Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02082005 - C58 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •••t� `, :_�•, Contra M. BARRY AICP +~ Costa FROM: DENNIS M °: :.`"��� DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR "• -�•' COMMUNITY D County �o:� •S rA:cervK�~j' DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2005 0*"SF( SUBJECT: DRAFT MOU FOR THE SR-4 EAST TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS REFER the draft Memorandum of Understanding for the State Route 4—East Transit Corridor Project with SF-BART, East County Cities, CCTA, and Tri-Delta Transit to the Board's Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee and County Counsel. f CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE y RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD ON .e- ?!5,v ROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER 0 / I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF UNANIMOUS ABSENT SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: t. Contact: P. Roche,Adv Planning(925-335-1242) ATTESTED cc: CAO JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF TQg BOD OF Clerk of the Board SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRA OR County Counsel h Public Works Department CDD-Transportation Planning BY DEPUTY SF-BARTD {via CDD} I % February 8, 2005 Board of Supervisors Draft MOU for the SR 4 East Transit Corridor Project Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT To be determined. The MOU proposes that the cities and the County prepare Ridership Development Plans for each station proposed within their jurisdiction and undertake an environmental review process for these plans. A review of General Plan policies and zoning will be part of the Ridership Development Plans. The MOU proposes to fund this responsibility by a combination of transit project funds and local matching funds. It is the Department's policy that costs for plan preparation and environmental review be funded by application fees. At this time, there is no applicant to cover any local match. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION Community Development Department staff has been contacted by staff from the SF Bay Area Rapid Transit District(BART)about a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)between BART, East County Cities, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and Tri-Delta Transit to undertake work on the State Route 4 —East Transit Corridor Project (also known as "e-BART"). The purpose of this MOU is to define the respective roles and responsibilities of the transportation agencies and the local jurisdictions in developing and planning for a rapid transit system that would serve communities in eastern Contra Costa County. SF-BART Board of Directors has adopted a System Expansion Policy that requires that a Ridership Development Plan be prepared for proposed infill stations or expansion of the existing BART system. The Ridership Development Plan must demonstrate that a target-level ridership at the corridor level can be achieved through measures such as transit supportive land uses and investment in access programs and projects. The purpose of the Ridership Development Plans is to improve the cost- effectiveness of the transit project through increased ridership. A broader study of economic development potential for new station areas in East County has been proposed by the cities to serve as the Ridership Development Plans. A key premise under this draft MOU is that through this planning effort each jurisdiction with a proposed station site will work together with BART, OCTA, and Tri-Delta Transit to prepare a land use component and access component aimed a reaching the corridor-level ridership. A station site is proposed in the unincorporated community of Byron. Staff recommends that the attached draft MOU be referred to the Board's Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee and County Counsel for review and consideration. GAAdvance Planning\adv-plan\eBART Corridor P1anning\SR4EastMOUBO.doc DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Among San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Tri-Delta Transit District Regarding the State Route 4 East Transit Corridor Project WHEREAS,the Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding ("Memorandum") are the City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley(collectively,the "Cities"), Contra Costa County(the "County"), San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ("BART"), Contra Costa Transportation Authority("CCTA"), and Tri-Delta Transit District. WHEREAS, the Parties support the goal of expeditiously bringing high quality rapid transit service to east Contra Costa County residents. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to achieve this goal by cooperating in the development of a proposed project by BART for a high quality rapid transit system to serve the east Contra Costa County communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood and Byron, known as the State Route 4 East Transit Corridor("the Project"). WHEREAS, BART and CCTA have prepared a feasibility study,which examines transit alternatives for the proposed Project corridor, entitled the State Route 4 Transit Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study considers Conventional BART, Diesel Multiple Unit("DMU"), Commuter Heavy Rail, Express Bus and Bus Rapid Transit alternatives. WHEREAS, rapid transit ridership is generated by the population and employment that surround stations and the ability to provide adequate access to and from stations for transit passengers. WHEREAS, in the proposed Project corridor,the Cities and County have authority over land use planning within their respective jurisdictions and have adopted general plans, zoning ordinances and other land use plans,policies and controls addressing matters such as density of land uses, mix of land uses and the future growth and character of their residential and business communities. WHEREAS,pursuant to their land use planning and control jurisdiction,the Cities and County make and/or participate in decisions on local transportation and infrastructure including the placement and capacity of local streets and roads,pedestrian, bicycle and public parking facilities, all of which are important factors in encouraging rapid transit ridership. WHEREAS,,the Metropolitan Transportation Commission("MTC"), as the regional planning agency for transportation investment in the Bay Area, has emphasized the strong connection between land use and transportation investment through a policy DRAFT—FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 platform which states: "Condition regional discretionary funding for MTC's Resolution 3434 regional transit expansion program to the provision of supportive land uses in those transit corridors and around those stations." WHEREAS,regional, state and federal transportation funding sources all require ridership sufficient to justify the public investment in transit infrastructure along with coordination between land use and transportation policies at the local level. WHEREAS, on December 5, 2002, the BART Board of Directors adopted the BART System Expansion Policy and Criteria (the "System Expansion Policy", attached hereto as EXHIBIT A),which contains evaluation criteria for proposed projects that expand BART transit service. These criteria include evaluation of local land use plans and policies, existing land uses and station area access in order to determine whether anticipated ridership levels appear to be sufficiently high to.favor investment in a proposed expansion project. The System Expansion Policy is intended to both guide BART's review of proposed projects and to help local jurisdictions identify ways to effectively achieve the ridership necessary for a proposed BART expansion project to be favorably evaluated. WHEREAS, in order to demonstrate sufficient anticipated ridership for favorable evaluation of the proposed Project, the System Expansion Policy provides that a Ridership Development Plan be prepared and implemented for each station in the Project corridor. The individual Cities and/or the County are responsible for preparing and implementing the Ridership Development Plans for the station or stations within their respective jurisdictions,with the cooperation and assistance of BART. ........ P Plane -:2 ewr-b MI C -PA �"X ... .... 0r ea .......I. JA n p _xra omd .......... 0intra ...............I t E . ........ ...... SCO t .0� t4h Riddigbffi .............. ........... _A A, I P d am . ........ OV "IN als-3. U ....... .0 A3 �. M ......bil� Un awE no WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Memorandum to express their commitment to development and implementation of Ridership Development Plans for stations in the proposed Project corridor that will achieve sufficient ridership to ensure that the proposed Project represents a productive transit investment that satisfies the System Expansion Policy goals. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. The Roles of Participants in the Economic Development Plan Process The Parties recognize and acknowledge the following roles for the participants in the Economic Development Plan process: 2 DRAFT— FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 The CITIES and COUNTY are responsible for the development and implementation of their own land use and local transportation plans, policies and controls within their respective jurisdictions. BART, as the Bay Area's regional rail transit system, is responsible for developing, evaluating and adopting proposed projects to expand rapid transit service beyond the service area of the existing BART system. As a prudent steward of public resources, BART is responsible for developing and implementing policies regarding expansion projects to help ensure that anticipated ridership levels are sufficiently high to justify the large public investment that such projects represent. CCTA, as the entity that collects and administers the County's half-cent sales tax, is responsible for working with local and regional partners to identify funding priorities and ensuring these priorities receive adequate funding. C �I'��� �v �cQ�r��i� ,��e and � tt te...... ns warl n�ats ih � r�t... �I.�e�el��sm��i �"1 s ........ The TRI-DELTA TRANSIT DISTRICT is responsible for providing bus and paratransit services in eastern Contra Costa County,which will include feeder service to the existing Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station and future Project transit stations in east Contra Costa County. 2. Agreements of the Parties. 2.1 The Parties agree that an Economic Development Plan shall be prepared for each station of the proposed Project by the City or Cities (or, as applicable, the County)with jurisdiction over land within the 1-mile radius surrounding that station,with cooperation and assistance from BART and CCTA. 2.2 The Parties agree that the Economic Development Plans shall be prepared and implemented by the Parties substantially in the manner described in the Ridership Development/Economic Development Plan Process, attached hereto as EXHIBIT B. Any substantial departure from the process described in EXHIBIT B with respect to the Economoic Development Plan for an individual station shall be mutually agreed on by the Parties participating in the development of that station's Economic Development Plan. 2.3 Ridership estimates for the Project have been prepared for purposes of this Memorandum using the modeling methodology as described in the Ridership Estimation Methodology, attached hereto as EXHIBIT C. All ridership estimates are for the planning horizon year of 2025. The Parties agree that the methodology used is acceptable and appropriate for the proposed Project. 2.4 Based on the agreed-on modeling methodology,the Parties agree that the Corridor- wide Target Estimates (as defined in EXHIBIT B hereto) of Project ridership for purposes of Economic Development Plan development, in order to fulfill the goals of the 3 DRAFT-FOR.DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 System Expansion Policy and this Memorandum, are as follows (in units of entries and exits for an average weekday in 2025): Table 2.1 Corridor-wide Ridership Target Estimates, by Technology Technolo Alternative Targets Estimates Conventional BART 14,5000 DMU 141055 LRT N/A F Bus Rapid Transit 15,124 1 The Target Estimates for the Project as a whole may be revised only by mutual agreement of the Parties. 2.5 Following the execution of this Memorandum,BART will undertake the environmental review process for the proposed Project and alternatives under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and, if applicable,the National Environmental Policy Act("NEPA"). In conducting such environmental review,BART shall consider both the Base Estimates (as defined in EXHIBIT B hereto) and Target Estimates identified in EXHIBIT B. 2.6 Following execution of this Memorandum, the Cities and County will undertake development of their respective Economic Developments Plans. The Economic Development Plans shall propose actions to enhance transit ridership as described in EXHIBIT B hereto. 2.7 Following or concurrent with development of their respective Economic Development Plans,the Cities and County, in coordination with OCTA, will undertake the environmental review process under CEQA for the adoption of the proposed ridership enhancement actions identified in the Plans. At the conclusion of environmental review, the Cities and County will make the discretionary decision whether or not to adopt and implement the actions identified in their RDPs. 2.8 When evaluating the proposed Project under the System Expansion Policy criterion for transit-supportive land use, BART will consider the information contained in the Economic Development Plans, whether the Plans demonstrate that the Target Estimate for the proposed Project can be achieved, and whether ridership enhancement actions identified therein have been adopted and implemented by the Cities and County. BART will consider this information in deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Project as a whole and in deciding on the number and location of stations. -1e y- -e -e a, y1! vent. . . .. bn 190 In h. th I y e. -e rderh tar i ai, ..... Ims ........... ....... shed_thu "a- e _wr e-e V",a fee.. .. .. . !n!uecbei o ........... 4 DRAFT— FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 rt er . d tho P : :.' est h :; r 2 :2 the av �a c r :. :": .. cd faaf: t: p: <. :: ;, : ; , . �b de erned .. :........::: . 3: Sbtractl a ::.:: C.t ;1"lde` h� rive sao 's nncal p ♦1:. .. Ifn ,.. O d t ' : t..:� f. th t e Pr h :. gar ce : ::. ::.;.:;::;: s_ rean: :; fi a n f BART as.d does n2.: . I ..:. + .: fttt+o r �h� rs b ::<, : : o the tar etev; s. d the cit does_ g . .....: at: the a uaen ..... c: fee B y pART., e the . : : _ 3 _ . xg topt tt on, r : 2.11 The Parties agree that in the event of disputes concerning the matters addressed in this Memorandum, they will utilize the dispute resolution process described in EXHIBIT B. 3. Schedule. 3. 1 The Parties agree that the Economic Development Plan process will be completed in phases with proposed milestones as indicated below. The Parties agree to work towards achieving the milestones according to the schedule presented below. This schedule may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties. Table 3.1 Ridership Development Plan Schedule Phase Activities Milestones to be achieved I. Circulation of • Signing of MOU by the 60 • Draft MOU Parties Days • Initial ridership estimates • Initiate proposed Project • BART Access Guidelines environmental review • BART TOD Guidelines II. Development of Economic • Completion of Economic 365 Development Plans Development Plans Days • Access Component • Land Use Component • Station Component • Revised ridership estimates Initiate work on Project EIR III. • Environmental review of • Cities and County adopt 270 actions identified in actions identified in Economic Days Economic Development Development Plans Plans • Release of Draft Project EIR Continued Work on Project EIR IV. • BART Board considers 30 Project EIR and adoption of Days Project 5 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 3.2 Pursuant to the above schedule, Phase H of the Economic Development Plan process contains the bulk of the significant planning activity undertaken by the Parties. The Parties agree and acknowledge that there maybe significant differences in Plan structure and scheduling among the Cities and County. Recognizing the need for flexibility, the Parties will work toward completion of the Phase 11 planning component of the Economic Development Plan process with a target date of 365 days from the execution of this Memorandum and proposed milestones as follows: Table 3.2 Phase III Planning Schedule Deliverable Due Date Draft Plan Scope Day 30 Draft Land Use and Access Data Day 60 Parties Review of Draft Ridership Day 77 Estimates Development of Land Use and Access Day 270 Plans (if necessary) Evaluate Ridership enhancement Day 300 measures (if necessary) Draft Final Plans Day 330 Final Plans presented for review by Day 365 Parties 6 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding effective as of the latest date set forth below. City of Antioch: Date: City Manager City of Oakley : City Manager City of Brentwood: City Manager Contra Costa County: County Executive For Tri-Delta Transit General Manager: For CCTA Executive Director: For BART General Manager: 7 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT A BART SYSTEM EXPANSION POLICY AND CRITERIA ([ADD DATE]) 8 i DRAFT— FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT B RIDERSHIP DEVELOPMENT/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS : on PIe u Rsh D� I rent Pa _. b e ndtaken :.. fir ::. to ron of:the::e P P . . _ .. .. ..:..:. :: . �. ....BART st Rid erg .. : 1 must den�.a tate that a:tar .: P etee1: . �dr : h: d Ih �rnaes sh ni : tr t . .... :::.. .... ::.. ............. u : ; ..:.:., :::: . . tt n gid.: r . : e::a :::: `ht ... f:E ntr t C to :..::::..::... P, :. ': has Vit ` h ::: eed a de :::... G :ahe.:::oder h1 P cc t Plane ure anent OM with: ::: a broader. ..stud _� :: :..::: . .: _ : . . . ..:.... :� . � rent ote ::... .: . ti w.. .. .`r . � cnn D t berth : . t d ire e t: d the1 l f .:.. t ot . 1. Ridership Estimates Ridership at both the corridor- and station-levels is estimated using a standard modeling methodology that incorporates assumptions regarding land use and transportation policies and projected growth. Transportation conditions such as infrastructure and traffic and congestion levels on local streets and highways are established by CCTA's east county traffic model. A more complete description of the assumptions and inputs used for ridership estimation is contained in Ridership Estimation Methodology, attached as EXHIBIT C hereto. There are two categories of ridership estimates: Base Estimates and Target Estimates. a. Base Estimates of station and corridor ridership are based on land use and transportation policies as established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (Al"AG) applicable projections of population and employment. b.Ridership Targets represent the minimum ridership deemed necessary to satisfy the criteria of BART's System Expansion Policy. T� et E tat s ba. don :.. :::.::: .. ..:: M �nd ::::......:..::: rh f ::r : :: :::: P: y Base and Target Estimates for ridership associated with the proposed Project stations for the proposed Project alternatives are as follows (in units of entries and exits for an average weekday in 2025): Conventional BART Alternative Station Base Estimate Ridership Target Hillcrest TBD 145000 Diesel Multiple Unit Alternative Station Base Estimate Ridership Targets 9 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 Fairgrounds Hillcrest Empire/Neroly Brentwood Byron Total Corridor 85400 145055 Light Rail Alternative Station Base Estimate Ridership Targets Fairgrounds TBD Hillcrest TBD Empire/Neroly TBD Brentwood TBD Byron TBD Total Corridor 89400 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative Station Base Estimate Ridership Targets Fairgrounds TBD Hillcrest TBD Empire/Neroly TBD Brentwood TBD Byron TBD Total Corridor 8,100 151124 Based on the results of the State Route 4 Transit Feasiblity Study, BART intends to evaluate a Conventional BART Alternative,DMU Alternative, Light Rail Alternative, Bus Rapid Transit Alternative and No Project Alternative for purposes of environmental impact review as required under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and, if applicable,the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 2. Economic Development Plans Corridor-Wide Plan Objectives As provided by BART's System Expansion Policy, in determining whether to adopt a system expansion project and where to locate new stations, BART shall consider whether Economic Development Plans (EDPs) developed for each station can collectively demonstrate that the project will achieve a target ridership level. Strategies for boosting ridership include planning and implementation of transit- supportive land uses, improvements in local transportation programs and infrastructure, increases in transit feeder services and development of additional parking facilities in the station area. Ridership targets are developed on a corridor-wide and station-level basis. 10 DRAFT— FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 Corridor-wide ridership targets establish the overall ridership generated by all stations included in a project. Corridor-wide ridership targets are the basis for evaluation of the project under the BART System Expansion Policy. Station-level ridership targets refer to an individual station's share of the corridor-wide total. While there are target estimates at both the corridor-wide and station level, it is the corridor-wide target that is considered under the BART System Expansion Policy. Therefore, although an individual station may not reach its individual Target Estimate, the corridor-wide Target Estimate must be met in order for the proposed project to be favorably evaluated under the System Expansion Policy. As a result, to ensure favorable evaluation, cities must collectively demonstrate that the Target Estimate for the project can be achieved. Whether an individual city achieves its share of the corridor-wide Target Estimate by land use changes or access improvements or some combination of the two is at the full discretion of the city. t _ r Co. nn s 6t.:: : et h . derht ter V tab1 _ hed b :...:....:. . d t :.. P ; th � � ne :: . . ........... : . `.:::. ...:..:.: . ::... .::.: :..:. .::.; : . eve .e ::: ... + .: tb hed two : . : : :. f+o�ua:that .:::::::: ' . � :: a er��ries an ..... .....:. :..:: ::. .. n .fac .� gyres :. b ..Wit : ...:.: ., .::.. ::;:::.::..:;::P:::.:. ted -eirs. I n Wit;:h-n! .n: 2025 bU. the:avx �. ::.::::: ::. ...: e rud. t fa f .the t t r. Thi:f : jj b dt X bR. tat . a au f n c nbi : :...it a: t J.--n �� 9 r ersh� s ..ews S dh it below tar e : .: :. p g t Ie...... ve uc .Teees h t to e 1 q _ _ nd_ .. ....... .. :. t h . d he ntI ' Plan Development and Content Win + .1n. h: :'::;: .::::.. :.. t be .. CCT, an c p :. _ d _ st ff :...:......: .: hon iiioll a:� .B b :P t dT twit The EDP is obligated to address three component areas: Land Use, Access and Station Plans. OCTA, working together with the cities and BART, will develop a detailed scope of work for the EDP(s). To satisfy the requirements of the BART policy, the EDP(s) should perform the analysis necessary to produce the data required in estimating ridership at the station level. A. EDP Land Use Component TA . C t th nth the or cl ties with u d C. gn ove , . :_ �e�ad�u urr undi -_ n aced:stat � 1 re . .the Laid.Use:: P.. :. ; coni anent ; P P... P p ' D The EDP should develop a detailed land use plan for the area within the 1-*-mile radius around the station. If existing land use plans,policies and controls in conjunction with Access would not suffice to enable the station to achieve its share of the target estimate, the land use plan must describe proposed ridership enhancement actions that would enable the station to do so. Such ridership enhancement actions may include General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, zoning amendments or other actions elected at the discretion of the city. The allowance of higher intensity development within a specific plan area 11 DRAFT— FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 shall be as-of-right and not subject to conditional approvals by planning commissions or city councils. To provide a basis for evaluating the station area plan, information should also be provided on the existing land use plans for the area of the city outside the 1-mile radius; this information could be presented by summarizing the city's general plan land use element. Land use projections shall be for the planning horizon year of 2025. The information provided should include, at a minimum, the following elements: Table B.2.1 Detailed Land Use Plan Elements V 0,0 Existing Conditions 2025 Conditions ?gi F.: {? +N;: mg-ii Building permits approved (I 0-year history) Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Zoning Map Zoning Map Residential density Residential density Employment density Employment density Residential units Residential units Employees Employees Parking Requirements Parking Requirements Total Build-out Square Total Build-out Square Footage for: Footage for: Retail, Office, IndustriaL Retail, Office, Industrial, Institutional, Recreation Institutional,Recreation B. EDP Access Component _11.e Q W. ja ........... ett, t�D ra pus d and�" t f the' =EDP should- develop a detailed Access Plan for the area within the 1-mile radius around the station and also, at a lesser level of detail, information on access on a citywide scale. If existing access in conjunction with land use would not suffice to enable the station to achieve its share of the Target Estimate, the Access Plan must describe proposed ridership enhancement actions that would enable the station to do so. Such ridership enhancement actions may include General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, access improvements or other actions selected at the discretion of the city. The citywide access information should include expected traffic conditions on routes of regional significance, anticipated transit service and major bike and pedestrian facilities. Projected transportation and congestion conditions shall be for the planning horizon year of 2025. For the 1-mile radius area, the Access Plans should contain, at a minimum, the following information: 12 DRAFT— FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 TableB.2.2 Detailed Access Plan Elements Existing Conditions 2025 Conditions Intersection v/c ratios for Intersection v/c ratios for AM and PM peak periods AM and PM peak periods Roadway capacity for AM Roadway capacity for AM and PM peak periods and PM peak periods Pedestrian facilities Pedestrian facilities Bicycle facilities Bicycle facilities Bus routes Bus routes Bus stops Bus stops Urban design guidelines Urban design guidelines Parking requirements Parking requirements }i$%�i%:::::.}}'•{}'ti iii i}: y$.. vSr`.Y,1. J+.,• - ..fi.:;:•:.c: fi sy}'$y�>� ^+^.'S<,.;tiy:-y:.:i ::;:y:�.:.:'+-'{R: -:;}}:.:�{.;;i:%�1r:4�}:•:�{:'}}$:v.::v:�Y.,:�'Y�i:$.:i.:�:y; i.S:iS4;`v,'t':�•,v�'•' .•F{ vpi`;:")A/-}. v!ry"i{:it :•$:o:}:ry:;::v:$�:v$:'v}:;�.,'�,:v;;:i-.`:L:...,f••:C'a:b..�:� v,:r:.}�ti}}.5d�}-ry ti$•:.3v:ry �.,,. :$••..,,. >:.;..,:.:c..; <-.,.. „moo,. .s:p.3ol a-.} %';ryas•::.,;$sh:•}r::•:y$:t;%}i•;}r$ratii%:.` :.:y,. n5•:`c�t:;�*±,.:. `}'v,.• it:•:::..:9k'•..,:.d.-•} �... fi }.,,..'.}r'}:.. Number fre uenc f s}:J:ii:•}:•}}:$;i$:•:i'i:$l,+{}:i: y'.:b•}:{}•±:;i•¢'ti::3:(-" 'f: `:::::..} o bus ;jl{.{•yJ;`;:$�$•i: ......... -.lvn,}}r. .v.. ::+!;$:•v$i.;•.v.,h{i,}:,SCIv:: ::.•}v Q V }:$:t;:•'•:;:;:::::'::5:$$d}::::`,:::a:x.:.}.:::?.S Yii%5:;, , .-Y•l�•'�°#a.}L':.,a.6.}}: 1 ./ :..p�}M1 r•:.t{v.S!-.v:::::iMY}:.},; .{':::,,•r:-111_ M1.�,vry ]�+C., 'ti?Z q:.%4:4:'r• :v;n.;,v,.r.,v:��r F..}:.,:�,4_'.x:, f Uv`(wY' :.�$'' l.•..,:C{'.S?: :•t.$:y;$.;t;`.':.r}�::�:.:•;:-•::•:y:::t;:•.:•.::"�y.-itj;..:'.;t,w•.,':..'.a::•;�;.:'+'%$;�r• ,,L,,,,$: :::02;:;,:?:,.}'::.},},..:.;}.;}.y:•.;:":>-:u•};r.�;:��.q}}::::.a:r;t'>3�C��°o.•}'��.:,•.•3: .3;• ;t•}':k'<.t:,} :2:;?:}eC:r:i`:Q:v:ri\;%.•,:>:v,$:'•':ii-icyy?}ty^v{$r{i'v:usYh:,v,.{#iv,:yt::f::• lines serving:::..,,t�Ti}•�•.'Y.. ` .'�:,�ryi. v:::;:4 .}-:..;: .... .:.,..:,.._::.}..:..w.. :�..:v:. station .�.;n:�;ki:�;r-•w;',:.�::$:;.;}::•�25�c;'�t•.v �.� f.. �;k:{ryv.I(��},�X:',�ilK�:n::fiY;4.'-::�J v�':�},Y'''J`y�8">•Y{'•:+y�W $.h: }.}'•5::�^:$:f+h:r•n'$<„,;�.'''�'''•v}'.�3r+nAX�:S:..�KyY.•, �.{. Parkin ��'�r:}�::,�:'�'•..�f.}}�.�:�:::.�}...-}::F:r.} �..E; ? •�� ..� �y.:.�.. in addition to i�r,,;,'.f•,''_}8K'�'z'#;':aw,.�}}}}-'•`��';��?�•c3n�?'�'�,c'-i>�<:£s'�:::.?y%�r;;�:�: G ���, .,•``�•. y,}.t}!$:?::$L'•>}Y.;Y.:y:4.rS.�`j+Y.,:;rr:N:.•i}ii,�,C}v:{r,'-�}::::1.:: ': ryy-y y<.,ry;,.lf+.y6•.:.:•. )”,<:Yk•}•,'}7y-.' •:i.. .,r?.�:�•;c: +'A:r,.•:�,::k},•;fi.�:;';}f���?a .'Y:,�v'::�3}',,,•.yt..::•.:•cf•:.. �r}.^ .;�.r• .'u.• ;.�6rr{.•$n+y♦.•:. - :.: Pro ect funded allotment C• EDP Station Plan o+ rat w�the:cap ----i:e C. CTAT W. dev :..:: Ido Sta on ` p � P The Station Plan will consist of a detailed plan of the station property itself, including conceptual-level station design, related facilities and parking proposed to be constructed and funded by the Project. The Station Plan will present conceptual-level designs for station platforms, vertical circulation(stairs and escalators) and ticket collection equipment. It will also address station property circulation, including paths of travel for buses, shuttles, taxis, automobiles,pedestrians, bicyclists and wheelchairs. In addition to automobile parking, the Station Plan will present carpool and accessible spaces along with bicycle parking facilities. Some cities may wish to allow development on station surface parking properties, which would also be addressed in the Station Plan. Some cities may wish to develop additional parking or other access facilities off the station property, which would be addressed in the Land Use and Access components rather than in the Station Plan. Evaluate effectiveness of Ridership enhancement measures In the course of the EDP development process, new estimates of ridership may need to be revised based on proposed ridership enhancement measures such as access improvements and/or land use planning changes. In that event, Project staff will develop new estimates of ridership to reflect the impact of such measures. 3. Economic Development Plan Implementation Under the System Expansion Policy criterion for transit-supportive land use,proposed projects are evaluated based on existing land use plans,policies and controls. Accordingly, in order to obtain favorable evaluation for the proposed Project on the 13 DRAFT—FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 transit-supportive land use criterion, unless the target estimate is already met under existing conditions,the cities must adopt and implement ridership enhancement actions such as General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, zoning amendments, access improvements or other actions selected at the discretion of the cities and proposed in the EDPs. CCTA, BART, Tri-Delta Transit and City staff will work together to address outstanding issues relating to access and/or land use that may be preventing the target estimate from being achieved. Following or concurrent with development of their respective EDPs, the cities will undertake the environmental review process under CEQA for the adoption and implementation of the proposed ridership enhancement actions identified in their EDPs. At the conclusion of environmental review,the cities will make the discretionary decision whether or not to adopt and implement the actions identified in their EDPs. Thereafter, when evaluating the proposed Project, BART will consider the information contained in the EDPs,whether the EDPs demonstrate that the Target Estimate can be achieved, and whether the ridership enhancement actions identified in the EDPs have been adopted and implemented. BART will consider this information in deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Project as a whole and in deciding on the number and location of stations. 4. Plan Funding Each EDP will be funded by a combination of Project funds and local matching funds. j. t f�ind�will tip plc�a to C�T�:to de�e��p�c `d? d��P effort. 5. Dispute Resolution In the event of a dispute between or among the Parties that cannot be resolved informally, a formal dispute resolution process will be entered into with the goal of resolving differences in a timely fashion. Disputes must be recognized and identified by each Party. On a written request submitted to CCTA, acting as the overseeing body, disputes will be addressed through the process presented below: FIRST LEVEL Each Party will designate staff to be the initial person(s) to confer regarding disputes. For BART,the First Level person, unless BART designates otherwise in writing,will be the BART Project Director. For the other Parties, the First Level person, unless otherwise designated in writing, will be the Project Planner from the City Planning Department. After a dispute is submitted to CCTA, CCTA shall notify the other Parties involved in writing. Following receipt of such notice, the other Parties will respond in writing within ten(10)business days, or within such other period as the First Level persons may agree to. 14 DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 SECOND LEVEL Each Party will designate an individual to whom matters not resolved at the First Level will be referred. For BART,, the Second Level person, unless BART designates otherwise in writing, will be the BART Executive Manager of Planning and Budget. For the other Parties, the Second Level person, unless otherwise designated in writing,will be the Planning Director. If a dispute is not resolved at the First Level, the Parties may direct it to the Second Level by written notice to the other involved Parties. The Parties will respond within five (5)business days after receipt of such notice, or within such other period as the Second Level persons may agree to. THIRD L E VEL Each Party will designate an individual to whom matters not resolved at the Second Level will be referred. For BART, the Third Level person, unless BART designates otherwise in writing, will be the General Manager. For the other Parties, the Third Level person, unless otherwise designated in writing, will be the City Manager. If a dispute is not resolved at the Second Level, any of the involved Parties may direct it to the Third Level by written notice to the other involved Parties. The Parties will respond within five (10) business days after receipt of such notice, or within such other period as the Third Level persons may agree to. AL TERNA TI VE DISP UTE RESOL UTION If the dispute is not resolved at the Third Level, the General Manager of BART and the City Manager of the opposing Party may agree to a method of non-binding, alternative dispute resolution, including,but not limited to,mediation or nonjudicial arbitration. 9 15 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT C RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 16 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT D RIDERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PLAN SAMPLE SCOPE Ridership Development Plan—Sample Scope Outline Phase 1: Base Case and Target Ridership Estimates 1. Estimate Baseline Ridership Consultant will develop base case ridership estimates at the corridor and station levels using ABACI Projections 2003, the updated Contra Costa County Traffic Model and the SR4 Transit Feasibility Study. Estimates will be developed for each technology to be studied in the EIR. 2. Perform Market Analysis for Station Areas Consultant will develop an assessment of residential and commercial development potential in the vicinity of each proposed station. At the corridor-level,the consultant will develop a more generalized assessment of long-term development potential. 3. Estimate Potential Ridership Consultant will estimate ridership at the corridor and station levels given alternative assumptions for land use and access conditions. Estimates of ridership potential will be based on local General Plans, Specific Plans and the market analysis developed in Task 2. Estimates will be developed for each technology to be studied in the EIR. Phase 11: Alternatives Analysis 4. Development of Alternative Land Use and Access Scenarios Project consultant will work with city staff to develop a range of alternative land use and access scenarios intended to build ridership from the Base Case (Task 1)to the target (Task 3) levels. Alternative land use scenarios will focus on the 1-mile radius surrounding the station and explore a range of uses and a variety of densities. Access scenarios will involve not only city staff but bus transit staff to develop enhanced transportation infrastructure and transit serving the station area. 5. Estimate ridership based on Alternative Land Use and Access Scenarios Project consultant will model ridership benefits resulting from the alternative land use and access scenarios developed in Task 4. This process will be iterative,with city staff, 17 DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 project staff and consultants working together to refine and modify alternatives to achieve the highest possible ridership. Phase III: Develop of Ridership Development Plan 6. Land Use Component Consultant will develop land use plan based on city staff direction and requirements. The plan will detail a land use vision for station area together with any zoning or policy changes that may be required. 7. Access Component Consultant will work together with City staff,Project staff and Bus transit staff to r"i develop an Access Plan for the station area. The Access Plan will detail infrastructure investments and program or policy changes that will contribute to higher ridership at the station. 8. Station Plan Consultant and Project staff will develop a plan detailing the use of Station property for transit operations,parking and passenger functionality. Phase IV: Ridership Development Plan Environmental Assessment 9. Determine city actions required to implement RDP Consultant will work closely with City staff to determine the city actions required to implement the policy changes and other requirements of the Ridership Development Plan. 10. Initiate Environmental Clearance Consultant will work closely with City staff to initiate the appropriate environmental action as required based on Task 9. Phase V: City Adoption 11. Consultant and Project Staff will support City staff in efforts to achieve City Council adoption of action as established in Task 9. 18 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT E SAMPLE FUNDING AGREEMENT 19 DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Among San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Tri-Delta Transit District Regarding the State Route 4 East Transit Corridor Project WHEREAS,the Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding ("Memorandum") are the City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley(collectively,the "Cities"), Contra Costa County(the "County"), San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District("BART"), Contra Costa Transportation Authority ("CCTA"), and Tri-Delta Transit District. WHEREAS, the Parties support the goal of expeditiously bringing high quality rapid transit service to east Contra Costa County residents. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to achieve this goal by cooperating in the development of a proposed project by BART for a high quality rapid transit system to serve the east Contra Costa County communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood and Byron, known as the State Route 4 East Transit Corridor("the Project"). WHEREAS, BART and CCTA have prepared a feasibility study, which examines transit alternatives for the proposed Project corridor, entitled the State Route 4 Transit Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study considers Conventional BART, Diesel Multiple Unit ("DMU"), Commuter Heavy Rail, Express Bus and Bus Rapid Transit alternatives. WHEREAS,rapid transit ridership is generated by the population and employment that surround stations and the ability to provide adequate access to and from stations for transit passengers. WHEREAS, in the proposed Project corridor, the Cities and County have authority over land use planning within their respective jurisdictions and have adopted general plans, zoning ordinances and other land use plans,policies and controls addressing matters such as density of land uses,mix of land uses and the future growth and character of their residential and business communities. WHEREAS,pursuant to their land use planning and control jurisdiction, the Cities and County make and/or participate in decisions on local transportation and infrastructure including the placement and capacity of local streets and roads,pedestrian,bicycle and public parking facilities, all of which are important factors in encouraging rapid transit ridership. WHEREAS,,the Metropolitan Transportation Commission("MTC"), as the regional planning agency for transportation investment in the Bay Area,has emphasized the strong connection between land use and transportation investment through a policy 1 DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 platform which states: "Condition regional discretionary funding for.MTC's Resolution 3434 regional transit expansion program to the provision of supportive land uses in those transit corridors and around those stations." WHEREAS, regional, state and federal transportation funding sources all require ridership sufficient to justify the public investment in transit infrastructure along with coordination between land use and transportation policies at the local level. WHEREAS, on December 5, 2002, the BART Board of Directors adopted the BART System Expansion Policy and Criteria (the "System Expansion Policy", attached hereto as EXHIBIT A), which contains evaluation criteria for proposed projects that expand BART transit service. These criteria include evaluation of local land use plans and policies, existing land uses and station area access in order to determine whether anticipated ridership levels appear to be sufficiently high to favor investment in a proposed expansion project. The System Expansion Policy is intended to both guide BART's review of proposed projects and to help local jurisdictions identify ways to effectively achieve the ridership necessary for a proposed BART expansion project to be favorably evaluated. WHEREAS, in order to demonstrate sufficient anticipated ridership for favorable evaluation of the proposed Project, the System Expansion PolicyP rovides that a Ridership Development Plan be prepared and implemented for each station in the Project corridor. The individual Cities and/or the County are responsible for preparing and implementing the Ridership Development Plans for the station or stations within their respective jurisdictions, with the cooperation and assistance of BART. Tjc:�iM yxe Ex an Po refer :. : c �f���1� .to:a . _ _ R�d�� h� :Dei::• � -: .: ... :..y :: nt P ..:r �.ured:fc r:e. . . ..::: . . ..:.: ... _ ._: P .. � .. :..: :....:.:. .:.::�... .......... Bch P tton ..:::. . :: - -; :::.:: :.:: :::: :::: + eoar� darf However :. Ps :;Ccnt Caa:Count ; dr _th : _.. . ::.. .: the Pdr Dv int.P .n . co e $iigpon - :: :::;•.: :::::.:::: ;: d d 1w ars c ... En L p.:.: ....... :..; :.:.:: ..I . :: o .t� M. :. .:..:.; T. hoar die w h :: C �. :cte '.: ::. ...;..;:..:.: :..: : and refer .......................... ..... ......:::::::::::::::.:::;:..; :;::::::: th :` :. :. rh vt Play a :an Eoo WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Memorandum to express their commitment to development and implementation of Ridership Development Plans for stations in the proposed Project corridor that will achieve sufficient ridership to ensure that the proposed Project represents a productive transit investment that satisfies the System Expansion Policy goals. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. The Roles of Participants in the Economic Development Plan Process The Parties recognize and acknowledge the following roles for the participants in the Economic Development Plan process: 2 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 The CITIES and COUNTY are responsible for the development and implementation of their own land use and local transportation plans,policies and controls within their respective jurisdictions. BART, as the Bay Area's regional rail transit system, is responsible for developing, evaluating and adopting proposed projects to expand rapid transit service beyond the service area of the existing BART system. As a prudent steward of public resources, BART is responsible for developing and implementing policies regarding expansion projects to help ensure that anticipated ridership levels are sufficiently high to justify the large public investment that such projects represent. OCTA, as the entity that collects and administers the County's half-cent sales tax, is responsible for working with local and regional partners to identify funding priorities and ensuring these priorities receive adequate funding. OCTA�Xs� .s �e�'��t� i rale n fisc ung. ��i�a. �ccs s�lt�nt t�arr��warping on the Ecai�c��nt� i.......... �tg�i��t P7�nns The TRI-DELTA TRANSIT DISTRICT is responsible for providing bus and paratransit services in eastern Contra Costa County,which will include feeder service to the existing Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station and future Project transit stations in east Contra Costa County. 2. Agreements of the Parties. 2.1 The Parties agree that an Economic Development Plan shall be prepared for each station of the proposed Project by the City or Cities (or, as applicable, the County)with jurisdiction over land within the 1-mile radius surrounding that station, with cooperation and assistance from BART and CCTA. 2.2 The Parties agree that the Economic Development Plans shall be prepared and implemented by the Parties substantially in the manner described in the Ridership Development/Economic Development Plan Process, attached hereto as EXHIBIT B. Any substantial departure from the process described in EXHIBIT B with respect to the Economoic Development Plan for an individual station shall be mutually agreed on by the Parties participating in the development of that station's Economic Development Plan. 2.3 Ridership estimates for the Project have been prepared for purposes of this Memorandum using the modeling methodology as described in the Ridership Estimation Methodology, attached hereto as EXHIBIT C. All ridership estimates are for the planning horizon year of 2025. The Parties agree that the methodology used is acceptable and appropriate for the proposed Project. 2.4 Based on the agreed-on modeling methodology,the Parties agree that the Corridor- wide Target Estimates (as defined in EXHIBIT B hereto) of Project ridership for purposes of Economic Development Plan development, in order to fulfill the goals of the 3 DRAFT — FOR.DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 System Expansion Policy and this Memorandum, are as follows (in units of entries and exits for an average weekday in 2025): Table 2.1 Corridor-wide Ridership Target Estimates, by Technology Technolo Alternative Targets Estimates Conventional BART 14,000 DMU 145055 LRT N/A Bus Rapid Transit 151,124 The Target Estimates for the Project as a whole may be revised only by mutual agreement of the Parties. 2.5 Following the execution of this Memorandum,BART will undertake the environmental review process for the proposed Project and alternatives under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and, if applicable,the National Environmental Policy Act("NEPA"). In conductinp, such environmental review,BART shall consider both the Base Estimates (as defined in EXHIBIT B hereto) and Target Estimates identified in EXHIBIT B. 2.6 Following execution of this Memorandum,the Cities and County will undertake development of their respective Economic Developments Plans. The Economic Development Plans shall propose actions to enhance transit ridership as described in EXHIBIT B hereto. 2.7 Following or concurrent with development of their respective Economic Development Plans, the Cities and County, in coordination with OCTA,will undertake the environmental review process under CEQA for the adoption of the proposed ridership enhancement actions identified in the Plans. At the conclusion of envirom-nental review, the Cities and County will make the discretionary decision whether or not to adopt and implement the actions identified in their RDPs. 2.8 When evaluating the proposed Project under the System Expansion Policy criterion for transit-supportive land use, BART will consider the information contained in the Economic Development Plans,whether the Plans demonstrate that the Target Estimate for the proposed Project can be achieved, and whether ridership enhancement actions identified therein have been adopted and implemented by the Cities and County. BART will consider this information in deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Project as a whole and in deciding on the number and location of stations. ne W-1 P ary. --- thi'6- i'll., V'----'.---i .................. renni.111. il p .tar. ............ er ffi h6fiz ......... d al A VXpV, numb. In py�ji..;ve�W1 ►H F d F bit. i bit mg; 4 + r DRAFT— FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 ......rr : : e P :eet hcrz ear. 2 : :..: X2.5 the::,: ver aa : _ d fcr hat .l :. : g arlar .::... . _ ........... ... .............. :: ::'.:.: ..i. .. - fee 1 e 4�,Ak�I.1.0 a,I-,UJ, l cel � ed b: u : . tratctualnders nues:frt .: g:: the _ _ ............ ........ ::.::........:... .::::: tarnaneae + hb� ::. 21 : f : l: r� r eta w _7:01 :. l b akd tc re ane uv • alenc fee..t BST a :: bed ect� o 2. .. fastat bei b tar et bevel and the :�a :..... :. the e-uval g. .: BART resrvs xgt pe t thatAm ­un ur ale 2.11 The Parties agree that in the event of disputes concerning the matters addressed in this Memorandum, they will utilize the dispute resolution process described in EXHIBIT B. 3. Schedule. 3. 1 The Parties agree that the Economic Development Plan process will be completed in phases with proposed milestones as indicated below. The Parties agree to work towards achieving the milestones according to the schedule presented below. This schedule ma y be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties. Table 3.1 Ridership Development Plan Schedule Phase Activities Milestones to be achieved I. Circulation of • Signing of MOU by the 60 • Draft MOU Parties Days • Initial ridership estimates • Initiate proposed Project • BART Access Guidelines environmental review • BART TOD Guidelines II. Development of Economic • Completion of Economic 365 Development Plans Development Plans Days • Access Component • Land Use Component • Station Component • Revised ridership estimates Initiate work on Project EIR III. • Environmental review of • Cities and County adopt 270 actions identified in actions identified in Economic Days Economic Development Development Plans Plans • Release of Draft Project EIR Continued work on Project EIR IV. • BART Board considers 30 Project EIR and adoption of Days Project 5 DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 3.2 Pursuant to the above schedule,Phase II of the Economic Development Plan process contains the bulk of the significant planning activity undertaken by the Parties. The Parties agree and acknowledge that there maybe significant differences in Plan structure and scheduling among the Cities and County. Recognizing the need for flexibility, the Parties will work toward completion of the Phase II planning component of the Economic Development Plan process with a target date of 365 days from the execution of this Memorandum and proposed milestones as follows: Table 3.2 Phase II Planning Schedule Deliverable Due Date Draft Plan Scope Day 30 Draft Land Use and Access Data Day 60 Parties Review of Draft Ridership Day 77 Estimates Development of Land Use and Access Day 270 Plans (if necessary) Evaluate Ridership enhancement Day 300 measures (if necessary) Draft Final Plans Day 330 Final Plans presented for review by Day 365 Parties 6 DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding effective as of the latest date set forth below. City of Antioch: Date: City Manager City of Oakley : City Manager City of Brentwood: City Manager Contra Costa Count y County Executive For Tri-Delta Transit General Manager: For CCTA Executive Director.- For BART General Manager: 7 DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT A BART SYSTEM EXPANSION POLICY AND CRITERIA([ADD_DATEI) 8 J i DRAFT— FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT B RIDERSHIP DEVELOPMENT/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS BA ...................... h� �.� ; _ tt ID t P � . r ke fog r ed. n Itn ►r e: nor:::cft BART s t 6 The :: _Rerha Ie : :.::. :. .: tusl d _ nn trate:: l : .: , . .: . .. t .tom et l . rsh at.th ~: :: h marsh:a aT ... ::. _ a . a u : : tth .. r+ rc et � Th t p _ e t. + t .Cst ; VIM t Cc- : iced esr : :...::... tainb�ae:::the:::adir h ca + are:, P e�. t nth. broader t :. anent o e y nt fg ,.. : :. : new tt are: of ihet �_ t .. :: _:;:. ::.....::.. . t c l cal 1 _ c f pal 1. Ridership Estimates Ridership at both the corridor- and station-levels is estimated using a standard modeling methodology that incorporates assumptions regarding land use and transportation policies and projected growth. Transportation conditions such as infrastructure and traffic and congestion levels on local streets and highways are established by CCTA's east county traffic model. A more complete description of the assumptions and inputs used for ridership estimation is contained in Ridership Estimation Methodology, attached as EXHIBIT C hereto. There are two categories of ridership estimates: Base Estimates and Target Estimates. a. Base Estimates of station and corridor ridership are based on land use and transportation policies as established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) applicable projections of population and employment. b. Ridership Targets represent the minimum ridership deemed necessary to satisfy the criteria of BART's System o Ex ansin Policy. T .t a ..p.: ___ y ::g.::�::.:.:.:.::.:.:..::::.:.::::. :: art . ....:..:. .......... na +d t+ met rec p . nd�ra, . Base and Target Estimates for ridership associated with the proposed Project stations for the proposed Project alternatives are as follows (in units of entries and exits for an average weekday in 2025): Conventional BART Alternative Station Base Estimate Ridership Target Hillcrest TBD 141000 Diesel Multiple Unit Alternative Station Base Estimate Ridership Targets 9 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 Fairgrounds Hillcrest Empire/Neroly Brentwood Byron Total Corridor 8,400 14,055 Light Rail Alternative Station Base Estimate Ridership Targets Fairgrounds TBD Hillcrest TBD -Empire/Neroly TBD Brentwood TBD Byron TBD Total Corridor 85400 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative Station Base Estimate Ridership Targets Fairgrounds TBD Hillcrest TBD Em ire/Neroly TBD Brentwood TBD Byron TBD Total Corridor 830100 153124 Based on the results of the State Route 4 Transit Feasiblity Study, BART intends to evaluate a Conventional BART Alternative, DMLI Alternative, Light Rail Alternative, Bus Rapid Transit Alternative and No Project Alternative for purposes of environmental impact review as required under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and, if applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). 2. Economic Development Plans Corridor-Wide Plan Objectives As provided by BART's System Expansion Policy, in determining whether to adopt a system expansion project and where to locate new stations, BART shall consider whether Economic Development Plans (EDPs) developed for each station can collectively demonstrate that the project will achieve a target ridership level. Strategies for boosting ridership include planning and implementation of transit- supportive land uses, improvements in local transportation programs and infrastructure, increases in transit feeder services and development of additional parking facilities in the station area. Ridership targets are developed on a corridor-wide and station-level basis. 10 1 DRAFT—FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 Corridor-wide ridership targets establish the overall ridership generated by all stations included in a project. Corridor-wide ridership targets are the basis for evaluation of the project under the BART System Expansion Policy. Station-level ridership targets refer to an individual station's share of the corridor-wide total. While there are target estimates at both the corridor-wide and station level, it is the corridor-wide target that is considered under the BART System Expansion Policy. Therefore, although an individual station may not reach its individual Target Estimate, the corridor-wide Target Estimate must be met in order for the proposed project to be favorably evaluated under the System Expansion Policy. As a result, to ensure favorable evaluation, cities must collectively demonstrate that the Target Estimate for the project can be achieved. Whether an individual city achieves its share of the corridor-wide Target Estimate by land use changes or access improvements or some combination of the two is at the full discretion of the city. .: ." .:. c . .. .. nit� t h h ��,. et e : ... . huh. :: d h B .......:...........:..:.:.. ......: ......... _ _ ART_Board�n h : ::: gar the_C ::.. ::r #r pt:a :+� v far : :::: ::: :: �r+ere: The.:: ee withi.. :::......... ab. he #moo ::: q ._:._..:.: :. :f _that dete. nvdu n sn� . ... . . ....:.: .... ...:.:... . . :.::.: .: : :: ��� , . ; : : ... .. ::. ..::. ......�..:..:.:.: of fQ�e�a�ted n Fri + t : � vr :. :. : :.:::::.::: .:::.: .. ...... ... hit arta _. _S .............. iidfi te .; honz MM t. a tt n ane �. e onbht _. f a a on ba Carte . .y . . .. . .:. .. _ cr refu tri a ane uva : ::: rc .T rer the t.:#o :: dre 4 . :;. .:.:. khat St* ti .u.nt�l W-4 Plan Development and Content (���` . t he.: db ', .and . off:with cooon w :: : ....... ... ..... e � : : �:: :�: :�: :::: ::: : a n BART:: : : :. tt to ::::.::.. ....:.;;. ' art. The EDP :. is obligated to address three component areas: Land Use, Access and Station Plans. CCTA, working together with the cities and BART, will develop a detailed scope of work for the EDP(s). To satisfy the requirements of the BART policy, the EDP(s) should perform the analysis necessary to produce the data required in estimating ridership at the station level. A. EDP Land Use Component T : e# : , der �h�c�. or . th ur�sdc t :: .: .. :. . ..... __ _ �n giver .. _ ��.n ��.m.the . .:.�'.:::.: . .. . :: .. _�. Wille radtu r � :a P. os g h: p ale : e: :; nnnt:.of ...:: :::. e EDF. The ...... EDP should develop a detailed land use plan for the area within the 1-mile radius around the station. If existing land use plans,policies and controls in conjunction with Access would not suffice to enable the station to achieve its share of the target estimate, the land use plan must describe proposed ridership enhancement actions that would enable the station to do so. Such ridership enhancement actions may include General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, zoning amendments or other actions elected at the discretion of the city. The allowance of higher intensity development within a specific plan area 11 DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 shall be as-of-right and not subject to conditional approvals by planninp,commissions or city councils. To provide a basis for evaluating the station area plan, information should also be provided on the existing land use plans for the area of the city outside the 1-mile radius; this information could be presented by summarizing the city's general plan land use element. Land use projections shall be for the planning horizon year of 2025. The information provided should include, at a minimum, the following elements: Table B.2.1 Detailed Land Use Plan Elements Existing Conditions 2025 Conditi.ons,... Building permits approved (10-year history) Existing Zoninp, Proposeci zoning__ Zoning Map Zoning Map Residential density Residential density ETployment density Employment density Residential units Residential units Employees Employees Parking Requirements Parking Requirements Total Build-out Square Total Build-out Square Footage for: Footage for: Retail, Office, Industrial, Retail, Office,Industrial, Institutional,,Recreation Institutional,Recreation B. EDP Access Component 1J....U. -W. : 4 7XV ....... e.. ====ps-ed—: he EDP should develop a detailed Access Plan for the area within the 1-mile radius around the station and also, at a lesser level of detail, information on access on a citywide scale. If existing access in conjunction with land use would not suffice to enable the station to achieve its share of the Target Estimate,the Access Plan must describe proposed ridership enhancement actions that would enable the station to do so. Such ridership enhancement actions may include General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, access improvements or other actions selected at the discretion of the city. The citywide access information should include expected traffic conditions on routes of regional significance, anticipated transit service and major bike and pedestrian facilities. Projected transportation and congestion conditions shall be for the planning horizon year of 2025. For the 1-mile radius area,, the Access Plans should contain,, at a minimum, the following information: 12 i DRAFT-- FOR DISCISSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 TableB.2.2 Detailed Access Plan Elements ExistingConditions 2025 Conditions Intersection v/c ratios for Intersection v/c ratios for AM and PM pear periods AM and PM peak periods Roadway capacity for AM Roadway capacity for AM and PM peak periods and PM peak periods Pedestrian facilities Pedestrian facilities Bicycle facilities Bicycle facilities Bus routes Bus routes Bus stops Bus stops Urban design guidelines Urban design guidelines Parking requirements Parking requirements :.:•i..:$,{:{.i:. Numb ::>%..r;:ti'';,k::?:}::':};..:�{.Y:::.:.:¢:rr;{4}�;}.'..:iK r.W.x:.,i}-{.�:n:..L.!v,i:•.:;:sr}:atv},:}^».,f:,;y.':^:•i5.:+}i;}::.:a";>,.:+v}:j}{i}:,.:Lrrt:v.:....:,{:;5,+':+F4>L;`,••:x:.•.`:f,4$:C:i•.'.+}•,rit.::•7•}•,r:L:?.:};'::}<�•};r.};::^}:'?:i},:ih;`:}.::i.i::z:�:+w:�,.L:::K}-+�j:%.:}:}::}•.A},:iQv.r•>>};,•:.:::}.:.}.}L}:}t::::+,�:.:}{F.:v•.:.}:^�,4':':1J..s:.�•..4:�'.L'P/-i:ti••v}:i::�:.L:'R.}r.J.::Lt%*rV.y•++h"+N;':::Y',„:"s..Y!•{•}..:.L'i,rJ.04:S:s:::'`Ar+.:o�s.t„'Yr.:•.^i!:i.}:itW?•: $+aLt•rr.,�+:y�..'."}�C•r�.;x••+....•.n}i.,':.x{}:v.:ni:¢xhWYtvi::•v.>fif,^.v.:::::vv.i,i rr•:vt.�..:3ii.:e:4.:.;-+.!:.}yv;:4::?.}t::o�.::•}:i::vvrir.r}.:r}•:'::::r'x::.:Y::;:?.::::t.:+:.:.:r.i;`v{:ri:.::i,.}•:.:}ri.:::;:...::.i:i {..•'}}:rr.i•.}.:i:..t::�'v-:'.:�',:: ,.::$-.�.:,..:n`r::....;:;},S.;$..::•i4.r,::.v,v;}:::::: :::i}:}.f:}::.':.:':..x;rF::.:.:.+•::.i}:`:v.::x�: :::}:..i.y}v.Ft•r+:::t,::.r.�r,+}:%::,:",t:::f:! ;::..i::::�.}::..?-.•}.x.,�;L'r.t,•:L•»...v:;:.: tube o f busr.... r � ' ;: . lines serving station ..... ',•k:y�;s` .,y,! :�:.aF:•"=a+.fi-:�:'•'a?a-'.�..:.; •:.tQ;.. -:,..:f•r•.:•'y:::4:xt rid-::-..•,•i:',�t- K:!ii:o�:�.,•. •.:4.a:•t�•}�:. +•:�,r.+4,-.;hyw•} t},..},,,r,e`•},<;;::;e.:f;.r}.):i,+;:`;:%`: r",:3 "{;+�'.:::}::.,;,.t:.;r4r..!.L., •i�::`:;:L .,}3.r... cfd:.. LL•R:;.;.h;i'•.,-.•:•<}:}.'}:':;}' "+,:.$;, '::L:}`v;:h:;::�:a:i.:t:.}-;i+'}ri}L.};.z}X}':ry}:.;:i.4:t:::}+f:'.G�Wi;O}:}.-y?:.Y!-"�::,:.r,i„}4>hi:}�..X±3•�.?}n•?.};4:;�;:4:.L�:+}:3.]+.,¢:..Y?v/c:j:t.+<:,}:•`Z3,.:3:i:,i5:}�y'r+r"t.c',v.�w.;,,•��h`:Sv,'::.}0.�:.:�''•."-.'r;y�:,c?S�Y}Rfa:}'¢,h:'.`::c'.:'.•.`•s•;�.'-"?rti.}Si�}t:>�}r,.•,..;.t:.;?f,;ai,y;i=.-'.^�#��:''£<:'.':{{+:'::::,'}h.:r-'�-f.�:.u�,a•:`s,d;++a;i.4�r.•;�wC}FTyvrr.i";.i{3{y-::,:r'jvi;<t_':inir:<:.;:•4;}y,'i;:"Yk..,."-:r,,.'{.o,:::t�t•i,-,:�;,::,..�..G;`L;.::£n<_:;::}.::.^s.vo:{n�.;,fi:.r:,''.}?{.'.'i,Lt:.`v.;:;}-':'•:%;::.:;:,:}_;;::{!..:4,x;..}})�S}e::•:y,Li�i:t'+•:Y..+•,''..;�:,?:+-,+::,ti.}:,.;.}v.y:}:a'v,,.,}iy+:s. Parking in addition to :5''.1 �.s}�•�t'.L;:;+k:;_}::..: }•:>,�;:;;:;;a,•..�_�L!c:�S•ti}r.rr.-:.}•.a:.:C:"++.:;�'•�•'•,.��.A!,•••',..•r.;,�.+1. �r.,,-:.:•r'}?t•`:•}v`f.y :?i .�c-r::!:+�-',?}Y:{.i-}:r,.;.:.7r.-:t>.Lrv:}::s,..}:.�y.<.ih„ti{{•,.•s}:}`:.::�5}*;}•:+•';:t. v ii}i.rr.r,{},�£,..}.,.4•:,.r�. :.�•5�"... :.v,.�+'^t:.:v}::4:i}:..:.L•::..}.f: r».L{.::vv. �' .Yv:{:4.4 r,4,':r,'•.i:}is}V::{i}'v"i':iYi::•'r'.:':inv::n v.•.�.•:: •,:t.::::L,.:r:'{{:C',{:Y:•h1.rT•.';•- yy}i:•�E''i., :.h..f .+${}?: r::W::Nr:vvv: .a::L:'.+ .:,L.G.. .b.r.::.:..:..... :}JF.Q::•i^%:: :}.:::.::..:}:.�:.rv:4��}r:�`�{:����::rx�: .y:}��r}:��r::4;�v:�::�:.i:::�:�::�}...�x...�}}:$.::.�}�.:: Pro ect funded a11at {}•3 qi:}tivrit.�v:.h::::f:': v{L .v::!•:i.}•.•..�$b::.}.: ..?I,.i.•{.irv}F:r:+}}�'-'l..i:':+fi4i.i-}}:'`•: me :}:w;:;.}::{• L++,.Y,.;x`-.:-.yS.,. :c�?r"�:3� +r{•;rr".;::1::3:r'•<+:;�:Rx:-!::r;^$>''•.":%.>:..}:.r»•:{::.c.:Y;;.:....:r,... w:::v+. C. EDP Station Plan Vd...at wtCN� tA . ifi Akt The Station Plan will consist of a detailed plan of the station property itself, including conceptual-level station design,related facilities and p p �' g parking proposed to be constructed and funded by the Project. The Station Plan will present conceptual-level designs for station platforms, vertical circulation(stairs and escalators) and ticket collection equipment. It will also address station property circulation, including paths of travel for buses, shuttles,taxis, automobiles,pedestrians, bicyclists and wheelchairs. In addition to automobile parking, the Station Plan will present carpool and accessible spaces along with bicycle parking facilities. Some cities may wish to allow development on station surface parking properties, which would also be addressed in the Station Plan. Some cities may wish to develop additional parking or other access facilities off the station property, which would be addressed in the Land Use and Access components rather than in the Station Plan. Evaluate effectiveness ofRidership enhancement measures In the course of the EDP development process, new estimates of ridership may need to be revised based on proposed ridership enhancement measures such as access improvements and/or land use planning changes. In that event,Project staff will develop new estimates of ridership to reflect the impact of such measures. 3. Economic Development Plan Implementation Under the System Expansion Policy criterion for transit-supportive land use, proposed projects are evaluated based on existing land use plans,policies and controls. Accordingly, in order to obtain favorable evaluation for the proposed Proj ect on the 13 DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 transit-supportive land use criterion, unless the target estimate is already met under existing conditions, the cities must adopt and implement ridership enhancement actions such as General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, zoning amendments,, access improvements or other actions selected at the discretion of the cities and proposed in the EDPs. OCTA, BART,, Tri-Delta Transit and City staff will work together to address outstanding issues relating to access and/or land use that may be preventing the target estimate from being achieved. Following or concurrent with development of their respective EDPs,the cities will undertake the environmental review process under CEQA for the adoption and implementation of the proposed ridership enhancement actions identified in their EDPs. At the conclusion of environmental review, the cities will make the discretionary decision whether or not to adopt and implement the actions identified in their EDPs. Thereafter, when evaluating the proposed Proj ect, BART will consider the information contained in the EDPs,whether the EDPs demonstrate that the Target Estimate can be achieved, and whether the ridership enhancement actions identified in the EDPs have been adopted and implemented. BART will consider this information in deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Project as a whole and in deciding on the number and location of stations. 4. Plan Funding Each EDP will be funded by a combination of Proj ect funds and local matching funds. t CCTA to de a ESPink. ­0 it 5. Dispute Resolution In the event of a dispute between or among the Parties that cannot be resolved informally, a formal dispute resolution process will be entered into with the goal of resolving differences in a timely fashion. Disputes must be recognized and identified by each Party. On a written request submitted to OCTA, acting as the overseeing body, disputes will be addressed through the process presented below: FIRST LEVEL Each Party will designate staff to be the initial person(s)to confer regarding disputes. For BART, the First Level person,unless BART designates otherwise in writing,will be the BART Project Director. For the other Parties, the First Level person,unless otherwise designated in writing,will be the Project Planner from the City Planning Department. After a dispute is submitted to OCTA, OCTA shall notify the other Parties involved in writing. Following receipt of such notice, the other Parties will respond in writing within ten(10)business days, or within such other period as the First Level persons may agree to. 14 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 SECOND LEVEL Each Party will designate an individual to whom matters not resolved at the First Level will be referred. For BART, the Second Level person, unless BART designates otherwise in writing, will be the BART Executive Manager of Planning and Budget. For the other Parties, the Second Level person, unless otherwise designated in writing, will be the Planning Director. If a dispute is not resolved at the First Level, the Parties may direct It to the Second Level by written notice to the other involved Parties. The Parties will respond within five (5)business days after receipt of such notice, or within such other period as the Second Level persons may agree to. THIRD LEVEL Each Party will designate an individual to whom matters not resolved at the Second Level will be referred. For BART, the Third Level person, unless BART designates otherwise in writing, will be the General Manager. For the other Parties, the Third Level person, unless otherwise designated in writing, will be the City Manager. If a dispute is not resolved at the Second Level, any of the involved Parties may direct it to the Third Level by written notice to the other involved Parties. The Parties will respond within five (10) business days after receipt of such notice, or within such other period as the Third Level persons may agree to. AL TERNA TI VE DISP UTE RESOL UTION If the dispute is not resolved at the Third Level, the General Manager of BART and the City Manager of the opposing Party may agree to a method of non-binding, alternative dispute resolution, including, but not limited to, mediation or non judicial arbitration. 15 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT C RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 16 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT D RIDERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PLAN SAMPLE SCOPE Ridership Development Plan—Sample Scope Outline Phase 1: Base Case and Target Ridership Estimates 1. Estimate Baseline Ridership Consultant will develop base case ridership estimates at the corridor and station levels using A-BAG Projections 2003, the updated Contra Costa County Traffic Model and the SR4 Transit Feasibility Study. Estimates will be developed for each technology to be studied in the EIR. 2. Perform Market Analysis for Station Areas Consultant will develop an assessment of residential and commercial development potential in the vicinity of each proposed station. At the corridor-level, the consultant will develop a more generalized assessment of long-term development potential. 3. Estimate Potential Ridership Consultant will estimate ridership at the corridor and station levels given alternative assumptions for land use and access conditions. Estimates of ridership potential will be based on local General Plans, Specific Plans and the market analysis developed in Task 2. Estimates will be developed for each technology to be studied in the EIR. Phase 11: Alternatives Analysis 4. Development of Alternative Land Use and Access Scenarios Project consultant will work with city staff to develop a range of alternative land use and access scenarios intended to build ridership from the Base Case (Task 1) to the target (Task 3) levels. Alternative land use scenarios will focus on the 1-mile radius surrounding the station and explore a range of uses and a variety of densities. Access scenarios will involve not only city staff but bus transit staff to develop enhanced transportation infrastructure and transit serving the station area. 5. Estimate ridership based on Alternative Land Use and Access Scenarios Project consultant will model ridership benefits resulting from the alternative land use and access scenarios developed in Task 4. This process will be iterative, with city staff, 17 DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 project staff and consultants working together to refine and modify alternatives to achieve the highest possible ridership. Phase III: Develop► of Ridership Development Plan 6. Land Use Component Consultant will develop land use plan based on city staff direction and requirements. The plan will detail a land use vision for station area together with any zoning or policy changes that may be required. 7. Access Component Consultant will work together with City staff,Project staff and Bus transit staff to develop an Access Plan for the station area. The Access Plan will detail infrastructure investments and program or policy changes that will contribute to higher ridership at the station. 8. Station Plan Consultant and Project staff will develop a plan detailing the use of Station property for transit operations,parking and passenger functionality. Phase IV: Ridership Development Plan Environmental Assessment 9. Determine city actions required to implement RDP Consultant will work closely with City staff to determine the city actions required to implement the policy changes and other requirements of the Ridership Development Plan. 10. Initiate Environmental Clearance Consultant will work closely with City staff to initiate the appropriate environmental action as required based on Task 9. Phase V: City Adoption 11. Consultant and Project Staff will support City staff in efforts to achieve City Council adoption of action as established in Task 9. 18 DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Draft No. 9 EXHIBIT E SAMPLE FUNDING AGREEMENT 19