HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02062007 - D.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
s•--•L''pe'
FROM: DENNIS,M. BARRY, AICP, Contra
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR; AND _- �. Costa
MAURICE SHIU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR o County
ter.._� •.
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2007 I
SUBJECT: COUNTY PROJECTS AND STATEWIDE.INFRASTUCTURE BONDS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT report on County infrastructure projects and the statewide infrastructure bonds
approved by voters in November 2006;
2. DIRECT staff to work with legislative advocates in Sacramento to seek opportunities for
input into funding criteria and selection processes for bond funds; and
3. DIRECT staff to provide updated information via the Transportation, Water and
Infrastructure Committee as more information on funding prospects becomes available.
FISCAL IMPACT
NONE to the General Fund. The transportation infrastructure bond will provide an estimated
$25 million directly to the County for road improvements in unincorporated areas. The potential
impact of the other infrastructure bonds is unknown because the process and criteria for
selecting projects have not yet been developed.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURES
_LZgECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Z—APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)(;��6_',"/
ACTION OF BO R ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 1110THER
�� aak Fli-kan Ue'neKlQsen V�cr. Pres, icla^4
C o s t a co-t"e.J( .
VOTE OF
SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ��) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: John Greitzer(9251335-1201)
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED mod
Public Works Dept (PWD) JOHN CULLEW, CLERK OF
Smith, Watts & Company (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Cathy Christian, Nielsen, Merksamer (via CAO) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
G:\Transportation\Board Orders&Greenies\2007\State Bond Board Order.doc
12a
COUNTY PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
California voters in November 2006 approved a package of four infrastructure bond measures,
Propositions 1 B through 1 E, and Proposition 84,which provides funds for transportation, natural
resource,water supply,flood control, schools and park uses. Supervisor Gioia, in December as
Board Chair, asked staff of the Public Works Department and Community Development
Department to report to the Board on potential County infrastructure projects that could be
funded through the bonds. This report responds to that request.
Each of the bond programs has multiple funding categories within it, and each program could
have different processes and criteria for project selection and funding. In most cases, the
specific process and criteria to be used for each program will be determined through legislation
in 2007. Our legislative advocates in Sacramento will monitor this process to ensure the County
has a chance to offer input into the development of the criteria and guidelines wherever
possible.As those process criteria are developed other projects may come forward that are not
included in this report.
In the meantime, staff has developed lists of potential County projects to prepare for possible
funding through the infrastructure bonds. These lists of potential projects have been developed
for County road improvements,flood control/water quality projects, open space and recreation
improvement projects, and housing projects (developed in coordination with the cities).The lists
are not meant to be all inclusive. In the area of Delta levee improvements,the County is working
with a coalition of other agencies to develop a priority list of projects in the central and western
Delta. Staff proposes to bring the Delta levee projects to the Board's Transportation,Water and
Infrastructure Committee when a draft list is ready.
The Infrastructure Bonds
The infrastructure bonds approved by voters in November 2006 are:
Proposition 1 B —Transportation, Air Quality and Port Security -- $19.9 billion
Proposition 1 C — Housing and Emergency Shelter-- $2.85 billion
Proposition 1 D — K12/University Facilities-- $10.4 billion
Proposition 1 E — Flood Prevention -- $4 billion
Proposition 84 —Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource
Protection, Park Improvements -- $5.4 billion
Proposition 1 D.funds are specifically directed to school districts (K-12 and community colleges),
and county offices of education. Based on a conversation with the Superintendent of Schools the
education community has begun the dialogue at the administrative level to identify new
construction needs, renovation needs, and needs with respect to career technical education
facilities and equipment.At this time no formal actions have been taken by any local school board.
Working with the Superintendent of Schools, a future report on this subject may be in order.
The following material describes the status of the County's efforts in each of the other bond
areas (1 B, 1 C, 1 E and 84).Also attached to this report is Exhibit A,which is a table showing the
general types of projects and activities that can be funded by each bond program .
Proposition 1 B -- Transportation, Air Quality and Port Security -- $19.9 billion
This bond measure has 12 funding categories. Potential County projects have been developed
for two of the 12 categories—the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account, ($4.5 billion)and the
direct subventions to cities and counties ($2 billion).
- � a
COUNTY PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Page 3
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
The Corridor Mobility Improvement Account is being handled by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC),which has compiled and approved a list of projects to submit to the California
Transportation Commission, who will allocate funds from this Account. This program is for major
highway projects of regional or statewide significance.The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
prepared the initial list of project proposals to MTC, as previously reported to the Board.The MTC
list includes the following projects in Contra Costa County: the Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore,
the State Route 4 East Freeway Widening and High Occupancy Vehicle Project in East
County, the 1-680 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Extension from North Main Street to State
Route 242, and the 1-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project in West County.
The MTC list does not include the Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project,which the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority had requested on behalf of the County and TRANSPLAN. This
$21 million project would widen and add a median to the most accident-prone segment of
Vasco Road, near Brushy Creek.
The $2 billion in direct subventions to local governments will be distributed by the same formula
already used for distribution of other state transportation funds, based on the number of road
miles and the number of registered vehicles in each jurisdiction.This will bring approximately$25
million to Contra Costa County for road work in the unincorporated areas. It isn't yet known when
the funds will be distributed to local governments. The Governor has proposed allocating the
funds over a three-year period from fiscal year 2007/08 through fiscal year 2009/10. Legislation is
expected to address this issue. Exhibit B is a list of projects that the Board selected on October
10, 2006, as candidates for using the County's Proposition 1 B subventions.
The other funding categories in 1 B are expected to have criteria and a funding process created
through legislation this year. County staff has not yet developed projects for these other
programs. To date, Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) has introduced two bills stating
legislative intent to develop criteria and selection processes for the Trade Corridors program
and the Air Quality Improvement program, and Senator Don Perata(D-Alameda)has introduced
two bills stating legislative intent to develop criteria and processes for the Transit Security &
Emergency Preparedness Program and the State-Local Partnership Program.
Proposition 1 C— Housing and Emergency Shelter-- $2.85 billion
County staff has developed a list of potential housing projects that are considered to be in the
"pipeline"and therefore potentially eligible to compete for Proposition 1 C funds.About half of the
Proposition 1-C funds ($1.4 billion) are to be devoted to existing programs administered by the
State (Multifamily Housing Program or MHP, the BEGIN Program for downpayment assistance,
CalHOME homeownership program, California Homebuyer Assistance Program, Farmworker
Housing Grants, and Emergency Housing Assistance Program). Funds for these existing
programs are largely allocated via a competitive application process. The Bay Area and the East
Bay have been very successful in the past in accessing these funds The project list in Exhibit C
identifies possible "pipeline" projects.
The remaining $1.45 of the $2.85 billion Proposition 1 C bond program, will be for new initiatives
that will require legislative authority before funds will be available. Included among these new
programs are funds for a wide range of infrastructure projects(e.g. roads,sewer,water,drainage
and parks)to encourage urban infill projects($850 million),funds for transit-oriented development
($300 million), funding for local parks ($200 million), and $100 million for innovative housing
developed at reduced costs. Exhibit D includes a list of local park projects that would be eligible
for funds provided by Proposition 1 C.
COUNTY PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Page 4
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
The unincorporated County contains many communities forwhich urban infill projects would appear
to be appropriate.The transit-oriented development program should be a fit for Bay Point and
Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART station areas.The trailer bills will define eligibility criteria.
No formal trailer bills have yet been introduced in 2007, however Assemblymember Loni Hancock
(D-Berkeley)has introduced a bill(AB 29)which would devote an unspecified amount of 1 C funds to
a grant program to provide incentives for the development of infill housing by local agencies,
provided their housing plans are included in a regional growth plan, and Senator Perata has
introduced a spot bill (SB 46)for the infill portion of the Proposition 1 C funds.
Proposition 1 E — Flood Prevention -- $4 billion
This program will provide funds for levee protection in the Delta as well as funding for local flood
control projects elsewhere in the state. Regarding the Delta,the County is working with the Contra
Costa Council,the Bay Planning Coalition,the Delta Protection Commission, and other agencies
to establish a coalition to lobby for a portion of the $3 billion levee bond funds to be dedicated to
levees outside the State Plan of Flood Control. The current focus of levee funding discussions in
Sacramento to date has been on the State Plan of Flood Control levees (i.e. "project levees,"
which are those controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers) in and around Sacramento. State
agencies are not inclined to put funds in the central Delta where the geographical definition of the
Delta may change due to ongoing planning processes being conducted at the state level. The
coalition hopes to provide a list of levee projects in the western and central Delta that will be
important no matter what the final configuration of the Delta is determined to be.
The Coalition is working on a list of specific projects to help frame our request for funds.
Generally, projects would include levee improvements on the eight western Delta islands
(six of which are in the County)that are critical to water quality, and levees protecting the East
Bay Municipal Utility District's Mokelumne aqueducts. Other types of projects may be
included as well. The eight western Delta islands are Bradford Island, Webb Tract, Jersey
Island, Bethel Island, Hotchkiss Tract, and Holland Tract in Contra Costa County,and Sherman
and Twitchell Islands in Sacramento County.
Regarding the funds available for non-Delta flood control projects, there are a number of
opportunities in Proposition 1 E that potentially could benefit Contra Costa County's flood
prevention program. Some key possibilities are described below and are included in Exhibit E.
$200 million is available statewide for the protection, creation, and enhancement of flood
protection corridors and bypasses. One eligible project type is setting back existing flood control
levees. This may be a good match for the Flood Control District's Lower Walnut Creek
Restoration project, which includes levee setbacks and an improved floodway, the Wildcat
Creek Phase II Restoration project and the Tice Creek Bypass project.
$300 million is available for local stormwater management projects that are part of an Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). Several Flood Control District projects would be
eligible for this funding, such as the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration, Wildcat Creek Phase
II Restoration, Lower Pinole Creek Restoration, and the Rodeo Creek Watershed Plan.
$500 million will go for the state's share of costs for flood control and prevention projects
outside the Central Valley, primarily the Bay Area and Southern California. According to the
Department of Water Resources (DWR), flood control projects that could qualify for funding
include Contra Costa County projects on Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks.
COUNTY PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Page 5
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
Proposition 84—Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection
Park Improvements -- $5.4 billion
As with the Proposition 1 E discussion above, this section discusses some key potential County
projects that could qualify for funds from Proposition 84, with a complete listing of potential
projects provided in Exhibits D, E and F.
The primary County projects that can potentially be funded through this bond program are: 1)
flood control and creek restoration projects; 2) clean water and water/sewer improvements; 3)
habitat protection projects to implement approved Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural
Community Conservation Plans (HCP/NCCP); and 4)recreational facilities such as parks,trails
and ball fields. Eligible recreation projects include improvements to existing facilities as well as
the construction of new facilities.
For flood control projects, the proposition holds significant potential for the County. For
example, $1 billion will be available for Integrated Regional Water Management Plans(IRWMP)
that increase water supply, reduce demand, provide flood protection and protect water quality.
$138 million is earmarked specifically for the San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP which covers
western and central Contra Costa, and $73 million for the Sacramento River area which is
included in the East County IRWMP. All Bay Area and East County IRWMP projects would be
eligible for this funding. Possible projects include the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration,
Wildcat Creek Phase II Restoration, Lower Pinole Creek Restoration, Rodeo Creek
Watershed Management Plan and the Marsh Creek Restoration at Deer Creek.
$360 million is available for the State Coastal Conservancy, of which $108 million is earmarked
for the San Francisco Bay Conservancy Program. In the past the Conservancy has been very
supportive of the Flood Control District's (District's) Pacheco Marsh Restoration project and
Lower East Antioch Creek Wetland Restoration project.
The Mount Diablo Mercury Mine Clean Up project, Galindo Creek Wetlands and Flood
Management project, and the Stream Management Program for Private Landowners may
qualify for the grant program to reduce stormwater contamination. Funds also will be available
for the inspection and evaluation of existing flood control project facilities and the development
of rehabilitation plans. The Marsh, Dry and Deer Creek Reservoirs Seismic Assessment in
Zone 1 (Marsh Creek watershed)could benefit from this funding, as well as a to-be-developed
program to determine the lifespan and current condition of the District's infrastructure.
$90 million in Proposition 84 bonds is available statewide to fund habitat protection under
approved HCPs/NCCPs. The East Contra Costa HCP/NCCP is in the final stages of the
approval process. Land acquisition costs under this HCP/NCCP alone are estimated at
approximately $200 million. If approved, land acquisition cost for the East Contra Costa
HCP/NCCP could be funded.
Potential parks and recreational projects also have been identified by County staff for
Proposition 84.Potential new-facility projects for Prop 84 funding include the North Richmond
Shoreline Trail, the Great California Delta Trail, the proposed Vine Hill Park, proposals for
the Byron/Knightsen Community Park, Ravenswood Park, Pacheco Park, and Bethel
Island Park, and proposed ballfields in Bay Point and Concord. The remaining park
proposals would use bond funds to upgrade or rehabilitate existing parks.
'22�2
COUNTY PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Page 6
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
Emerging Factors that can Influence Legislation
On January 24, 2007, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to establish guidelines
and procedures for spending Strategic Growth Plan bond funds,which includes Proposition 1 B
through 1 E. Specifically, the executive order directs government agencies that spend bond
funds to institute a three part accountability structure that includes:
• Front-End Accountability: Create a strategic plan with performance standards for projects
prior to the expenditure of funds.
• In-Progress Accountability: Document what ongoing actions it will take to ensure that the
infrastructure projects or other activities funded from bond proceeds are staying within the
scope and cost that were identified. Additionally, each department shall make semi-annual
reports to the Department of Finance to ensure that the projects and activities funded from
bond proceeds are being executed in a timely fashion and achieving their intended
purposes.
• Follow-Up Accountability: Audit completed projects to determine whether the expenditures
were in line with the goals laid out in the strategic plan.
The strategic plan would be due by March 1. Exhibit G provides the text of the executive order.
Future legislation will undoubtedly be influenced by the Governor's executive order.
In addition various interest groups are circulating proposals to influence legislation that will
implement the infrastructure bond programs. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission,the
Association of Bay Area Governments and the Air District have representatives working
together as a group known as the Joint Policy Committee. One purpose of this Committee is to
work on regional policies designed to shape growth and development in the Bay Area. Staff to
the Joint Policy Committee has proposed principles to guide the Committee's efforts to help
shape the legislation that will implement Propositions 1 C and 84. These principles are included
in Exhibit H to this Board Order.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Potential Projects and Activities for the Infrastructure Bonds
Exhibit B: Candidate Road Projects for Bond Funding
Exhibit C: City/County Housing Projects for Potential Bond Funding
Exhibit D: Open Space/Parks and Recreation Projects Eligible for Potential Bond Funding
Exhibit E: Flood Control/Clean Water Projects for Potential Bond Funding
Exhibit F: Miscellaneous Infrastructure Projects for Potential Bond Funding
Exhibit G: Executive Order S-02-07
Exhibit H: Joint Policy Committee/Regional Planning Program Memorandum,January 10,2007
EXHIBIT A
Potential Projects and Activities for the Infrastructure Bonds
Prop 16 Prop 1C+ Prop 1D 4 rProp 1 E Prop484 „
Type of Infrastructure A"!,
,eTranstAi 4uality Housing , Schools t r Flood a Pa lResoues
Amounts $`Billions .-4$ 85r �-,, r.5104Q . �� ,�54` „�. v -.x,55.40
Bridges x x X X
Brownfield Remediation x
Flood Control X X
Flood Corridor/Bypass X
Flood Management X X
Floodplain Mapping X X
Infrastructure Evaluation x
Mitigation x
Fish Habitat Restoration x
Urban Streams Restoration x
Water Quality x
Housing x
Rental Housing x
Homeownership Housing x
Homebuyer Assistance X
Supportive Housing X
Fannworker Housing X
Emergency Housing x
Affordable Housin Innovations X
Transit Oriented Housin x
Infill Housing x
Self-Help Housing X
Emancipated Foster Youth X
Landscaping x
Levees X X
Repairs x
Emergency Response x
Libraries x
Open S aceMatershed x X X
HCP Habitat Protection x
Parking Facilities x
Parks x
New Parks x x
Improve Existing Parks x x
Park Planning
x
Urban Greening x
Parks for Infill Develo mt X
Housing-Related Parks X
Parks in Underserved Areas x
Public Utilities x
Pump Stations x
Roads X x
Schools x
K-12 New construction/renovation x
Community College X
Career technical facilities X
Sewers x
Sidewalks x x
Street Lights x x
Storm Drains x x
Traffic Signals x x
Trails
x
Water Treatment Facilities x x
Safe Drinking Water x
Facilities for Small Communities x
Groundwater Quality x
Pollutant Reduction x
Water Supply Planning x
X=Primary Funding Purpose(s)
x=May be able to fund;applicable to incentive funds
I
EXHIBIT B
Candidate Road Projects for Bond Funding
vi
c§ flia2' -Jytfi' #F` 1, 's ,I ' �'Y'a �� �. +''r„2jay� +a�'PPotential'kd
District � roJect 1 Pr�oM �D undi"VIq
C11loe °ns §
Source
1 San Pablo Dam Road Safety Irarovements $1,500,000 113
1 San Pablo Dam Road Downtown Improvements $1,000,000 IB
2 Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements $1,500,000 1B
3 Vasco Road Safety Improvements $7,000,000 113
3 Vasco Road/Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements $1,000,000 1B
3 Deer Valley Road Safety Improvements $1,500,000 1B
3 Camino Tassajara Shoulder Improvements $1,000,000 1B
3 B on Highway(South)Shoulder Improvements $2,000,000 113
3,4,5 Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements $3,000,000 113
3 Highland Road Safety Improvements $1,000,000 1B
4,5 Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lanes $3,000,000 113
5 Willow Pass Road Safety Improvements $1,000,000 113
*-- The road projects shown above will be funded with IB allocations the County will receive through
direct subventions to local governments. The dollar amounts are the recommend allocations of IB funds
to each project. Some of these projects might also be considered for other competitive grant programs
from the Proposition I-C bonds.
EXHIBIT C
County/City Housing Projects for Potential Bond Funding
estimated Potential �.
District .}, Project*,, ,, ,�� Cost, ;Funding A
(if known). Source
, a
Multifamily Rental
Community Housing Development Corp/North
1 Richmond,26 units-new construction/special needs $9,408,656 1 C
Signature/North Richmond
1 26 units-new construction $18,200,000 .1 C
Eden Housing_Community Housing Development
1 Co /Richmond,70 units $22,750,000 1C
Resources for Community Development/Richmond
1 36 units—preservation $9,000,000 IC
BRIDGE Housing/Richmond
1 15 units—preservation 1 C
Related Companies of California/Richmond
1 66 units-new construction/senior $16,500,000 1 C
2 Eden Housing/Lafayette,new construction/senior 1 C
American Baptist Homes of the West Satellite/San
3 1 Ramon, 105 units-new construction/senior $28,808,520 1 C
5 Bixby Co./Bay Point,52 units—new construction 1 C
Resources for Community Development/Pittsburg
5 71 units-new construction/family and senior $24,551,659 1 C
Mercy Housing/Pittsburg
5 63 units-new construction/family $24,288,558 1 C
Home Ownership
TBD/Rodeo Town Center
2 25 units-new construction 1 C
Olson Co/Walnut Creek
4 38 units-new construction/townhomes I C
All BEGIN and Ca1HOME funds for homeownership assistance. 1 C
*Housing projects must compete statewide for IC funds. There are no guaranteed allocations of
funds on either a local or regional basis.Project include potential affordable housing projects in the
unincorporated County as well as cities.Affordable housing programs administered by the County,
which would match Proposition 1 C funds, can be programmed to both city and County projects.
EXHIBIT D
Open Space, Parks and Recreation Projects
Eligible for Potential Bond Fundis
, Estimateda Potential
District s¢ , AyePro]ect ;.' "4 Total Proect Funding .
�T� ...■/'``.{ QF3," y�yj�,- /�a�■ 7(�
S: •i, t=.*S x_ttx.. C Y='i s" W=? . ' ri #s $12ost'" SVN re
1 Montara Bay Community Center and Ballfield Impr. $3,450,000 IC, 84
1 Montalvin Manor Park Improvements $1,070,000 1C, 84
1 El Sobrante Reading Garden Improvements $300,000 1C, 84
1 Kensington Median Landscaping Improvements $100,000 IC, 84
1 Malcolm Dr./Spear Circle Park Improvements (Z-74) $50,000 1C, 84
1 DeAnza High School Site Development Improvements $1,000,000 1C, 84
in El Sobrante
1 El Sobrante Community Park(proposed park) $3,990,000 1C, 84
1 North Richmond Shoreline Trail (proposed trail) $250,000 1C, 84
2 Lefty Gomez Ballfield and Community Center Im r. $3,790,000 1C, 84
2 Rodeo Creek Trail Improvements $120,000 1C, 84
2 Vine Hill Park (proposed ark) $498,000 IC, 84
3 Livorna Park Improvements $2,766,000 1C, 84
3 Hap Magee Ranch Park Improvements $3,000,000 IC, 84
3 Alamo School Park Improvements $2,960,000 IC, 84
3 Rancho Romero School Park Improvements $50,000 1C, 84
3 Slifer Park Improvements $75,000 IC, 84
3 Tyler Memorial Park Improvements $1,500,000 1C, 84
3 Z36 Median Im rovements (Alamo Area) $400,000 1C, 84
3 Iron Horse Trail Staging Area Improvements $248,000 1C, 84
3 Byron/Knightsen Community Park(proposed park) $3,240,000 1C, 84
3 Ravenswood Park(proposed ark) $899,000 1C, 84
4 Clyde Park Improvements $2,500,000 1C, 84
4 Marie Porter Park Improvements $527,000 1C, 84
4 Big Oak Tree Park Improvements $250,000 IC, 84
4 Aspen Trail Improvements $749,000 1C, 84
4 1 Maybeck Park Improvements $500,000 1C, 84
4 Concord Ballfield(proposed ballfield) $3,900,000 IC, 84
4 Pacheco Park (proposed ark) $3,900,000 IC, 84
5 Lynbrook Park Improvements $915,000 1C, 84
5 Hickory Meadows Park Improvements $2,500,000 1C, 84
5 Boe er Park Improvements $2,500,000 1C, 84
5 Viewpointe Park Improvements $25,000 IC, 84
5 Bay Point Shoreline Ballfield(proposed ballfield) $3,200,000 1C, 84
5 Bethel Island Park(proposed ark) . $3,200,000 1C, 84
5 Great California Delta Trail (proposed trail) $750,000 IC, 84
3,4,5 East Contra Costa County Habitat Protection Plan— $200,000,000 84
open space acquisition*
* Proposition 84 provides $90 million statewide for open space/watershed acquisition.
** Costs are derived from the proposed Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan
and Special Districts needs assessment.
EXHIBIT E
Flood Control/Clean Water Projects for Potential Bond Funding
m _ t r ,r , Estimate a en tial
� paR3
District � �� Pro ect � � s 'fotaln. ' Funding
ate= a J �
a 4 ��Pro ec ost �'S
3 Marsh Creek Restoration at Deer Creek $2,000,000
2,4 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration $7,500,000 1E, 84
1 Wildcat Creek Restoration Phase II $10,000,000 1E, 84
5 Lower East Antioch Creek Wetland Restoration $2,000,000 84
2 Lower Pinole Creek Restoration $5,000,000 1E, 84
3 Green Valley Creek Restoration $3,000,000 84
1 Rodeo Creek Watershed Management Plan $400,000 1E, 84
3 Tice Creek Bypass Project $12,000,000 1E
3 Knightsen Wetlands Biofilter $2,500,000 84
3 Zone 1 Reservoir's Seismic Assessment $600,000 84
2,4 Pacheco Marsh Restoration Project $4,000,000 84
3,4 Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine Clean U $4,000,000 84
1,2,3,4,5 Flood Control Infrastructure Assessment Program $1,000,000 84
2,3,4 Walnut Creek Watershed Coordinator $300,000 84
4 Galindo Creek Wetlands and Flood Management $2,000,000 84
1,2,3,4,5 Stream Management Program for Private Property $1,000,000 84
Owners
1 Wildcat Creek Fish Passage project $2,000,000 84
3 1 East County Floodplain Mapping $500,000 84
EXHIBIT F
Miscellaneous Infrastructure Projects for Potential Bond Funding
. F� �� � t � ;, < �� $:Rh I Potential 3 ti
P �_ � `Esumateama g a
Fundm a
TotaMOSVIN
2 SD #6 hn rovements $50,000 84
5 M28 hn rovements (Bethel Island Water System) $700,000 84
EXHIBIT G
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-02-07
WHEREAS in the 1950s and 1960s, Californians made a phenomenal investment
in the state's highways, water supply systems, schools and universities providing the
infrastructure that is now the foundation of the eighth largest economy in the world; and
WHEREAS in 1950s the state's population was about 13 million,but is now
approaching 38 million, and over the next two decades it will increase by another 23
percent; and
WHEREAS the infrastructure investments of a half century ago are showing their
age and straining to support a vibrant economy and population much larger than they
were designed to accommodate; and
WHEREAS a massive infusion of new infrastructure investment is necessary to
ensure the state's high quality of life and California's position as a global economic
powerhouse; and
WHEREAS on November 7, 2006 the people of California approved a$42.7
billion bond package to partially fund the first phase of an historic twenty-year California
Strategic Growth Plan that is intended to build a prosperous future for our children and
grandchildren; and
WHEREAS I am proposing an additional $43.3 billion of bond funding to
complete the first phase of the Strategic Growth Plan; and
WHEREAS it is the obligation of state government to ensure that the foresight
and commitment shown by the voters results in the high quality infrastructure future
which they support; and
WHEREAS the essence of that obligation is for state government to be
accountable to the people for how Strategic Growth Plan bond proceeds are spent; and
WHEREAS that accountability consists both of ensuring that bond expenditures
contribute to long-lasting, meaningful improvements to critical infrastructure, and
providing the public with readily accessible information about how the bonds they
approved and are paying for are being spent.
NOW, THEREFORE, I ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State
of California,by the virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution
and laws of the State of California, do hereby issue this Executive Order to become
effective immediately:
1. All agencies, departments,boards, offices, commissions and other entities of state
government(hereinafter referred to "departments")that are responsible for expending the
proceeds of already authorized and future state general obligation bonds and lease
revenue bonds shall be accountable for ensuring that those bond proceeds are expended
in a manner consistent with the provisions of either the applicable bond act and the State
General Obligation Bond Law or laws pertaining to state lease revenue bonds and all
other applicable state and federal laws. In addition, departments shall be accountable for
ensuring that bond proceeds are spent efficiently, effectively and in the best interests of
the people of the State of California.
2. Each department shall establish and document a three part accountability structure for
the Strategic Growth Plan bond proceeds.
Front-End Accountability
Each department shall follow criteria or processes that will govern the expenditure of
bond funds, and the outcomes that such expenditures are intended to achieve. Such
criteria and outcomes must be defined in, or derived from, one or more of the following:
• Requirements of state or federal law.
• Regulations defining the basis upon which bond proceeds are to be allocated for a program
administered by the department.
• A strategic plan for implementing the mission of the department or the pertinent program
funded by bond proceeds. Such a strategic plan shall have been duly adopted by the
executive officer or governing body of the department and be available to the public.
• A capital outlay program that identifies departmental infrastructure needs and delineates
projects or strategies for addressing those needs. Such a program shall have been duly
adopted by the executive officer or governing body of the department and be available to the
public.
• Performance standards or outcome measures duly adopted by the executive officer or
governing body of the department and available to the public.
All projects, grants, loans or other expenditures of bond proceeds must be made
consistent with these criteria and processes. In addition, each department shall prepare a
list of all projects, grants, loans or other activities funded from bond proceeds that will be
made available to the public.
In-Progress Accountability
Each department shall document what ongoing actions it will take to ensure that the
infrastructure projects or other permissible activities funded from bond proceeds are
staying within the scope and cost that were identified when the decision was made to
fund the project or activity. Each department shall make semi-annual reports to the
Department of Finance (Finance)of these actions to ensure that the projects and activities
funded from bond proceeds are being executed in a timely fashion and achieving their
intended purposes.
Follow-Up Accountability
Department expenditures of bond proceeds shall be subject to audit to determine whether
the expenditures made from bond proceeds:
• Were made according to the established front-end criteria and processes.
• Were consistent with all legal requirements.
• Achieved the intended outcomes.
Departments shall contract with Finance for the performance of these audits unless
alternative audit arrangements are made with the concurrence of Finance.
3. By March 1, 2007, each department shall submit its three part accountability structure
as delineated in paragraph 2 above to Finance for review. Finance shall determine the
reasonableness of the structure and ensure its consistency with this Executive Order. No
department shall expend bond proceeds until Finance has determined that the
department's plan is adequate. However, Finance may authorize a department to expend
funds for up to four months prior to approval of its accountability structure in
extraordinary cases for an established program for which bond proceeds are continuously
appropriated by the terms of a bond measure, or when the necessity of a department's
governing board meeting schedule will make the March 1 date an unattainable deadline.
4. Finance shall establish a web site to provide the public with readily accessible
information on how proceeds of State general obligation bonds and lease revenue bonds
are being utilized. The web site shall include:
• The three part accountability structure for each department.
• A listing of the projects, programs or other authorized activities being funded under the
provisions of each general obligation bond act and a description of each project funded
through State lease revenue bonds, and the amounts expended for each.
• The ongoing in-progress actions being taken to ensure that bond-funded projects and
activities are remaining within scope and cost.
• The results of the completed projects, programs or other authorized activities funded from
State general obligation and lease revenue bond proceeds.
Each department shall provide Finance the information necessary to support this web site
in the form and time frame determined by Finance.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that State agencies and departments shall cooperate
in the implementation of this Order. Other entities of State government not under my
direct executive authority, including the California Public Utilities Commission, the
University of California,the California State University, California Community Colleges,
constitutional officers, and legislative and judicial branches are requested to assist in its
implementation.
This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California,
its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed in the
Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this
Order.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of
California to be affixed this 24th day of January
2007.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
EXHIBIT H 17.02
Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P.Bort MetroCenn-
IRia ter
M r Bay Area Air Quality Management District 101 Eighth Street
MetroBox olitan Trans ortation Commission P.o4607-47475
p p6
Oakland,CA 9 460756
(510)464-7942
Joint Policy Committee/Regional Planning Program Redd@abag.ca.gov
a ba o.ca.cloy/i o i n too I i cv/
Date: January 10, 2006
To: Joint Policy Committee
From: Regional Planning Program Director
Subject: FOCUS Incentives: Legislation and Regional Transportation Plan
This memo details two emergent sources of funds to assist in the implementation of FOCUS pri-
ority development objectives. There are heavy competing demands on both sources and neither
is assured. Securing an opportunity to direct a portion of potential fund expenditures will require
the very active consideration and involvement of the JPC and its member agencies.
State Bond Monies
As the Committee is aware, at the November General Election, the voters approved a number of
state bond propositions. Included within these propositions are accounts which could be used to
support the kind of smart growth (i.e., infill and transit-oriented development) that the Bay Area
has been seeking through the FOCUS program. This table details the most likely sources of state
incentive funds.
Source.. Accourit :;` 'State Rd
giori(est.)
Prop 1C Regional Planning, Housing and Infill Incentives $850 $141.4
Prop 1 CTransit-oriented Development $300M N
Prop 1 CHousing-related Parks $200M $33.3
Prop 84 Urban Greening $90 $15.0
Prop 84 Urban Forestry $20M $3.3
Prop 84 Local and Regional Parks $400M $66.5
Prop 84 Planning Grants and Loans $90 $15.0
OTAL $1950M $274.5
The fourth column is a hypothetical estimate of the Bay Area's possible share based on a combi-
nation of existing population and projected growth. What we actually get could be much less or
much more depending on legislation and the allocation methods actually used by the state. All
but the $300 million transit-oriented development account are fully or partially subject to trailer
bills to come before the Legislature this session. At this point it is not assured that the region
02
FOCUS Incentives: Legislation and Regional Transportation Plan 2
will have any say at all in how these monies are allocated or spent. Transit-oriented develop-
ment monies are subject to an existing legislated program administered by the Department of
Housing and Community Development.
Legislative advocacy will be required to ensure that the Bay Area's interests are represented in
the trailer bills. To guide that advocacy, staff has prepared a set of principles for the Commit-
tee's consideration and endorsement:
Making the Most of Limited Dollars
Principles for Distributing Proposition 1C and Proposition 84 Incentives
1. Create an integrated program
Propositions 1 C and 84:establish a number of accounts to support sustainable communities, tran-
sit-oriented development, and infill housing. These are closely related, mutually supportive con-
cepts, and they should be treated as such. The,accounts should be administered jointly through a;
single,integrated program'to:maximize synergy.
2. Respect.priorities established'by regions`
California.is.a_state, of.regions. All of the largest regions.have undertaken major regional plan
ning efforts. These efforts, characterized by the State as ',,regional blueprints," share a.,common
direction:. all°emphasize compact,.infill development aimed at supporting and revitalizing
exist-
ing communities, maximizing transportation efficiency, and conserving land resources. There
:are also sometimes subtle, but nonetheless important, differences among regions,and'among re
gional:plans. There should be a clear and direct.connection between the priorities established by
these significant regional planning exercises and the distribution of state incentives.
3. Reward`inclusive and collaborative planning
.All the "regional blueprint".plans-have;been.developed through inclusive and collaborative plan
Hing processes involving communities and stakeholders. The best local plans are also produced
through participatoryprocesses that give all affected parties ownership of the results. The devel-
opment-which the state is encouraging.through incentives is more likely to happen and to be em-;
braced as a positive outcome if is planned.through processes that are genuinely collaborative'and
inclusive of all relevant interests:
4. Make big differences
,In total,Propositions 1C and 84 provide nearly $2 billion,in;incentves. This,can make'a big df-
ference or almost no difference at all,.depending on how it is,distributed. If Jt is;spread too.
evenly`and too thinly it will result in change only at the margins. The money needs to be strate-
gically packaged and distributed so as to assist;significant plans and projects achieve their tip-
Ping:points. We need to aim for noticeable successes.
5. Setexamples
Noticeable.successes should be replicable.. With limited funds,it will not be possible to support'
all good projects. Incentives should be directed first at.potential-trendsetters. State funds can
help-to reduce the impediments and risks for those first:out,of gate, but maynot be as necessary
for those who are`able'to learn from these early successes. To the extent possible, fimds.should
FOCUS Incentives: Legislation and Regional Transportation Plan 3
be distributed to maximize-learning potential for subsequent plans and projects for which incen-
tives may be more limited::_
6. Achieve real results
Projects,and plans should be evaluated on the basis of short-term, on-the-ground results, such as
actual infill housing.units added to existing;communities. Theoretical concepts, like vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), do.not,provide sufficient accountability,,as..they.are not directly observ-
able and can only be assessed through assumption-laden-mathematical models, which may or
may not be accurate.
Regional Transportation Plan
The region, including the JPC, will soon begin the process of preparing the 2009 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). Proposition 1-C and Proposition 84 infill incentives are enumerated
in millions of dollars; expenditures in the RTP are enumerated in billions.
Over the last couple of RTPs, the region has initiated the idea of using transportation funds to
provide incentives for smart, transportation-efficient development: first with the TLC and HIP
programs and more recently with the Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy.
The impending RTP and the infusion of some new funds from federal, state and regional sources
provide an opportunity to assess whether additional monies can be directed to encourage and
support region-serving development, noting that some local jurisdictions have indicated that their
support of more intense housing is contingent on securing additional transportation capital to
service that development. The climate-change imperative may also have a larger future role to
play in where transportation dollars go.
The TOD policy has established the precedent of employing transportation expansion capital to
encourage complementary and supportive development. At least two policy issues require the
JPC's consideration as we begin the next RTP: (1) to what extent can the region's transportation
expansion plans be even more closely linked to its development objectives; (2) is it appropriate
to begin linking a portion of the plan's maintenance expenditures (approximately 80 percent of
plan dollars) to the achievement of smart-growth and housing priorities as well. Consideration
of these questions is consistent with the JPC's desire to take a more proactive role in the devel-
opment of regional policy.
Recommendations
I RECOMMEND:
A. THAT the JPC endorse the "Principles for Distributing Proposition IC and 84 Incen-
tives"as the basis for legislative advocacy relative to impending trailer bills;
B. THAT as part of the forthcoming preparation of the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan,
the JPC begin an active consideration of directing additional transportation money to
support regional development priorities.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to sneak on Agenda Item#: D �.
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: General /
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. El For
❑ Against
Name: ir
Oki wish to speak on the subject of:
Address: I�SS_(.�� 1, ozAt
City: Ci- 7C T Y3 h
Phone: (!R�t�
I am speaking for: ❑ Myself
Organization: Cvr,ey— C-64-o- ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
1 leave comments for the Board to consider
1 (use the back of this form)
February 5, 2007
Honorable Mary N. Piepho,Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
309 Diablo Rd.
rol Danville, CA 94526
s
Dear Supervisor Piepho:
I am writing on behalf of the Contra Costa Council to express our concern with
an inconsistency in the text of the recently approved inclusionary zoning
Chairman of the Board ordinance. We encourage the Board to direct staff to draft an amendment to the
Peter McGaw ordinance for immediate consideration and adoption. The technical revision we
Shareholder
Archeridorns are requesting is to section 822-4.418,relating to the process for the granting of
Board Chair Elect density bonuses. It represents an important component of the ordinance that
Steve Lesher was negotiated and adopted last year.
FUhli„Aftvi;:;Manage,
Shell Oil Products U.S.
Vice President-Finance The Board's intent was clear. The ordinance as adopted provided for the
P:iike 6dleci automatic granting a one-unit density bonus for each affordable unit mandated
Regional President-Greater Bay Area Region
t by the ordinance. This was a key component of the final language proposed by
e"s ^ny
Supervisor Gioia, approved by unanimous vote and subsequently adopted as a
Vic::President-Events
Angie Coffee consent item at the next meeting.
C aniOr'i/ico r''rc-dcrf-Managing Dimet::r
Greater Say Bank Contra Costa Region However,the language in the final ordinance differs from that passed by the
Vice President-Task Forces Board. Section 8224.418 states only that the developer"may request"a
C•heryll Lettay
Contra Costa Community College District density bonus. The discretionary provision of density bonuses is in direct
Vice President-Task Forces conflict with the adopted language.
D.,n MUIInr
Shareholder
Mo. an.RliL rB?air The only appropriate remedial action is an amendment to the ordinance.
Vice President--Gommxsnications Administrative guidance,while helpful would not have the effect of overriding
David Bowlby the language of the ordinance.
Provident
The Bow/by Group,Inc.
As you may recall, the provision of automatic density bonuses was broadly
Vice President-Member Services
Vicky leYoimq supported by stakeholders and part of the negotiated final language adopted by
Vice President the Board.
Cornist7&Car&a'
Chief Legal Counsel While the Council remains convinced that inclusionary zoning is the wrong tool
Edward Shaffer
SharehokL-r to adequately address the challenges of housing affordability in Contra Costa
Archer Norris County,this language represented a much appreciated attempt to seek
Immediate Past Chair consensus on a difficult issue. We wish to foster this spirit of cooperation as we
Stan Taylor
Partner seek to address these critical issues impacting our economic vitality and quality
Nossaman.Guthner.Knox&Elliott,LLP of life in Contra Costa County.
President and CEO
Linda Best Thank you for your consideration.
Since 4Vene
C
Ethan An
Executive Vice President
1355 Wiiiow Way,Ste.253,Concord,CA 94520 (925).246-1880 925.614-1654 fax info@xontracostacouncii.corn www.contracostacoui)cii.coni