asked the Chair to direct anyone who wished to submit amended language to send it to OCTA in care of Anita Fitzgibbons. These suggestions will be reviewed and addressed at next week's meeting. The Chair and the members agreed to adjourn.at 11:20 p.m. and reconvene at a special meeting on Wednesday,May 26`h at 5:00 p.m. at a location to be determined. The following items were deferred: 3.B.6 Discussion of Remaining Growth Management Program(GMP)Policy Issues:Two critical GMP discussion issues remain unresolved and are continued from the Authority's April 21 meeting. In finalizing the policy approach for addressing these issues,the Authority will consider the input received at its May 1 summit workshop of elected officials and stakeholders. 3.8.6.1 Addressing Housing Options and Job Opportunities:Three options are under consideration: 1)Each jurisdiction submits a housing report showing progress during the past five years to meet its fair-share housing goals;or,shows it provides adequate land capacity through its General Plan and zoning regulations to accommodate the goals;2)Add to Option 1 that the jurisdictions shall not be found in compliance if there is a consistent pattern of denying applications for housing;and(3) Eliminate the reporting requirement in Options 1 and 2.Replace it with a broad-brush requirement that the jurisdiction consider the impacts of its land use decisions on the transportation system. 3.8.6.2 Establishing an Urban Limit Line(ULL).The current proposal is that all jurisdictions would work together to identify a mutually agreeable ULL,with provisions for periodic review and amendment.Once the line has been established,options for ratification are as follows: 1)Approval by the voters of each jurisdiction,except where the jurisdiction's boundaries are entirely within the proposed line,in which case no vote would be required;2)Use a Memorandum of Understanding or a Joint Powers Agreement to establish and enforce the line (note.Authorrtylegal counsel has determined that this option may be unenforceable;3)Allow jurisdictions through June 30,2007,to cooperatively develop the line through the RTPCs.Ater that date,if the line has not been established jurisdictions would be required to gain approval of the voters;and 4)Not include this requirement. AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 15 3.A.17 Review and Approval of Ordinance 04-02,Amendments to the Authority's Ordinance 88-01 for Purposes of Extending the Sales Tax. Amendments are required to the Authority's organic ordinance to address the extension of the sales talc,including:(a)noting the date the extension will begin and/or changing the date the tax will expire;(b)identifying the tax rate;(c)amending the Gann limit,if appropriate; (d)amending the bonding limit,if appropriate;(e)revising the project references and/or sunsetting some provisions as appropriate;and(f)other technical changes as necessary to conform the existing and prospective future programs. A detailed draft of changes was circulated prior to the meeting.Ordinance 04-02. 4.0 4.A 4.A.18 Legislation. Staff will report on legislation introduced in the current Legislative Session. The APC may take action on these or any other bills relevant to the Authority's Legislative Program. 4.B 0610 & 4 ' & 6.. �i` None 5.0 5.1 Letter from WCCTAC,dated 5110,regarding amendments to the TEP. 5.2 Later from the Bay Area CMA to MTC,regarding Implementation of RM2. 6.0 6.1 Central County(TRANSP'AC): 6.2 East County(TRANSPLAN): 6.3 Southwest County(SWAT): Report of May P meeting 6.4 West County(WCCTAC): Report of April 16°`meeting 7.0 7.1 Chair's Comments 7.2 Commissioners'Comments 7.3 Executive Staff'Comments 8.0 May/June/July 2404 9.0 'WK Y The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to be continued at a special meeting on May 26"at 5:00 p.m. AUTHORITY MEETING,Summary Minutes,May 19,2004 Page 16 CONTRA COSTA TRANSRORTATIONAUTHORITY SUMMARY MINUTES May 26,2004 Commissioners Present: Amy Worth,Chair,Janet Abelson,Vice Chair Julie Pierce,Donald P.Freitas,Karen Stepper,Maria Alegria, Charlie Abrams,Federal Glover,John Gioia,Brad Nix,Kris Valstad Ex-Officio Member Present: Arne Simonsen Staff Present: Bob McCleary,Paul Maxwell,Martin Engelmann,Arielle Bourgart, Susan Miller,Dave Murray,Brad Beck Hisham Noeimi, Stan Taylor (Authority Counsel),Anita Fitzgibbons(Executive Secretary) A. CONVENE MEETING: (Continued from May 19, 2004) Chair Worth convened the meeting at 5:25 p.m. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C. PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are invited to address the Authority regarding any item that is not listed on the agenda. 1.0GIEI~:D `CSSTEN I'I Chair Worth suggested addressing Item 2 first,to be followed by Item 1 and then Item 3. The Board concurred. Ta��s�t�`ta�i�t�� xne �iture'Platt# E�.'`t 2. Discussion of Remaining Growth Management Program(GMP)Policy Issues: Two critical GMP discussion issues remain unresolved and are continued from the Authority's April 21 meeting. In finalizing the policy approach for addressing these issues,the Authority will consider all the input received to date from elected officials and stakeholders. Martin Engelmann noted that when the May 19`h meeting adjourned,two items remained to be discussed: 1)Housing Options and Job Opportunities; and 2)the Urban Limit Line(ULL). 2.1 Addressing Housing Options and Job Opportunities: Three options are under consideration: 1)Each jurisdiction submits a housing report showing progress during the past five years to meet its fair-share housing goals; or,shows it provides adequate land capacity through its General Plan and zoning regulations to accommodate the goals;2)Add to Option 1 that the jurisdictions shall not be found in compliance if there is a consistent pattern of denying applications for housing; and(3)Eliminate the reporting requirement in Options 1 and 2. Replace it with a broad-brush requirement that the jurisdiction consider the impacts of its land use decisions on the transportation system. AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 26,2004 Page 1 Staff Report : Mr.Engelmann reported that the PC had agreed to forward Option 1 (Attachment A)along with the SWAT(Attachment D)and Town of Danville(Attachment E)comments to the Authority for discussion,with the understanding that further modifications would be considered. He also noted that the handout(purple cover)contained updated materials with comments received after the agenda packet(blue cover)was mailed out. He reviewed the issues related to Housing Options and Job Opportunities and opened the discussion to the board members. Discussion: The members commented on the proposed Housing Options language and the ULL,and received public testimony on both issues from the following. Chair Worth noted that Paul Eldredge,City of Brentwood,wished to inform the members that the city had stated its position in a letter that has been included in the handout(purple). ,Laura Haff neister, Councilmember, City of Concord, addressed the Housing Options element, supporting the language proposed by the Town of Danville. She referred to the criteria that references an average number of affordable housing units built each year,and asked for clarification of how the calculation would be made. Ms.Hoffineister then addressed the ULL issue, saying that the City of Concord would not support the proposed language as shown on the handout(salmon color). Newell Arnerich,Mayor, Town of Danville, said he was very disappointed in the process,pointing out that the Authority does not seem to be listening to the public testimony from the cities regarding growth management(and no ULL requirement). He said the Board of Supervisors can make its own decision regarding the ULL without using Measure C to make those changes. He urged the members to keep it(the GMP)simple and move forward. David Durant, Councilmember from Pleasant Hill, speaking as a resident, was very disappointed with the proposed ULL language,because it does not achieve the intent of the original Measure, which was to help the public in Contra Costa County.He urged the members to consider the housing compliance language proposed by the Town of Danville,or suffer the consequences of losing city support. Ed Dimick, resident of Walnut Creek, talked about the need for growth control measures in the new TEP. He also noted that the Authority does not have an independent oversight committee to enforce such control measures throughout the county(to ensure they are effective). He added that he does not believe the voters will approve the Measure as it is being presented tonight. .Mike Daley, Sierra Club,thanked the Authority for its hard work and acknowledged that it is not possible to please everyone given the limited funds available for the new Measure. He said the allocation of funds is not going to sway the voters—they will be looking at the growth management element,which needs to include affordable housing provisions and the ULL. Kathleen Nimr, Sierra Club,said that she could support housing Option 1 if it contains a strong affordable housing element. With regard to the ULL,she urged the Authority to keep it simple— she would like to see each jurisdiction vote on its own ULL before the new Measure C goes into effect. AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 26,2004 Page 2 John Dalrymple, AFL-CIO,felt that everyone(the Authority and the stakeholders)had made an honest attempt to develop a package that can be supported by the cities. He believes that the voters are expecting an effective growth management plan. He noted that he is prepared to support Option 2 with regard to the housing element,and the proposed ULL language as presented in the handout. David Reed, Greenbelt Alliance, noted that the polls show that 80%of the population supports growth management. Referring to the ULL language presented in the handout,he said it is not perfect,but it does have some strong points—specifically allowing the cities to participate in developing their own urban limit lines. Jeff`Hobson, TALC and EPA C, encouraged the Authority to adopt Option 2 as presented relative to housing compliance,and reject any further changes that might dilute it. He added that the transportation problems in the county cannot be fixed without addressing the issue of affordable housing. With regard to the ULL,he felt that the language in the handout was an improvement from previous language. Rochelle Bird, Moraga, referred to the"intent"of the original Measure C.... "to create a reliable funding source for this county for its transportation infrastructure." Infrastructure improvements are critical. However,she was concerned that the new Measure is instead morphing into a land- use measure. She also felt that the ULL issue will undermine local control,and that the proposed ULL language(handout)would be very confusing to the average voter. Ron Brown, Save Mt. Diablo and EPA C, thanked everyone for their hard work. He encouraged the Authority to keep it simple,saying that we all want the same thing for our families. He felt that there is no doubt that transportation is linked to land use,and he is in favor of local control, but sometimes decisions have to be made on a regional level. As an EPAC member,he said that the committee was cut off before it had completed its task,but its goal was to develop a positive measure that addresses the issues most of the voters are counting on us to fix. Reverend Andre Shumack, Richmond Improvement Association, thanked the Authority for the time and hard work spent over the last two years. He then said it is time to do something different in the county,because the old ways can't keep up with the growing population in Contra Costa. He urged the members to adopt Option#2 relative to housing compliance,which will benefit the most residents of the county. Evelyn Stivers, Greenbelt Alliance, said that her organization cannot support the renewal without strong affordable housing and growth management elements. Therefore,they support Option#2 for housing compliance,and ask that the language be even stronger with regard to provision of affordable housing. Ethan Veneklausen, Contra Costa Council, said that the Authority has an opportunity to find a compromise that everyone can support. He reminded the members that in the end,it is the voters who will decide on the renewal,and opposition could prevent passage—so their voices must be heard. Amer extensive discussion,the Authority took the following action: AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 26, 2004 Page 3 ACTION: Commissioner Stepper moved to adopt the language suggested by the Town of Danville,(as shown below)which included a subsequent amendment adding the phrase"for all income levels." Commissioner Nig seconded the motion,and later accepted the amendment. The Chair called for a vote and the motion was approved 9-2(Commissioners Gioia and Abelson voted no). 3. Address Housing Options j Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate reasonable progress in providing } housing opportunities for all income levels as part of a report on the j implementation of the actions outlined in its adopted Housing element. i The report will demonstrate progress by: 1) 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; or 2) illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption of land use { plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain housing development; or 3) Illustrating how a jurisdiction's General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate the improvement and development of sufficient housing to meet those objectives. In addition, each jurisdiction shall consider the impacts that its land use and I 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 G access in new developments. i 2.2 Establishing an Urban Limit Line(ULL).The current proposal is that all jurisdictions would work together to identify a mutually agreeable ULL,with provisions for periodic review and amendment.Once the line has been established,options for ratification are as follows. 1) Approval by the voters of each jurisdiction,except where the jurisdiction's boundaries are entirely within the proposed line,in which case no vote would be required; 2)Use a Memorandum of Understanding or a Joint Powers Agreement to establish and enforce the line(note:Authority legal counsel has determined that this option may be unenforceable); 3)Allow jurisdictions through June 30, 2007,to cooperatively develop the line through the RTPCs. After that date, if the line has not been established jurisdictions would be required to gain approval of the voters; and 4)Not include this requirement. AUTHOFJTY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 26,2004 Page 4 Staff Roort: Bill Gray, Gray-Bowen&Company, asked the members to refer to the handout(salmon calor)for tonight's discussion. He noted that the PC had agreed to forward a recommendation to the Authority that included the concept that all jurisdictions should work cooperatively to develop a mutually agreed upon,legally binding Urban Limit Line(ULL). He said that the language listed at the top of the page(5. Adopt an Urban Limit Line)would be used in the Measure and the "Principles of Agreement"would be simply an attachment. Chair Worth pointed out that while the PC could not reach consensus on the mechanism for implementing a ULL,there was a consensus to recommend that the Authority include as part of the Measure C Extension GMP the concept of a mutually agreed upon,legally binding ULL—with the requirement that all jurisdictions honor such a line,or risk losing their return-to-source(18%) local street maintenance and improvement funds,as well as eligibility to receive Contra Costa TLC grants. Authority,Discussion:_ The members reviewed each principle,making recommendations and clarifications of the proposed language. Extensive discussion followed,including a motion and substitute motion. Both were withdrawn before a final motion for approval was made. ACTION: Commissioner Freitas moved to approve the language as shown below,second by Commissioner Stepper. The Chair called for a vote on the final language and it was approved by a unanimous vote of 11-0. PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE URBAN LIMIT LINE 1. The Board of Supervisors shall have, with the concurrence of each affected city, adjusted the existing County ULL on or before September 30, 2004, or as expeditiously as possible given the requirements of CEQA, to make the existing County ULL coterminous with city boundaries where it previously intruded inside those incorporated boundaries. 2. The process to develop the ULL shall have begun by July 1,2004 with meetings in each sub region between one elected representative of each city and the county.The j subregional meeting(s)will be followed by meetings between all of the cities and the county,each being represented by one elected representative.The discussion will in- clude both the suggested ULL as well as criteria for establishing the line and future modifications to the ULL. i 3. On or before December 31, 2004, the County and the cities will cooperate in the development of a new mutually agreed upon ULL and criteria for future modifications. To be considered a final proposal, the plan must be approved by 4 members of the Board of Supervisors and 3 4 of the cities representing 3 4 of the incorporated population. Continued.... AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 26, 2004 Page 5 Principles of Agreement V W For Establishing the Urban Limit Lute ......cantinwd t i I 4. The County will be the lead agency in preparing a Master EIR on the proposed Countywide"mutually agreed upon ULL". � r 5. After certification of the Master EIR,the proposal shall be submitted to the voters for G ratification by November 2006. The new mutually agreed upon ULL will be considered as the Countywide Voter Approved ULL once it is ratified by the voters. i 6. If a Town or City disagrees with the mutually agreed upon ULL, it may, as an alternative, develop and submit to its voters an "alternative ULL", or rely upon an existing voter approved ULL. I 7. If no Countywide mutually agreed upon ULL is established by March 31,2009,only � local jurisdictions with a voter approved ULL will be eligible to receive the 18% return to source funds or the 5°r`tt TLC funds. i 8. The new Measure C Growth Management Program will include a requirement that all jurisdictions must comply with either the "Countywide ULL" or the "local I i jurisdiction's voter approved ULL" before that jurisdiction would be eligible to receive the 18%n return to source funds or the 5%CC-TLC funds.In the absence of a j local voter approved ULL,submittal of an annexation request to LAFCO outside the countywide voter approved ULL will constitute non-compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Plan. 9. The new ULL, unless amended, will be in place through the end of the sales tax i extension{March 31, 2034). r TTT T x.r__ .........._.... _ 1. Review of Draft Transportation Expenditure Flan Language for Discussion and Approval. The Authority approved a draft Plan at its May 19"'meeting and asked that a discussion of potential language changes be brought back to discuss at this follow-up meeting on May 26`". Changes made on May 19`',along with proposed revisions,were attached. Staff Iteuort• Bob.McCleary introduced this item,noting that comments received since the May 191'meeting were included in the handout. Authori,!y Discussion: The members listened to public testimony and then reviewed each project description,making recommendations and clarifications to the proposed language. The following members of the public testified: AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 26, 2004 Page 6 Bruce Ohlson, East Bay Bicycle Coalition, had left the meeting,and the Chair read lois comments from his speaker card. "Please remove the time limit from the bike/pedestrian funds." Debbie Toth, SeniorlDisabled Stakeholders&Mt.Diablo Center, referred to the description for line item#15,Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities,specifically the language that states: "Up to 1%of transportation for seniors and people with disabilities funds can be available for...." She asked that the phrase"up to 1W be removed and the word"can"be changed to"shall.,, Evelyn Stivers, greenbelt Alliance, referred to the description of line item#5,East County Corridors. She said that the Alliance would support the language in the handout as long as all reference to adding capacity on roads outside the ULL is taken out,and only studies and safety improvements would receive funding. In response,Bob McCleary confirmed that the language in the handout(purple cover)would replace the language in the packet(blue cover)in its entirety; and that the constraint on investments outside the ULL applied to all project categories. H.E. Christian.Peeples,Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, supported the amended paratransit language suggested by Commissioner Abelson and Debbie Toth. Kathleen Nimr, Sierra Club, agreed with Evelyn Stiver's comments on the east county corridors, and asked if there would be funding available for bus service in the corridors? Referring to the TLC program,she said she had understood that jurisdictions would be encouraged to implement projects such as multi-use buildings around transit hubs. She hoped that the language would encourage more affordable housing under the TLC program. John Dalrymple, AI's-CIO, said that the EPAC recommended all TLC funds be allocated to affordable housing. He said, "This is not exclusive,it would be part of the two-page addendum, and we urge you to adopt that with this language as it is consistent with the goals you set forth at the beginning of this process." Bob Doyle, East Bay Regional Park District, thanked everyone who has worked so hard on this process. He urged the Authority to consider Mr.Dalrymple's comments because in the overall program of what the coalition of groups brought forward,this was one of the principles that they hoped to advance. He went on to say that a five-year limit on the bike/ped funds to complete$10 million worth of projects on a 25-year program is not feasible. He urged the Authority to make bike/ped funding criteria consistent with all the other projects,based on the funding and cash flow available if the criteria are met. He referred to a letter submitted by the City of Brentwood,saying he does not support its suggestion to give developers credit for developing bike and trail projects. JeffHobson, TALC and EPA C, supported the TLC language on page 1-3 of the handout(purple cover)that clarifies that the TLC program would give preference to transportation projects that maximize transportation benefits linked to affordable housing,transit and downtown areas. He also suggested eliminating the time limit on bike/ped projects because it doesn't make sense to require that 25-year's worth of funds be spent in five years,and it is not required of any other projects in Measure C. Mr.Hobson asked for an amendment to the description of line item#8, Local Streets Maintenance: Change the last sentence"As Appropriate,components for routine...." To read,"unless exceptional circumstances exist,components for routine...." AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 26,2004 Page 7 Brandon Farley, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, asked for clarification of the description for line item#15,Transportation for Seniors,specifically with regard to the intent of the language. He said it implies that the funds can only be used for(a)and(b)as listed. The members discussed this and agreed to delete the phrase`(Up to 1W and to change the word ((shall„to((may,„ Laura Hoffrneister, City of Concord,thanked the Authority for including the footnote regarding the TLC program(in the TEP). ACTION: Commissioner fierce made a motion to approve the Transportation Expenditure Plan Project and Program descriptions as amended this evening(shown as Attachment 1 to these minutes)with a second by Commissioner Freitas. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 11-0. 3. Review and Approval of Ordinance 04-02,Amendments to the Authority's Ordinance 88-01 for Purposes of Extending the Sales Tax. Amendments are required to the Authority's organic ordinance to address the extension of the sales tax.,including:(a)noting the date the extension will begin and/or changing the date the tax will expire;(b)identifying the tax rate; (c)amending the Gann limit,if appropriate;(d)amending the bonding limit,if appropriate;(e)revising the project references and/or sunsetting some provisions as appropriate; and(f)other technical changes as necessary to conform the existing and prospective future programs. A detailed draft of changes was circulated prior to the meeting. Ordinance 04-02. Staff Kmart: Bob McCleary introduced this item,identified each document and supporting materials,and then reviewed the process to be followed in order to adopt the Ordinance. He then deferred to Stan Taylor, Authority Counsel,who reviewed the Ordinance in more detail and answered questions during the board's discussion. ACTION. Commissioner Abelson made the following motion to approve Ordinance 04-02(Attachment 2 to these minutes),with a second by Commissioner Freitas. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 11-0. Proposed Motion Adapting Ordinance 04-02 i Commissioner Abelson moved the adoption of Ordinance 04-02, including the proposed Transportation.Expenditure Plan, the revised Growth Management I Program(which will be included as part 3 of the TEP), and the summary of i the Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities program(which will be included as part 4 of the TEP),pursuant to: 1. The Final EIR certified by Resolution 04-04-G, E [ 2. The adoption of the"Findings,Facts in Support of Findings, and i Statement of Overriding Considerations"as modified(below): � AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 25, 2004 Page 8 3 i 2.a To revise Impact 2.11-4 and 2.b To revise the current Fact in Support of Finding(d)under 2.11-4, as shown on the handout entitled"Proposed Changes to Findings and Facts in Support of Findings(as follows),"and 3. The adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved i by.Resolution 04-06-G. Proposed(Approved) Changes to Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 1. Revise Impact 2.11-4 to read, "The 2004 CTP Update may affect patterns of s land use such that the location or rate of-growth differs from planned growth in the county," 2. Revise the current Fact in Support of Finding(d)under Impact 2.11-4 as follows: The Urban Limit Line Provisions of Measure C will not have significant effects on the environment that were not evaluated in the EIR. On a program level, the impacts of the proposed GMP included in the 2004 CTP Update, including the option that"local jurisdictions work together to develop a new, f jointly established ULL with which all jurisdictions must apply,"have been I evaluated in the FEIR.. The Urban Limit Line Provisions establish a process for the establishment of an Urban Limit Line,but do not identify any specific I changes with potential environmental effects that can be evaluated at this time. AU impacts of the Urban Limit Line, as it will be established in the future,will be evaluated under CEQA at the time that imus can be identified and are not remote and speculative.culative. ave identified some eempeaen4s efanutban limit 6 adopted, and",sueh approval would be subjeet to Ad!,pr-qjeet level-GEQA v. U*til sueh review has taken i > A be E i luded in the i . 4. AMd"R The meting adjourned at 1.:22 a.m. on May 27,2004,to June 16,2004 at 6:00 p.m AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,May 26,2004 Page 9 Item 3 Attachment D Responses to Comments on CEQA Documents Made at May 19, 2004 Authority Meeting KATHLEEN NiMR, SIERRA CLUB Comment 1-1 They process for monitoring mitigation measures should be more "transparent" Response The process outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for reporting on project-related mitigation measures relies on the Authority's existing adopted process. Project status reports are publicly available as part of every agenda packet of the Technical Coordinating Committee. These agenda packets, like other Authority agenda packets, are available from the Authority. Comment 1-2 The EPAC-proposed conditions for the East County Corridors should be applied as mitigation measures. Response The Authority is considering conditions and restrictions on using new Measure C revenues to fund capacity improvements outside of the Urban Limit Line. DAVID SCHONBRUNN, TRANSDEF Comment 1-1 The EIR does not address the inevitable growth that will occur and the impacts it will have on land use. Response The Authority, as the Congestion Management Agency for Centra Costa, is required to maintain a travel demand model that complies with guidelines set by the Met- ropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). One of those guidelines requires that the Authority use the most recent population and economic forecasts available from the Asso- ciation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The model uses a dataset that combines Projec- tions 2000 and Projections 2002. Alternative datasets (specifically, Shaping Our Future and Projections 2043) were not available at the time the draft EIR was prepared. The EIR did not find that any of the alternatives considered would have changed accessibil- ity enough to have an effect on future land use patterns. Page 3 - 7 Responses to Comments on CEQA Documents Made at May 19, 2004 Authority Meeting would reverse the trend of the last 50 years. Ridership increases were found to correlate with increases in transit service. (Congestion, however, was not found to decrease with in- creased transit service availability.) Comment 1-S The resolution does not appear to adopt the addendum and the sequence of the process is wrong. Response The Authority adopted the Addendum as part of Resolution 04-04-G, which is titled "Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum as the Envi- ronmental Impact Report for the Adoption of the 2004 Update to the Contra Costa Coun- tywide Comprehensive Transportation flan and Proposed Measure C Extension." It certi- fies that the Authority reviewed and considered the FEIR, that the FEIR complies with CEQA, and that the FEIR represents the Authority's independent judgment. The approval process complies with CEQA. Comment 1-6 The biggest impact was the conversion of agricultural lands and open space to urban uses, and the mitigation measures identified for this im- pact are not adequate. Response The EIR found that Impact 2.1 t-1---the construction of new or expanded transportation facilities proposed by the 2004 CTI' Update could result in the conversion of agricultural lands to transportation uses---would be significant and unavoidable.. The EIR also found that the proposed 2004 CTI' Update would not lead to significant changes in the rate of growth or in the location of planned growth. The Authority, however, is con- sidering the addition of conditions to any project funded through the Fast County Corri- dor category of the TEP that would be constructed outside of the adopted ULL to minirnize imparts of roadway improvements on agricultural lands. Comment 1-7 The use of an addendum instead of a subsequent or supplemental EIR was not supported by the facts. Response The CEQA Guidelines require the Authority to prepare an addendum, rather than subsequent or supplemental EIR, if only minor changes to an EIR are required. A lead agency may only prepare a subsequent EIR if it finds, based on substantive evidence, that project changes would create new or substantially increase the severity of previously identi- fied impacts, or substantial changes in circurnstances occur, or new information becomes available that indicates that previously identified impacts would be substantially more sig- nificant or that there would be new significant impacts. Because none of the conditions have been met, the Authority is prohibited from preparing a subsequent or supplemental. EIR. Comment 1-8 The "findings"portion of the EIR were not available on the Authority's website. Page 3 - 9 Responses to Comments on CEQA Documents Made at May 19, 2004 Authority Meeting Our Future and providing more transit can have positive impacts on transportation and air quality. Response The ETR found that land use changes might have positive effects on reducing vehicle trips and miles traveled and encouraging shifts to walking, bicycling and transit. (It slid not find, and staff did not state, that increased transit availability would, in all cases, improve transportation and air quality. The Draft EIR indicated that Alternative C, which had the greatest investment in transit, would have had the worst outcomes for transporta- tion and air quality.) Nonetheless, the Authority does not have the land use authority nec- essary to achieve the changes outlined in the Shaping Our Future vision. It is part of both Measure C .and the joint exercise of powers agreement establishing the Authority as the CMA for Contra Costa that land use decisions will remain with local jurisdictions. The proposed TEP does include programs, most especially the CC-TLC program, that would encourage more walkable and "bikeable" communities and improved access to transit. And the proposed ULL could help encourage infill and the greater mixing of uses, which could improve the connection between land use and transportation. Comment 1-12 The allocation o f Funds in the TEP could be made to incentivize land use consistent with Shaping Our Future. The fact that it doesn't is a policy choice made by your body that results in significant environmental im- pacts for which you have no statement of overriding considerations Response As noted above, the Authority does not have land use decision-making powers, and must recognize and respond to the decisions made by its member jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions have not, as of yet, agreed to the land use principles outlined in the Shaping Our Future vision. Once they have agreed to those (or other) principles, the Authority will be able to focus funding to achieve that countywide vision. The EIR and Addendum identified two significant but unavoidable impacts: project-related impacts from the construction of transportation improvements in agricultural areas, and air quality impacts from the growth in travel and congestion under Alternatives B and C and possibly the proposed TEP. The EIR did not find that Shaping Our Future or any other land use alternative would change those findings. The proposed TEP would, however, encourage the development of more pedestrian-, bicy- cle- and transit-friendly communities through the CC-TLC program, the Safe Transporta- tion for Children program, and other programs. As noted above, more than half of the funding allocation in the proposed TEP would go to implement adopted TCMs. Page 3 - 11