HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05152007 - D.4 I
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r_ ` - Contra I
Costa
FROM: Dennis M. Barry. AICP County
Director of Community Development ; ,r
DATE: May 15. 2007 D.
1
SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2007-199
AMENDING THE COUNTY'S PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE, AND ADOPTION OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CONTINUE the public hearing to receive comments on proposed Ordinance No. 2007-19, which
would amend the County's Park Dedication Ordinance (Division 920 of the County Ordinance
Code).
2. CLOSE the public hearing and consider the proposed ordinance.
3. CONSIDER the proposed Negative Declaration regarding the adoption of Ordinance No. 2007-19
and any comments received during the public review process. I
4. FIND on the basis of the whole record, including the initial study and all comments received. that
there is no substantial evidence that the adoption of Ordinance No 2007-19 will have a significant
effect on the environment, and that the Negative Declaration reflects the Board's independent
judgment and analysis.
5. ADOPT the Negative Declaration and specify that the Community Development Department.
located at 651 Pine Street. Martinez, is the custodian of the documents and other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.
6. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2007-19, substantially in the form attached.
I
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES ❑ NO SIGNATURE:
e6,60
_X—RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ Rf��MMEND I N OF BOARD/
COMMITTEE / I
L_ 1 PPROVE _ OTHER
1
\% I
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BO R ON l/LP ,- IS �?esrer7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED kpTfiER
I
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
�C UNANIMOUS (ABSENT /� ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES:_ NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. i
Contact: Robert T. Calkins. 335-7220 ATTESTED
Orig: Community Development/CDBG JOHN CULL , CLERK
cc: County Administrator OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel AND COU ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works
Auditor-Controller BY
D Y
7. DIRECT the Community Development Director. or designee. to file a Notice of Determination for
this project with the County Clerk.
8. DIRECT the Community Development Director, or designee, to arrange for payment of the S75
handling fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination.
FISCAL IMPACT
This action will result in the County collecting additional revenues that can only be used to develop new
or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community parks. or recreational facilities in the County. The '
proposal to waive 50 percent of the land and fee requirements for certain affordable housing
developments including units constructed or in-lieu fees paid pursuant to the County's Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance will reduce the total amount of Quimby fees collected and therefore require the
County to secure additional resources to develop the parks and recreational facilities identified in the
Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan. No impact on the General Fund is expected from
this action.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Staff completed an Initial Study and determined that adopting Ordinance No. 2007-19 will not have a
significant impact on the environment. A Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed
Negative Declaration was published on April 4. 2007, and comments were due by April 23. 2007. No
comments were received.
CONSE=QUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
If Ordinance No. 2007-19 is not adopted, the current park dedication requirements and in-lieu fees will
remain unchanged.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
i
Background: The Parks, Creeks, and Trails Committee (PCTC), staffed by representatives of the
Community Development and Public Works departments, was formed in 2001 to improve
interdepartmental coordination on park matters. The PCTC meets to address day-to -day business and
to formulate recommendations to sustain and improve the County's parks over the long term.
i
On December 9. 2003, the Board directed the Community Development and Public Works directors to
review the County's park dedication fees, which had not been adjusted since 1990.
On Juna 5. 2005. the Board accepted an initial draft of the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study ("Study') and
directed staff. with guidance from the Transportation. Water. and Infrastructure Committee (TWIG), to
present for future Board consideration, draft ordinances to implement the updated park dedication
requirernents and new park impact fees described in the Study.
Quimby Ordinance: The Government Code contains specific enabling legislation for the acquisition and
development of community and neighborhood parks. The legislation, known as the Quimby Act (Gov.
Code. 666477). authorizes cities and counties to enact ordinances requiring the dedication of land or
payment of fees, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition of approval of
a tentative map or parcel map. The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the
proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and amount of any fee to be paid. The County has such an
ordinance, codified as Division 920 of the Ordinance Code.
The final Park Impact Fees Nexus Study. dated February 2007, recommends, among other things.
amendiig the County's Quimby ordinance to increase fees based on the maximum allowable park
acreage per capita standard and current land values. Drafts of the Study were reviewed by the TWIC in i
August 2004, and in April and May 2005. Staff also met and conferred with the County's Developer
Liaison Committee (DLC) in September 2004. The DLC asked a few clarifying questions but did not
express any concerns with the implementation of the proposed fees outlined in the Study. j
The proposed Quimby fees are based on a park area standard, land costs and average household size
per dwelling unit.
Park Area Standard: The County currently owns approximately 75.7 acres of developed parkland. This
represents a ratio of 0.5 acres of County-owned and developed parkland for every 1,000 people residing
in the unincorporated areas of the County. With one exception not relevant here. under the Quimby Act,
the dedication of land, or payment of fees, or both,cannot exceed the proportionate amount necessary to
provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons. Because the County's existing park area in the
I
SD H-CD3(_Park Dedication Trust Fund Board Order re Par,\sus Studs and❑P;Wrnbx Ordmarc—�.I'0—Acz
unincorporated areas is less than 3.0 acres per 1.000 residents, staff recommends adopting a parkland
standard that is consistent with what is allowed under the Quimby Act — 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents
(.003 acres per capita).
Land Cost: The current Quimby fees the County is collecting are based on outdated land values of
$145.000 per acre in West/Central County, and $75,000 per acre in East County. As part of the process
of reviewing how the County collects fees to develop and improve parks; a survey was conducted to
determine current land values in West/Central and East County. The results of the survey indicate that
the land value assumptions should be increased to S500.000 per acre (West/Central County) and
$350,000 per acre (East County). Staff believes that an argument could be made for higher land costs,
however, the recommended amounts per acre appear to be the most appropriate conservative figures.
Given the per capita parkland standard and the land cost per acre. the cost of land per capita is $1,500
(.003 Y. $500,000) and S1.050 (.003 x 350,000) for West'Central County and East County respectively.
Average Household Size: Because the proposed Quimby fees are based on per capita need and level of
service, staff recommends the allocation of park fees to the different residential land uses or housing
types since different housing types have different household sizes. The County's current Quimby
ordinance does not calculate fees based on household size. Based on 2000 U.S. Census information,
staff recommends applying the following average household size per dwelling unit:
Single--Family Detached: 2.993
Townhomes: 2.380
Multi-Family Unit: 2.155
Mobile Home: 2.009
Proposed Fee Calculation: The following tables present the calculation of the proposed Quimby fees
based on the average household size and per capita land cost as discussed above and compares the
proposed fees with the current Quimby fees:
West/Central County
Avg. Park Acquisition Proposed Existing
Categories HH size Cost per Capita Quimby Fee Quimby Fee
I
Single-Family Detached 2.993 S1.500 $4,489 S2,000
Townhomes 2.380 S1,500 $3,571 S2,000
Multi-Family Unit 2.155 S1.500 $3,233 S2,000
Mobile Home 2.009 S1,500 $3,014 S2,000
East County
Avg. Park Acquisition Proposed Existing
Categories HH size Cost per Capita Quimby Fee Quimby Fee
Single-Family Detached 2.993 $1.050 $3,142 $1.350
Townhomes 2.380 $1.050 $2,499 $1.350
Multi-Family Unit 2.155 $1.050 $2,263 $1,350
Mobile Home 2.009 $1,050 $2,109 $1.350
Appendix D from the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study compares the County's current and proposed fees
with park dedication and park impact fees of other jurisdictions. The Contra Costa County Parks Capital
Improvement Plan. dated January 2007, adopted on May 1, 2007, provides a schedule for how and when
the park or recreational facilities financed with the Quimby fees will be developed.
Parkland Dedication Requirement: Any developer may propose to dedicate land for park development
purposes instead of paying a fee or do a combination thereof. The County determines during the land
use approval process whether the land dedication is an acceptable proposal. The components used to
calculate the land dedication requirement includes the average household size per dwelling unit data, the
park area standard, and the number of units in a proposed development. Given the average household
size and park area standard described above, the proposed parkland dedication requirement for the
various housing types is as follows:
i
I
KD N:CCBG-Par4 D,d:ca=�nr.T_nsr Fund Beard Ord--r re Park New,S:udv and CIP±QAn—bx Ord:nancei 1:-ill-doc
i
i
Single-Family Detached: 391 sq. ft.
Townhomes: 311 sq. ft.
Multi-Family Unit: 282 sq. ft. !
Mobile Home: 263 sq. ft. '
The current land dedication requirement is 350 sq. ft per dwelling unit. Consequently, for a hypothetical
subdivision containing 500 single family detached units, the parkland dedication requirement under the
proposed Quimby ordinance is 4.5 acres (500 units x 391 sq. ft.). Under the current ordinance, the
dedication requirement is 4.0 acres. Because the current dedication requirement does not adjust for
household type. developers of multifamily projects and mobile homes will dedicate less land for park and
recreational purposes under the proposed ordinance. i
Waiver for Affordable Housing Developments: At the May 1. 2007. public hearing. the Board directed
staff to revise the provision providing a 50 percent waiver of the Quimby fee and land dedication
requirements for affordable housing units to include inclusionary units under the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance (Chapter 822-4 of the County Ordinance Code). I
Sectiol VI of proposed Ordinance No. 2007-19 (see pages 2 and 3) has been revised by adding Section
(b) — Inclusionary Housing Units. As proposed. 50 percent of the Quimby fee and land dedication
requirements shall be waived for each rental unit and for each for-sale unit developed under the terms
and conditions of Section 822-4.410(a) and Section 822-4.410(b), respectively. In cases where the
develcper decides to pay the inclusionary in-lieu fee instead of constructing inclusionary units. 50 percent
of the Quimby fee and land dedication requirements shall be waived for the number of inclusionary units
for which the in-lieu fee is paid. The following example shows the financial impact of the proposed
waivers on a 100 unit for-sale development of single family detached homes. in west or central County,
when a developer constructs the affordable housing units pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing i
Ordinance and when the developer pays the in-lieu fee. i
Developer Constructs Inclusionary Units
Quimby
Fee/Unit Subtotal
Market Rate Units 85 $4,489 $ 381.565
Affordable Units 15 S2.245 $ 33.675
Total Quimby Fee: S 415.240
Developer Pays In-Lieu Fee:
I
Quimby
Fee/Unit Subtotal
I
Market Rate Units 85 $4.489 $ 381.565
Market Rate Units 15 S2._245 $ 33.675
In-Lieu Fee Paid
Total Quimby Fee: S 415.240 i
As the above example shows, the Park Impact Fee paid is the same whether or not the developer I
decides to construct the affordable units required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or if the
developer pays the in-lieu fee.
Residential Second Units: Also at the May 1, 2007. public hearing, the Board directed staff to exempt
second units from the Park Impact Fee as defined in Section 82-24.004 of the County Ordinance and
Gover-invent Code section 65852.2. A provision has been added at Section I and Section IV of proposed
Ordincance No. 2007-19, exempting second units.
Conclusion: In order to provide additional funds for new parks and rehabilitation of existing parks. staff
recommends amending the County's Park Dedication Ordinance to adjust dedication requirements and
fees to reflect average household sizes and changes in land values since 1990. The proposal to waive
50 percent of the land and fee requirements for certain affordable housing developments including units
constructed or in-lieu fees paid pursuant to the County's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will reduce the
total amount of Quimby fees collected. but the overall impact on the County's efforts to develop parks
and recreational facilities is expected to be minimal.
i
ISD I CE-BG Park D_dica%ei-Trrr Pend 3eard Order re Park\exu�S:nd�and CIP:Quribv Ordinance}5 1
i
i
Attachments:
1. Park Impact Fee Nexus Study dated February 2007
2. Ordinance No. 2007-19
3. Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration
4. Initial Study (Environmental Checklist Form), dated April 3. 2007 i
5. Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration
6. Notice of Public Hearing published April 20 and 23, 2007
7. Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of a Public Hearing
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
KD H:CDBG Park Dedttztr_a Trust rued Bard Order re Pak revs Stud%and CP:Qe:r.bx Ordinance, 1=.07 daz i
i
i
�o I
OkDIN NCE NO. '_'00%-19
(_amendments to Park Dedication Requirements)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical i
footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance
Code):
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance repeals Division 920, Park Dedications. section
4.004 in its entirety. amends section 920-4.006, to conform to Government Code section 66477;
amends section 920-6.202. to increase land dedication requirements and exempt second units
from the imposition of dedication and fee requirements; amends section 920-6.204. to increase
the amount of fees required in lieu of land dedication; adds section 920-6.208,to provide for
partial waivers of the dedication and fee requirements for specified affordable housing units and
inclusionary units, and amends section 920-6.602.to increase the amount of fees required in lieu
of land dedication within the territorial jurisdiction of the East County Regional Planning
Commission.
SECTIO\II. Section 920-4.004 is repealed in its entirety. (Ord. 2007-19, § 2, 84-46 § 1 (part),
79-5).
SECTION III. Section 920-4.006 is amended to read:
I
9.204.006 Exemptions and proviso.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision(b) of this section. the provisions of this
division do not appy to:
(1) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential
purposes. j
('-) Commercial or industrial subdivisions.
(3) Condominium projects or stock cooperatives that consist of the subdiyisior of j
airspace in an existing apartment building that is more than five years old when no new dwelling �
units are added.
(b) Provided. however. that if a building permit is requested for construction of a
residential structure o-structures on one or more o*the parcels exempted by subsection WH_i of �
this section. and such request is made within four year of approval of the parcel map. the fee
shall be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of i
such permit. (Ord. 2007-19. 3. 84-46 1 (pan), -8-5). i
I
I
i
Ordinance No. 200•-19 i
- 1 -
i
I
80%of the area median income: or(2) ownership units affordable to households earning less
than 120% of the area median income. as a condition of such waiver, the developer shall enter
into a regulatory agreement with the Counn°. guaranteeing the use, occupancy, affordability, and
term of affordability of such divellina units. Rental units for which a waiver is granted under this
section shall be restricted to tha:use for a minimum of 55 years. Oumership units for which a
I
waiver is granted under this section shall be restricted to that use for a minimum of 30 v_ ears.
(Ord. 2007-19, § 6).
(b)Inclusionary Housing Units. In lieu of the land dedication and fee waiver for
affordable housing units as set forth in subdivision (a), developments that are subject to Chapter
82 2-4 of this Code shall be eligible for a partial waiver of land dedication and fee requirements.
as follows: �
(1) Fifty percent of the land dedication and fee requirements shall be waived for each
rental unit to be developed and rented as an inclusionary unit under the terms and conditions of
Section 822-4.410(a) of this Code.
(2) Fifty percent of the land dedication and fee requirements shall be waived for each i
for--sale unit to be developed and sold as an inclusionary unit under the terms and conditions of
Section 822-4.410(b) of this Code.
(3) If a fee is paid in lieu of constructing some or all inclusionary units in a
development,pursuant to Section 82244.404 of this Code, 50 percent of the land dedication and
fee requirements shall be waived for the number of inclusionan,units for which the in-Iieu fee is
paid.
STCTIO'\N71. Section 920-6.602 is amended to read:
9 0-6.602 Amount of fee.
Within the territory in the unincorporated area of this county within the territorial
iurisdiction of the East County Reaional Planning Commission, described in Section 26-2.1 L,
when fees are to be paid in lieu of land dedication. the total fee shall be calculated by multipixing
the number of dwellinc,units to be included in the development by the applicable fee per unit, as I
follows:
i
Dwelling Unit Fee/ nit
Single-FamilvDetached S3.142
Townhome S2.499
Multi-Family Unit S2.263 I
Mobile Home S2.109
(Ord. 200_-19 § -. 90-6 2. 8_-8 i 21.
I
I
I
I
i
Ordinance No. 2007-19
i
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA i
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
FEBRUARY 2007
FNAL REPORT
_
PREPARED EOR:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i
= CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P?=PARED 3Y:
- - : "ConsuELingGroeap
4745 Manaeis Boulevard
Fairfield.CA 94534
Phone 707.430.4300
Fax 70,-7.''1 30."31
www.sci-cg.com
i
i
I
i
Paye
I
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by SCI Consulting Group (formeriy Shilts Consultants, Inc.)
under contract with the County of Contra Costa. i
The work was accomplished under the general direction of Robert Calkins. CDBG Program
Manager with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
We would also like to acknowledge special efforts made by particular County staff:
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department
John Kopchik. Community Development Department
Abigail Fateman, Community Development Department i
Hillary Heard, Community Development Department
Lisa Carnahan, Public Works Department
Dave Bdmonds. Public Works Department
Dante Morabe, Public Works Department
W;ck Smith; Land Information Systems
Jim Kennedy, Community Development Department
Linda Wilcox, Office of the County Counsel
I
i
I
I
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study,2007 s_
Ceara o`Centra Costa "°Consuttinavroup
Paae ii
Table of Contents
SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................1
1.1 Summary of General Findings........................................................................................ 2
1.2 Summary of Recommendations...................................................................................... 3
1.3 Organization of the Study............................................................................................... 4
SECTION 2. PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEES (QUIMBY)..................5
2.1 Parkland Standard.......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Parkland Dedication Requirement(Quimby)................................................................... o
2.3 Parkiand Acquisition Costs per Capita............................................................................ 7
2.4 In-Lieu Fees(Quimby)....................................................................................................8
SECTION 3. PARK IMPACT FEES(AB 1600).............................................................................9
3.1 Parkland Acquisition Costs per Capita............................................................................ 9
3.2 Parkland Development Cost per Capita.........................................................................10
3.3 Community Use Facilities Cost per Capita.....................................................................11
3.4 Support Facilities Cost per Capita ...............................................:.................................12
3.5 Park impact Fees Calculation........................................................................................13
3.6 Park Impact Fees Credit.......................................................................
3.7 Nexus Findings..............................................................................................................15
SECTION 4. APPENDICES........................................................................................................17
Appendix A. Contra Costa County Owned Park Inventory....................................................18
Appendix B. Recent Vacant Land Sales(Contra Costa County)...........................................19
Appendix C. Average Household Size by Housing Type ......................................................23 ._
Appendix D. Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction (SFR Fees Only)
3 Appendix E. Contra Costa County Park Capital improvement Plan......................................25
F-
F '
b
a `
�A
y
55 y�
.Y Y-
�d3
i
3�
i'
Park fmnact Fee Nexus Study.2007 --
—ons—:,aJ�ty'C1'.�.aaifE COSio --- t:na G roup �_-
i
Pace iii
List of Tables
Table 1 —Recommended Parkiand Dedication Requirement(Quimby)............................................3 i
Table 2—Recommended In-Lieu Fees(Quimby) .............................................................................3
Table 3—Recommended Park Impact Fees.....................................................................................4
Table 4—Parkland Dedication Requirement.....................................................................................o
Table 5—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita(West i Central County)..........................................7
Table o—Parkiand Acquisition Cost per Capita(East County).........................................................7
Table 7—In Lieu Fees(West/Central County)................................................................................8
Table 8—In-Lieu Fees(East County)...............................................................................................8
Table 9—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita..............................................................................10
Table 10—Parkiand Development Cost per Capita........................................................................10
Table 11 —Community Use Facilities per Capita Standard.............................................................11
Table 12—Community Use Facilities Cost per Capita....................................................................11
Table 13—Support Facilities per Capita Standard..........................................................................12
Table 14—Support Facilities Cost per Capita.................................................................................12
Table 15—Park Impact Fees Cost Components(West;Central County)......................................13
Table 10—Park Impact Fees (East County)...................................................................................14
Table 17—Summary of Park Impact Fees......................................................................................14
Table 18—Contra Costa County Owned Park Inventory.................................................................18
Table 19—Vacant Land Valuation..................................................................................................19
Table 20—Average Household Size by Housing Type...................................................................23
Table 21 —Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction, 2007..............................................................24
I
i
I
I
Park impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 -
1.cun of M—ta Costa _` Consuttingi-pup
R
a
Face 1 -
d
a
Section 1. Executive Summary
This Falk Impact Fees Nexus Study(`Study')was prepared pursuant to the `Mitigation Fee Acf as l
1`
found in Government Code§60^000 net. seq. and the"Quimby Act" as codified in. Government Code
§ 66477. The purpose of this Study is to establish the legal and policy basis for calculating the
imposition of park impact fees on new residential development within the unincorporated areas of
Contra Costa County(`County"). g`
The County is initiating preparation of a Parks and Trails Master Paan (`�"aster Pian°) to provide a
�.
`comprehensive and feasible vision" of the park and recreational facility needs of the current and
future residents of the unincorporated areas of the County. in order to provide adequate funding to f
achieve these long-term objectives, this Study proposes two types of park fees.
F
First. the County's parkiand dedication requirement and in-iieu fees are updated to reflect current r
land values and the County's maximum allowable park acreage per capita standard under the
Quimby Act. The land andlor fees ('Quimby Act in lieu fees') are required as a condition of `
` subdivsion map approval and may be used to develop new or rehabilitate existing parks or
r recreational facilities.
i
Secondly, a park impact fee. as authorized by the passage of A3 1600 (known as the Mitigation
i-
Fee Act). is proposed to finance the costs of park improvements to serve new development. in
general, these fees may only be used to develop new park or recreational facilities. They are
justified as an offset to the future impact of residential development on the County's existing park
and recreational facilities.
The combination of Quimby Act fees and park impact fees imposed on new residential
development provides a sound and comprehensive park fee program. The imposition of both fees
ensures that financial impact from all residential development (subdivided or non-subdivided
projects) on County parks and recreational facilities are fully recovered. Furthermore, the parkland
dedication requirement under the Quimby Act allows the County to require the dedication of land
for park facilities. With only Quimby in-iieu fees in place, the County could only accept fees for the
costa land accuisition and purchase the land via willing sellers. Moreover. the park impact fees
also provide for park deveiopmeni costs, inciuding the costs of community use facilities;
administrative facilities and maintenance facilities. Under the Quimby Act, oniy the cost of land
acquisition is allowed in the calculation."
_vec Min land va`.;ie is the ory ccs:oo conen:ahviecl:n ine calcuincn o`fie Ou;mby IR-I eu fee.reverue from-
shell fees may oe scent or 3arktand accl:isi c7 and deV :oC?:e GT 9eY!D2rks Gr"ell"cDII':aiion Of eXEsilflo Da(;(5.
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 =- -
Counb of Contra Costa --"- ;onsureinai pup
i
Gaye 2
Procedurally, this Study recommends that the County subject all residential development to the
park impact fee and that residential development subject to the Quimby Act receive a credit against
the park impact fee equal to the value of land dedicated or fees paid in-lieu of dedication.
Since the need for park and recreational services is inherently population-driven, this Nexus Study
utilizes a per capita standard-based methodology to calculate the County's park impact fees. '
Under this method, the cost components are first defined on a per capita basis. The per capita
costs are based on average unit costs from the Parks CIP and level of service (`LOS") standards.
The total per capita costs for park and recreation facilities needed for new residential development
are then applied to four residential land uses according their respective average household
popuiation to estabiish a cost'fee per unit.
1.1 Summary of General Findings
Based on a review of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Pian ( Parks CIP"). the I
General Plan, and applicable County ordinances, the following general findings are presented:
1. The Quimby Act alloys for a higher standard than 3.0 acres for every 1.000 residents if the
jurisdiction provides a higher acreage per capita. However, the County historically has
provided less than 3.0 acres; therefore, the minimum standards of 3.0 park acres per
1.000 population will be used in this Study.
2. The Parks CIP outlines new parks to be constructed and improvements at existing parks
over the next five years to serve existing residents and new residents from new
development. According to the Parks CIP, the average cost of new park construction is
S298,413 per acre and the average cost of park improvements at existing parks is
$301,123 per acre.
3. The Countys parkiand dedication requirement and in-lieu fee ordinance has not been
updated since 1990. Pursuant to Chapter 920-0" of the County Ordinance Code. the
County currently requires 350 square feet of land per new dwelling unit to be dedicated for i
Dark and recreational purposes. In subdivisions containing fewer than 50 parcels. only the
payment of fees is required. Those fees are currently S2.000 per dwelling unit: except for
East County,where the fee is$1.350 per dwelling unit.
4. The County's current park dedication requirement and in-lieu fees are based on 1990 U.S.
Census foures for average household size: land values of 5145.000 (`!vest and Central
County) and S75.000 (East County); and include park deveiopment costs of S85.000 per
acre.
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study,2007 -
�curt._ot Contra�esta ___:onsuttinai—roup
Pace 3
1.2 Summary of Recommendations 1
t-
Based on the findings presented in the Study,the folioaving recommendations are presented:
1. The County's parkland dedication requirement ordinance should be amended to reflect
average household size, based on the 2000 U.S. Census, of the four housing types shown F=
below.
Table 1 —Recommended Parkland Dedication Requirement(Quimby)
Quimby Park Dedication
Requirement(Sq.Ft per ,-
Housing Types Dwelling Unit) t
Single-Family Detached 391
t
To::nhomes 311
t uai-Fa nily Unit 282
f
Mobile Home 283 -
i-
2. The County's in-lieu fees ordinance should be amended to reflect changes in land values
[ and the average household size (based on the 2000 U.S. Census) for the four housing (_
types shown below. Since land costs in the eastern areas of the County were found to be
relatively lower than the rest of the County, separate in-iieu fees for East Contra Costa
County should be maintained. The recommended in-lieu fees are presented in the
following table.
Table 2—Recommended In-Lieu Fees (Quimby)
Quimby In-Lieu Fee
(Central and West Quimby In-Lieu Fee
Housing Types County) (East County)
Si-igie-FamhyDetached S4489 53.142
Townnomes 53,571 52.499
MuJ1_Fam�iy Unit 53.233 S2.233
t:obile home S3.C14 S2.109
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study,2007
:01'11,.of CcTra Costa -=
- I
Pa;e 4
3. The County should establish new park impact fees to fairly allocate the costs of park
development to all new residential development. The following park impact fees for the
County are recommended:
Table 3—Recommended Park Impact Fees
Park Impact Fees per Dwelling Unit
West 1 Central Contra East Contra
Categories Costa County Costa County
Sncle-Family Detached 57.238 55.801
To=horres 55.757 54.686
Multi-Farniiy Unit 55.213 54.243
Vi obi!e Home 3:.850 53.955
Second Un;ts S2.419 51.969
4. If the County requires a developer; as a condition of project approval,to dedicate parkland,
to pay fees in-lieu of parkland dedication and or construct facilities or improvements. the
park impact fees imposed on that development project should be adjusted to reflect a
credit for the cost of the dedicated parkland, facilities or improvements constructed, or
amount of fees paid in-lieu of parkland dedication by the developer.
5. The parkland dedication requirement and in-lieu fees should be adopted and implemented
in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Quimby Fact (Gov. Code, § 66477 et.
sea).
6. The County's neva park impact fees should be adopted and implemented in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act(Gov. Code. §66000 et. seq.). �
i
1.3 Organization of the Study
This Study has four sections and is organized as follows:
• Section 1 provides a general summary of findings and recommendations.
• Section 2 updates the County's park dedication requirement and in lieu fee pursuant to the
Quimby Act.
• Section 3 caicuiates park impact fees as authorized by the Mitigation Fee Fact.
• Section 4 includes the appendices to the Study.
i
Park Imoact Fee Nexus Study.2007
ount�cf CommaDos _ onsutting`rouA
E_
Pace 5 --
ti-
Section 2. Park Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fees (Quimby)
t
The Government Code contains specific enabling legislation for the acquisition and development of
community and neighborhood parks by a city or county. This legislation, codified as Section 60477
of the Government Code and known commonly as the `Quimby Act," establishes criteria for
charging new development for park facilities based on specific park standards. This Section
presents the calculation of the park dedication requirement and in-lieu fees based on the per capita =
cost of land acquisition in West'Central County and East County for different residential land uses _
l t
{ in the County. _
r
2.1 Parkland Standard
Based on the County's current park inventory.the County currently owns approximately 75.7 acres
of developed parkland. This represents a ratio of 0.5 acres of County owned and developed
parkland for every 1.000 people in the unincorporated a-eas of the County.z Under the Quimby
Act. "the dedication of land; or payment of fees; or both; cannot exceed the proportionate amount
necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1.000 persons residing within the subdivision. _
unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit.` Though
not relevant to unincorporated Contra Costa County, if existing park area exceeds three acres per 4
1.000 persons. the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to
exceed five acres per 1.000 persons residing within a subdivision.3
t--
Since the County's existing park area for the unincorporated areas is less than 3.0 acres per 1.000 E
residents. the County's maximum dedication andor fee allowed under the Quimby Act is three
acres of parkland for every 1000 persons.
(Appendix A presents the County's owned parkland inventory.)
i
a The Couny also owns 39.2 acres of undeve^ped parkland. However. he Quimby Act alloys Tor only deveiooed
parkland to be inaiuded in the ca°cu:a icn of the exlszing cat.to '.10.301 copi.atlon ratic.
vova.mmen:0coe Q 66-47.+ia it -
Park impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
onSutiingL.roU
Coun- of Con--a Cosmo P
Page o
2.2 Parkland Dedication Requirement(Quimby)
I
Based on the minimum per capita standard of 3 acres per 1.000 residents allowed by the Quimby
Act,the formula for calculating the dedication of land for the County is as follows:
P-000sed Average .003
Number o'Units X Household Size X (3 Acres per 1.000
by-ousing T ype by Housing Type Popu:ation)
Table 4 presents the parkland dedication requirement on a square footage per housing type basis.
As detailed in Appendix C; the average number of persons per dwelling unit is determined on the
basis of the housing type and the average household size as of the 2000 U.S. Census.
Table 4—Parkland Dedication Requirement
Average Allowable Standard
Household Size (3 Acres per 1.000 Allowable Sq.Ft.
Housing Type per Dwelling Unit Population) per Dwelling Unit
Sipa Family Detached 2.91-93 0.003 3?1
I oymnomes 2.380 0.003 311
NWIti-Family emit 2.4.55 0.003 282
M.cbiie Home 2.0011-9 0.003 2633 i
For example, a single-family subdivision of 500 detached units would require a 4.5 acre land
dedication for park and recreational facilities.
i
500 ?3 1 H 500 Sq.R or 4.5
Single-Famiiy X Al:owabie Sq. Ft _ Acres of Dedication
Detached per Single-=amlly Parkland for:ne i
Residential Units Detacned Unit Subdivisicr.
I
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study,2007
Iuryof'c .r3 osta onsultinaGroup
Page 7
2.3 Parkland Acquisition Costs per Capita
Table 5 below presents the per capita cost for parkland acquisition based on 'land acquisition cost
estimates from the Parks CIP. As shown; land value for West and Central County is estimated to
be S500.000 per acre. However, in the eastern areas of the County, land values are relatively
lower than other areas of the County. Therefore, as shown in Table 6, the per capita cost for
parkland acquisition in East Contra Costa County assumes a land value of S350.000.per acre.
Arguments for higher land costs can be made; however: the presented amounts per acre appear
be the most appropriate conservative figures for the purposes of this Study.;
Table 5—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita (West 1 Central County)
Acres per 1,000 Acres per Land Cost
Fee Component PopulationCapita' Cost Per Acre per Capita
Parklano Aaquisiton 3.0 0.003 5500.003 51.500
Noir
3ased oa 3.0 acres.ner 1.0 tooL;aO'cr Cc^cc•s,arcard.
Table 6—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita (East County)
Land Cost Per
Acres per 1.000 Acres per Acre(east Cost
Fee Component Population' Capita Contra Costa) per Capita =_
Parivand Acquisi ion 3.0 0.033 5350.000 5;.050
N--,e:-
_asec on 3.:aces pe- cc.c ^COn Qj-mq s:a".Ca".^. -
`Assumed lard values are bases or vasa"t;and"awes inCortra:Cs:a Cour-tv as_Gresen eC in me Oonv'O Costa
Counts°ares^.anal imcrovement Pia and Apnendix.E this Study.
=r
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 _= '—- --
1c�nry of Con-a Cosa :onsuitingCa-pun
i
Pace 8 i
2.4 In-Lieu Fees (Quimby)
The following tables present the calculatior of the in-lieu fees based on the per capita land cost
from Section 2.3.5 As previously mentioned, land costs in the eastern areas of the County were i
found to be relatively lower than the rest of the County. Therefore, separate in-lieu fees for East
Contra Costa County are necessary. Pursuant to the Quimby Act; such fees may be used for
parkland acquisition, park development and the rehabilitation of existing park and recreational i
facilities.
i
Table 7—In Lieu Fees(West 1 Central County)
Average
Household Size Park Acquisition In-Lieu Fees per
Housing Type per Dwelling Unit Cost per Capita Dwelling Unit
Sino!e-Famiiy Detached 2.993 S1.500 S4.489 j
Townnomes 2.380 S1.500 S3.571 I
k!uft-Family Unit 2.155 S1.500 S3.233
M--bi!e Home 2.0009 51.500 53.014
I
Table 8—In-Lieu Fees(East County)
I
Average
Household Size Park Acquisition In-Lieu Fees per
Housing Type per Dwelling Unit Cost per Capita Dwelling Unit i
Single-Family Detached 2.993 S1.050 53,142
Tovmnomes 2.380 S1.050 S2.499
Multi-Family Uni: 2.155 S1.050 S2.2603
Mobile Home 2.009 S1.050 S2.109
i
-'cr cao-aa lend coSm are baseo unci-recent va:a9'laic saes In Ccntra COSta CoinTr as crese^ti i ADCerim S3.
i
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
Carat{o:Contra Ocst_
_-- =�onsutiinaGroup
E
e
Paae c
Section 3. Park Impact Fees (AB 1600)
This Section presents the calculation of the park impact fees based on the per capita cost for
acquisition, development of park; community use. and support facilities and associated costs for
j
the different residential land uses in the County.
In order to impose such fees, this Section will demonstrate that a reasonable relationship or
j "nexus exists between new development that occurs within the unincorporated areas of the
County and the need for additional developed parkland and recreational facilities as a result of new
development. More specifically, this Study wili present findings in order to meet the procedural
requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. also known as AB 1000.which are as follows:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee.
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type
of development project on which the fee is imposed.
r 4. Determine how there is a reasonabie relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of the pubiic facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the --
development on which the fee is imposed.
3.1 Parkland Acquisition Costs per Capita
Because the Quimby Act applies only to subdivisions. the acquisition of parkland to serve the
residents from non-subdivision projects (e.g., apartment projects, single units on existing parcels or
residential second units) must be handled though park impact fees. On the following page, Table
9 summaries the per capita cost of acquiring parkland in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Agair, parkland acquisition costs are based on iand vaiue estimates of S500.000 Der acro for!Nest
and Central County and S350.000 per acre for cast County from the Parks CIP. As shown.the 3.0
g acre per 1.000 population standard is multiplied by the estimated per acre cost to arrive at a per
capita cost for each County area.
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 '— -
• i
Pace 10
Table 9—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita
Land Cost Per I
Parkland Acquisition Acres per 1,000 Acres per Acre(East Cost
Fee Component Population' Capita Contra Costa) per Capita
Vies' Central Courcy 3.0 0.003 S5c0.000 $1.500
East County 3.0 0.003 S350.000 S1.050
ticr�:
Based cr.3.0 acres pa-1 a'eco-Jabon stardarc iron me Cocnty-:�ar<s CR
Based or vaz;ar.:iaro estba es kcrn the.�,C]rt DarKS'1iF-
3.2 Parkland Development Cost per Capita
Table 10 calculates the per capita cost of providing future park development in the unincorporated
areas of the County. As presented, the 3.0 acre per 1.000 population level of service standard is
multiplied by the average per acre cost for parkland development to arrive at a per capita cos .=
The average park development cost per acre shown represents average estimated current dollar
costs for typical neighborhood park improvements similar to those in existing County parrs. Any
facilities other than restrooms, such as community centers or support facilities, are included as
separate cost components.
Table 10—Parkland Development Cost per Capita
I
Average Park
Acres per 1.000 Acres per Development Cost
Fee Component Population' Capita' Cost per Acre t per Capita
I
Parkiand Develooment 3.0 0.003 S298.413 S895.24
S00xe- ccr'ra costa ou-t ra"KS:vaniial vorwe-neat P a."
tiC S:
Based or.3.0 acres oer'0103 coa IX.on sia--.ard nom Cc:rw=ar.KS CIP.
IVera a OeW CafK,CeVe:JCT07l CCS:oe:2Cre T!o"ire-C 'Jni:�a FS
i
Tre average oary de`.'e OGTeri LQSt oe -acre is imm tpe Parks CIP.
o.
i
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 — ----
os-ity c contra Costa :onsuttinairoup
r Fac='1
_ 3.3 Community Use Facilities Cost per Capita
- The residents in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County currently have use of three
County-owned community use facilities.' As shown in Table 11, these facilities provide 7.200
_ square feet of useable space to the unincorporated area residents served by the County.
Therefore. the existing leve'- of service for community use facilities is 45.8 square feet per 1.000
residents.
4_ Table 11 —Community Use Facilities per Capita Standard
Existing Sq.Ft.
_ Existing Space Current per 1,000
`- Facility per Sq.Ft. Population Population
Crcaett Comm::nity Herter 4.000 ,5',350 25.4
z
Lefty uomez Recreation Bu'.Iding 800 157.350 5.1
x "ontara Bav Parc Community Center 2.400 1.57.350 15.3
Total Community Use Facilities 7.200 45.8
1 - Scurce: a 71L.a -os aCc:rty P biic':aDrks Qecam-Ment
ice=
The Parks CID identifies four new community centers to be constructed by 2011. Based on this
existing level of service and using the average construction cost of S300 per square foot from the
Parks CIP. the total cost per capita is S13.75 (or $13,750 per 1.000 newresidents in the County
unincorporated areas).e
Table 12—Community Use Facilities Cost per Capita
Construction
- Level of Service Cost Cost Per
Fee Component Standard per Sq.Ft.' Capita`
Community Use Facilities 45.8 so.ft per:.000 Dopuiat'.on 5300 S13 7.5
1cca:
Ave.33e:Cia-.M7S:%C C•1 CCS1 re SCJare:CSC:SCF COT'f1U:'it,"Q a-:il:y e'a"KS h.--.
CDus:ruVi.cn cos:ce"S-L-.mL_:a iCA Dy the exis::rg lure:of ser.-a De"mnna
-The'and'ities used to-azu.'am the exis:mg level of service Der ca:•Ita:s I'm ed to facilities owned by the Cou ty. 7ne
Coun^r also has faclln IDlnt-Use aoree:nents frith otner Dubi;c acenaes.
M
n-
J'rce all C:the exls:.0 CCMMUnity Use_W:ilibes are IoC3•
Page 12
i
3.4 Support Facilities Cost per Capita
As the County's population grows, the County's administrative and maintenance facilities will be
impacted. requiring increased space to serve the new residents of the unincorporated areas of the
County. Table 13 shows the approximate existing level of service per 1.000 residents for
administrative and maintenance park facilities.
Table 13—Support Facilities per Capita Standard
Existing Sq.Ft,
Existing Space Current per 1,000
Facility per Sq.Ft. Population Population I
i
Park Administ-alive=acilities 2_.709 157.350 17.2 l
i
Park Maintenance Faciiiiies 2.890 157.350 17.8
Total Support Facilities 5.500 35.0
Scu-ce: ^.CCira Corta O unty r'LCJc..crks Deoa..rne^.t '
Nees:
I re cstiMated sci"moiaae c'ao-i'.!stratNe Facat!e 'epresc^aa the tC:a-area Cw;:Cied GV I
Specie Dis:.^•+S Ir''MC oLn_iic'i Crr.S 6c dir.,ar.J Geners:Jen css Jeca—men:cEces.
i
The Parks CIP identifies a new maintenance facility and a new administrative facility to be
constructed within the next five years. As shown. the County will require an additional 35.0 square
feet of support facilities per 1.000 new residents to maintain the existing level of support facilities
currently provided by the County. Based on the average construction cost of S276 per square foot
from the Park CIP; the total cost per capita is S9.0-6 for S9.660 per 1.000 new residents in the
County unincorporated area).
Table 14—Support Facilities Cost per Capita
Construction Cost
Fee Components Level of Service Standard Cost Per Sq.Ft. per Capita'
Park Aom:nis'rative=ac'.lit!es 17.2 sq.ft.per 1.000 pon dation 5276 S4.74
Perk Maintenance=acilities 17.8 se.ft.per'. 300 DoDuiation auo r.92
Total Support Facilty Costs $9.66
No-es:
Ave-ale ccns:[q cn cos;Der sc.f.D!JicD"ed tei ne ex'svrio!evel se%:ce oer car;:= I
i
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
nounri of Contra:ossa
-onsuttinatGrou
z -
g _
e
Pace 13
A
1 3.5 Park Impact Fees Calculation
a - _
Tables 15 and 16 presents the calculation of the park impact fees based on the per capita cost
A components for West Central County and East County. The average household size for the four
Jhousing types is multiplied by the per capita cost for parkland acquisition, parkland deveicpment;
community uses facilities and support facilities costs to arrive at the park impact fees per dwelling
unit.`
This Study also incorporates the addition of another residential unit to an existing property as a fifth
category (abeled as "Second Residential Units.") Insufficient data exists to calculate the average
C
'-$ household occupancy of second residential units in the County; therefore: a conservative estimate
of 1.0 person per unit is utilized.
Table 15—Park Impact Fees Cost Components (West 1 Central County)
Per Capita Cost Components
Park Impact -
=r Parkland Parkland Community Support Fees per
-Y Categories Acquisition Development Use Facilities Facilities Dwelling Unit'
Sin_ie Family Detached 5=.488.33 52.679.11 S41-14 528.9' $7.238
i ovmnomes S3.570.68 52.131.07 S32.72 S22.99 $5.757
Iv'u'.ti-FamiiyUnit 53.233.19 S1.929.65 529.33 520.82 $5.213
Mobile Home Uni; S3.0 31.57 „1.798.58 S27.62 S19-41 $4.859
Seco^d Res;dentia Units S'-500.00 S895.24 S13.75 S9.9-3 S2.419
Nees:
The fees are.-J=ed:c the nearest cc 1a;.
a
^Coenax C G:wlCes?'le caicumation of the averace nuse^old sme Tor each housing iyP_. --
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 — F
v
o�ni of"o-:ra Cosa
X �_=--onsuttingv roup '-
-a
I _ _
- I
Pace 14
I
Table 16—Park Impact Fees(East County)
i
Per Capita Cost Components
Park Impact
Parkland Parkland Community Support Fees per
Categories Acquisition Development Use Facilities Facilities Dwelling Unit'
Sinale Family Detached S3.142.25 S2.679.11 54;.14 S28.91 S5.891
Tovmhomes 52.499.47 S2.131.07 S32.72 S22.99 54.686
1:4u!ti-Famiiy Unit S2.263.23 S1.0.29.65 S29.63 S20.82 $4,243
Mebiie home Uiit 52.109.50 S1 798.56 527.62 519.41 $3.955
Second Residential Units 51.050.00 S895.24 513.75 59.66 $1,969
Noes
' The Sees we ro--nded is the nea est aoliar.
A summary of the park impact fees for West Central County and =ast County are presented in the
table below.
Table 17—Summary of Park Impact Fees
Park Impact Fees per Dwelling Unit
West I Central Contra East Contra
Categories Costa County Costa County
Single=amity Detached 57.238 S5.89 i
Tovmncmes Q9.757 S4.686
Muhl-Family Unit 55.23 S4.243
Mobiie home S4.859 S3.955
Second Units 52.419 S1.969
I ne fees are rounded tc be nea-es!co':ar.
3.6 Park Impact Fees Credit
If the County requires a developer, as a condition of approval of a development prod ct.to dedicate
parkland, to pay fees in-lieu of parkland dedication and.or to construct facilities or improvements.
the park impact fees imposed on that development project should be adjusted to reflect a credit for
the cost of the dedicated parkiand, facilities or improvements constructed. or amount of fees paid
in-lieu of parkland dedication by the developer.
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 =-�— –
County o:Contra Costa =-C Consuttinai:roup
A
=i
3.7 Nexus Findings
This sub-section frames the results of Section 3 in terms of the leaisiated requirements to
demonstrate the legal justification of the park impact fees.. The justification of the park impact fees
on new development must provide information as set forh in Government Code § 66000 et seq.
The requirements are discussed below.
i
.3
3
•F
t Purpose of Fees _=
The purpose of the park impact fees are to acquire and develop parkland, improve existing parks =
and recreation facilities and provide recreational and community use and support facilities to meet
the needs of the new residential population within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa
County.
Use of Fees
The park impact fee proceeds will be used for(1) parkland acquisition and (2) the development of
the park and recreational improvements identified in the Parks PIP (including but not limited to
costs of design. construction and associated California =nvironmental Quality Act compliance
activities). The park impact fee proceeds may not be used to fund park maintenance or operational
costs.
Relationship Between Use of Fees and Type of Development =-
New residential development in the unincorporated areas of the County will create additional
demand for parks and recreational services. In order to adequately serve additional population to
be housed in new development, neer park and recreation facilities and support facilities are needed
and existing parks need to be improved to accommodate the additional demand for parks and
recreation services generated by new development. The new park and park rehabilitation projects
are identified in the Parks CIP. The use of the park impact fees (acquisition, construction and
rehabilitation of park and recreational facilities) is therefore reasonably related to the type of _-
development project(new residential development) upon which the fee will be imposed.
Relationship Between the Need for Improvements and Type of Development
Since the need for park and recreational services is inherently population-driver:. new residents
from new development will increase the demand for park and recreational services and the =
associated need for park and recreational faciiities tc serve them. To meet this additional demand.
new paries should be constructed and existing parks should be rehabilitated so they car. -_
accommodate additiona'. increased use. Therefore, a reasonable relationship exists between the =_
need-for new and rehabilitated park and recreational facilities and the new residential development
projects upon which the park impact fee wilt be imposed. _° -
v e
Park Imoact Fee Nexus Study.2007 =_
cant of 0cn ra C3sta -onsuttingGr oup
Pam 16
Relationship Between the Amount of the Fees and the Costs Attributable to New Development
The cost of park and recreational facility improvements attributable to a unit of residential
development are defined on a cost per capita basis and based on average unit costs from the
Parks UP and the County s level of service standards for providing such facilities. The park impact
fee is determined by applying the total cost per capita to four residential. land uses according to
their respective average household size. There is therefore a reasonable relationship between the
amount of the fees and the costs of the park and recreational facilities attributable to the neer
residential development upon which the fee will be imposed.
i
i
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study,2007 = —
:cunt,o`vontra-.Os-La On Slaiirigiy ro UD
I
.g
=1
6-_
F
Paae 17 ,
Section 4. Appendices '
t
Appendix A. Contra Costa County Ovmed Park Inventory
F-
Appendix B. Recent Vacant Land Sales(Contra Costa County)
Appendix C. -Average Household Size per Housing Type
Appendix D. Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction (SFR Fees Only)
Appendix E. Contra Costa County Park Caaitai improvement Plan t`
s-
t
F-
3
3
i-
5
l-
g
l
1
C
}
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 �—
...oC:1N Of Comm 0--s:a = %onsutt:noisroup
t
i-
i
Paae 18
I
Appendix A. Contra Costa County Owned Park Inventory
I
Table 18—Contra Costa County Owned Park Inventory i
Park Name Acreage Location
Crockett Community Center 0.6 Crockett
Lefty Gomez Recreation Building 11.0 Rodeo
Montalvin Park 7.0 San Pablo
I
Momara Bay Park Community Center 4.0 San Pabo
North Richmond Bal:=field 3.5 Richmond
Rodeo Creek Trail 2.5 Rodeo
AiamoElementary Schoo!and Park 2.5 Alamc
Clyde Park 2.0 Cryae I
Hap'Magee Par.., 16.3 Danviile
Livoma Park 4.4 Ala-no
'Mane Porter ParK 0.2 Clyde
Comex Park 10.0 Discovery Bay
Lynbrook Park 4.1 Bay Point
Siiier Park 6.4 Discovery Bay
Boey r Park 0.5 Bay Point
Hickory Meadows Park 0.3 Bay Point
Viewvoirt Park 0.3 Bav Point
Total County Developed Parkland 75.7
Sou-c' �..^.J9;`i v CDD:fa vo5rc.�UD��C::CfrS DE7aGment
I
i
I
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 —
I . - �_-. onsuttinni:.-oup I
unt;,or: on:ra Cosia
t "raae
Appendix B. Recent Vacant Land Sales (Contra Costa County)
C
Table 19-Vacant Land Valuation
Average
Location Price per Price per Sq.
Sale Property Description city Quadrant Sales Date Sales Price Acres Acre Ft
1 Site fcr 6SFR Lc; rerc:res '?lest Jar-33 S20-5553 21 -910 44 521.81
SFF.Sre He cues est ,Aad 03 ,.5.163 t25 £t 5315533 S'.4.`.3
34 2C ur Sctd vis:on Sire ret: e : ' r-02 S5036 2 8.261 S 2.77
25 S=R'_o: _. 9cra w Jai-03 52783 GS0 52 _938 83. S:2.3'
So-cc^ n rc Si:E S•ee Sert3! " Zo'. 55.83. S .5
2 S!n- Tenar.:Lor:RisE Sire c_asa t:H-G cert.o Feb^„4 525:CL'c :.3 51 C'.2."0 525.25
Sits fc,146 VUL=ULFamil wits ..cn:or• Centre! dr-^.2 S 0fn: " _ 4S S
,.6 91 .6 zeal
d is ZcrEc La' -cccor Cen::a �3 526.500 0.3 S862.252 51979
33 LcI SI ad:rsio^SIE r'art two Cena. Jan-02 S?.57 0 3.' S5'4.444 511 81
ii __FR Lois 'A'a:nu:Sroc_i Censa Jan-Cl S?640.0 5 S4:9.127 595_
&FRJ!ie Via'rL': rEE? �e:73 c3P 4 S?SJ,-ULv S37:9.8-43 58:?Z
,. D' )ZCned Res.n.'rea--e Vzmez Sen:'a` �cV-"v 53.acl1 OC: 96 C-4-32' 58.18 -
c D red �.. :CG91�'�
-4 G Le^..:_..r'iCre3�e Cn:.:..0 :,En:-a! G„ws 2-? S332.798 57.51
- . _^'3nLn go! :03 3:Q.0 .an9escioc SE - - . . 3 S7.63
X
11 5 Lc:S=R Sccdivis..v S3E kaac:Oreek Ceri..c Nov-02 S'.73-.;OVr 52 a28 c7 :7.53
a} .net i-e - _?$' :1ev-J 5='S. S;v3��� <'-
i --BZc.. S.. :�rt:cc` _ 000 1.s -6 515."ca --
2 SrR SU.t'.d'Visi3n Site C-e^:A'OJd CcS: GeC-JZ 5'tB:i.CO^3 iZ. ..H-K.074 5:3.w
3 s Puha Sc- ;Site 5-en?w3oc East a'J 5535:511 S46c553 S10.72
s
SFR Lots -an- dEast - S2N,O59.6=r:C
5 F-C- Zcne.-Sae Ereme"Ood Easi U03 S'.69 CC_ __ TW 173 S?.97
aa 147 S=3 Ts 3rennvor_ East Jur C2 5:..29-.494 31.4 5327.5'1 57.52
r_?crez See Oakie, East x:-33 33 5403 CS^ 1.2 ..3207tH. 27.9.
a
6 =4 Site Anzocnast FEC 5745 ^_= 3. _.53 i 55.43
__.__ ..... _„05:i.[.0"a rc:YS z3�id IT.C :9TCC:F¢r,
3
t
z
d
7
k
Tp
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
3ounPi'of Conra o5ta z --%-onsu,TingGrouo
t
i
Pane 20
i
West Contra Costa County
Vacant Land Valuation
51.000.000 = _- ---Land Va ue -
- '
=
Assumption
5600.000
5600.000
5400.000
S200,000
F_ --
so
Comparables
I
I
i
I
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 %DnsUttingvroup
= —
"ountJ 01 Con'.a Cosa
I
Paoe 2'
Central Contra Costa County
Vacant Land Valuation
53.500.000
- i
53,000,000 I -
S2.500,000 _
$2.000.000
MI
HOW-
51,500,000 -
'
Pa_e 22
I
I
East Contra Costa County
Vacant Land Valuation
sso0,0o0 -
s7o0,o00
' 2
5600.000 an a ue I
-A-iumption== -i
5500.000
4 - b330,000 L1 I
$400,000
5300.000
5200.000
5100.000 - -"
s0 l-
Comparables !
I
i
i
I
I
i
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 ==
.ountv of co,a costa onsultinguroup
Pace 23
Appendix C. Average Household Size by Housing Type
Since the park fees are based on per capita need and level of service: this Study recommends the .
allocation of the park fees to the different residential land uses (or housing types): since different
housing types have different household sizes. Based on 2000 U.S. Census information: Table 20
presents the average household size calculation for four housing types: detached single-family
homes, attached single-family homes(or tovmhomes), mu:ti-family residences and mobile homes.
' Table 20—Average Household Size by Housing Type
Contra Costa County
s =
Total Vacant Occupied Total Average
Housing Housing Housing Number of Household
Housing Type Units Units Units Occupants Size
a
Single-Family Detached 232.050 4.732 227.318 680.276 2.993
3
iovmhomes 29.976 90^3 29.013 69.0564 2.380
rAu'ai-=amilvLn; 84.9_4 4.170 80.324 74—..213 2.155
Nlobi:e Home 7.120 483 6.634 13.328 2.009
Averay(2000 Census 354.140 10.351 343.789 936.881 2.725
6_
r
fi
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 — --- —�
i un1 04 CcaFra costa —.ConsuttinaG-oup `
F�-
Page 24
Appendix D. Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction (SFR Fees Only)
Table 21 -Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction, 2007
Total Park Fees
Jurisdiction Park Fees per Single Family Residence(SFR) (SFR)
County of Contra Costa Eas County-S1.350 SFR 51.350-S2,C00
(Current) Balance of County-$2.000 SFR
County of Contra Costa Parkiand In-Lieu Fee-S4.489 ScR(WesttCertrai)'S3.142 SFR(East) S55.891 -S7.238
(?reposed; Park Impact Fee-S2.749 SFR
Town of Dan ;lie Parkland Deftation In.-Lieu Fee S7.873
City of Oaksey Parkiand Dedication it-Lieu Fee.°ark Facilities and Public=acilities Fees 58.080 l
City of Walnut Creek ?arkiand Dedication it-Lieu Fee S5.000-S8.000
City of Brentwood Capital improvement Fee.Parks&Trails S6.777
City of Marinez Parkiand In-Lieu Fee-S4.111 SFR S3.298
?ark and Recreation Fees for=aciities S2.187 SFR
City o`Antoch Parkland In-Lieu Free-S1:050 SFR(Charged at time of buiidirg Dennie) 51.050-S5.180
City of Orinda Parkiand Dedication m-Lieu Fee 512.274
City o'Concord Parkiand cee S8.170
City of Layafe-ue Parkland irk-Lieu Fee 56.118
Town of Ciayton Parkland Dedication Ir:-Lieu Fee S2.569
Town of Moraca Formula Only. =f 1V o`land is deternined at time of map approval. Formula
City o�Plesant Hill Formula Only. F:MV of land is determined at time of,ma:,approval. Formula
CRV Of PitISDCrg Parkiand Deaication Reauirement x FIVIV land Determined by apDraisal. Formula
City o`San Ramon Parkiand in-Lieu Fee based on 3-acres per 1.000 population and Ft.1V Formula
City of San Pablo Formula Only. FMIV of land is determined at tme of map approval. Formula i
Other Tri-Valley Cities
Citv o Dubiin Parkland in-Lieu Fee-S10.981 SFR 516,118
Pubic Facilities Fee(Park improvement Component)-S5.137 SFR
City of Livermcre Park=ee S13.3!5 j
C;tV a Pleasanton Parkland Dedication in-Lieu Fee-S9.707 SFR S13.082
%b;ic Facilities Fee-53. 'S S=R
Other
Ca of Fremont Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee-S'5.666 SFR 52'3.636
Pork Facilities-57.970 S=R
City of Hayward Parkiand Demcat,on In-Lief Fee S11.9i93
San Leandro °ark and Aceuisitiorr.=ee-S.1.279 SFR S',3.16 7
Parc imDrovemen;Fee-S;.888 SFR
Coun-v of Aiame-;a Park Fee-S11.550 SFR S11.550
Park impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
Counr:of Conaa Costa =Consuttingvroup
des
Appendix E. Contra Cot County Par Capital Improeme| ma
\
Reference § hereby made to the Contra Csat County PakCapita Ipr e Plan which is on
A at the Contra CostaCoulnyPubl Works Department A2K § ! oo voluminous to be bound
with this Nexus Sldy
Park wpm Nexus Study,2007 .w
2 #y :O m az3_�m�Gnu@
- - t \ m?° \ ^ » » \ 2 \]
- - v > �s �� 2
=
- -
\.��ab- =Q� ��\
�
,
1C ommu,nity
Contra Dennis R7.Barry.AICP
—amr-ur:ty Deve=n_cc Dlrscta
Deveiopment
Costa
Department
County
2530 Arnold Drive
f Suite 190 -
Martinez. California 94553-8611
Phone:
(925 335.7220j April 3., 2007
NOTICE OF PliBLIC REVIEW N-D I TE\'T TO ADOPT 3 PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLAR.-\TIO-N
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Deyeiopment
Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project:
1. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2007-19, amending the County's Park Dedication Ordinance(Division.920 of the
County Ordinance Code).
2.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 200?-17, establishing a Park Impact Fee.
3. Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement P'_an.
The proposed amendments to the Park Dedication Ordinance include: increasing the land dedication requirements; i
increasing the amount of fees required in lieu of land dedication: and providing a waiver of dedication and fee
requirements for specified affordable housing developments.The existing and proposed in lieu fees are:
Existing Proposed i
West/ Existing Wtsv Proposed
Catesories Central County East Counry Central County East County
Single-Famiiv DetachedS2,000 S1.350 S4,489 S3.142
Towynhomes 52.000 51.350 53,571 52.499
Multi-Famih unit 52,000 S1,350 S3,233 S2.20
Mobile Home S2.000 S1.350 53,014 S^_.109
The proposed Park Impact Fee ordinance provides for the adoption of fees to be used for the acquisition of parkland
and development of parks and recreation facilities required to serve new resideutial..d�lapineat
areas of Contra Costa Counn.-. Currentl}, the Countv does not assess a park mpact fee..TEEpropose�rk mr)act ;
Fees are:
«esLi
Catego i Central Counn° East Count.' I '
` I — NPR Q 4 N07 /
Single-Faruk•DetachedS 1 238 S5.891
Townhomes S5,'S 7 S-.686 Iw_W ipp, COUN I %iC ERK
I
iuiti-Faruly Unit S5.2i3 5.243 COUNTY
Mobile Home S^,859 S3.955 I BY � U� �A UC uT�
Second Units S_419 S .969
I
The proposed Contra Costa Counn• Parks Capital Improvement Pian outlines park and recreational faciiit-,
improvements needed in order to provide park and recreational services to the snowing communities it. the
unincorporated areas o,the County which will be partialh•:roan;ed with the funds collected from the Park impact
Fe`.
j
Office Hous Monday- Frica` :8:00 a.nl. - 5:00 D."1.
O`i:ce :s t:IDsed:re 1s:. 3rd '5t7 rnaays of eacr mcn. .
F
E
No Dotentially siQmficant environmental impacts have been identified in the initial study. A cony of the\esauve
Dzclarauon and all documents r * re ced in the Negative Declaration may b revs «tea in the offices of the
Communit Development Departm..nt a:McBrien Acministratioa Builcmg.6'1 Pine Strom 4"Floor.North Winz:
or Communit s Development Department.Redevelopment Division.at 2530 Arnold Drive.Suite 190.Martinez.during
normal business hours. t
Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adeauacv of the environmental document starts
'on April 4. 2007 and ends at 5:00 p.m.,Monday,Apul 23,2007. Any comments should be in writing and sub_nitted
to the following address:
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
'_=30 Arnold Drive. Sane 190 .-
Martinez. CA 94553 .
roalk-@cd.cccounty.us i
Arte: Robert T. Calkins,Principal Planner
It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration wil:be considered for adoption at a meeting of the Contra _
Costa County Board of Supervisors tentativeiv set for Tuesday.May 1.20071. The meeting is anticipated to be held at
1:00 p.m. at the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 6151 Pine Street,Martinez. CA. It is expected that the Board of
1°
Supervisors will also conduct hearings on the proposed Ordinances and the CIP at the same meeting. Interested
es may contact staff at the above number to confirm the am--and date o the hearinE.
F
S
03L ;alkins
Principal Planner
x
F
I
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Proi-^t Title:
a. Adoption of Ordinance-No. 200"-19. amending the County's Park Dedication Ordinance
(Division 920 of the County Ordinance Code)v
I
b. Adoption of Ordinance No. 200'-17, establishing a Park Impact Fee
C. Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community•Development Department
2=30 Arnold Drive, Suite 190
'Martinez. CA 9=1503
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Robert T. Calkins (925)33 220
i
Proiect Location: Unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County
Project Sponsors Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department
2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 190
Martinez. CA 94653
6. General Plan Designation: Counivwide
ZoninLy: Cotmtnlvide
8. Description of Project:
The proposed amendments to the Park Dedication Ordinance include:increasing the land dedication
requirements;increasing the amount of fees required in lieu of land dedication;and providing a waiver I
of dedication and fee requirements for specified affordable housing developments. I
The proposed Park Impact Fee Ordinance provides for the adoption of fees to be used for the
acquisition of parkland and development of parks and recreation facilities required to serve n--%,-
residential
ewresidential development in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Currently.the County does
not assess a park impact fee.
The proposed Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan (Parks CIP)outlines park and
recreational facility improvements needed in order to provide park and recreational services to the I
growing communities in the unincorporated ares of the County'and which will be partially financed
with the funds collected from the Park Impact Fee. The Pants CIP is divided into the following four
categories: I
a. Construction of new parks(Appendix A improvements 1 —14).and new community,use and
support faciiities(_Appendix A improvements. .5—=0).
b. Improvements to existing parks (Appendix A improvements — 37). The Parks CII'
proposes to add additional lighting at three parks wnere lighting aiready exis:s(Appendix.t
1
e Fk5
S
i
4E
improvements :.==and 23).Am•new iiahtins or improvements to exiting light fit-tures will E
ensure that these fixtures do not create Blare and shine onto adiacent Dronerties. During
construction of each of the proposed improvements.applicable storm water runoff restrictions
of Contra Costa Counn will be observed. All proposed restrooms and drinking fountains will �-
comply with environmental health requirements and appiicabie public sanitation
requirements.
C. Improvements to parks on school property(appendix A improvements 3S—?4). Ione of
the anticipated improvements are generators of emissions that could negatively impact human
health or the environment nor would they generate sufficient vehicular traffic to indirectly
constitute a significant secondary effect.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: Coumvwide(various including residential) t-
E
E
10. Other pubiie agencies whose approval
is required(e.g.,permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement): School Districts: San Ramon Valley,John Swett,Richmond.
Cities of Danville and Walnut Creek
k
S
1
E\'VIRON%-1ENTAL FACTORS POTENTLULY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project involving at least one
impact that is a'Potential]y Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land lis--and Planning _ Transportation.. _ Public Services
Population&Housing Circulation _ Utilities & Service
Geoloaical Problems _ Biological Resources Systems
Rater _ Enerm- & Mineral _ Aesthetics
air Quality — Resources _ Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of Hazards Recreation
Significance _ Noise ✓ No nes; Potentialiv
Significant
Impacts Identified
I
I
i
i
A
4
t
f
DETER.XIN ATION 1
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
i
t
✓ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a (
NEGATIA-E DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment.there will 4
not be a sianificant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A I IITIGATED NEGATWE DECLARATION will be prepared. l
t_
F-
I find that the proposed project `4AY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
F
ENNTIRONTIME\TAI. ]IMPACT REPORT is required. I
f
I find that the proposed project KAY have a significant effects)on the environment.but at least one-
effect
neeffect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.
and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on i
attached sheets. if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless 1-
k
mitigated." An ENATRONhIENT.AL]IMPACT REPORT is required._ but it must analyze onl_-in--
effects
heeffects that remain to be addressed. r
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because allpotentiall°significant effects(a)have been
analzed adequately in an eariier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR. including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon a proposed r ect. - V
ADril J. 200'
Signature Date
Robert T. Calkins CCC Community•Development Denartment
Prepared By For
-Ti gnature
0'r U _&_ bhri"
Approved By
i
i
SOURCES
Ir!the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references (which arc
available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street 511h
Floor-North A-ina. Martinez)were consulted: I
• The Count-General Plan(200-5-21020)and EIR on the General Plan
• Count-wide General Plan and Zoning_Maps
• Draft Park Impact Fees Nexus Study prepared by SCI Consulting Inc.,dated February 2007
• Draft Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan prepared by the Contra Costa CounTy
Parks, Creeks and Trails Committee. dated January 2007.
• Dran ordinance amending the Count's Park Dedication Ordinance
• Draft Park Impact Fee ordinance
• Appendix A—Summar-of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan
z,V ALLATI0N'OF EN T'VIROXIAENT.AL LMPACTS:
Potentially i
significant
imDa ,
Pateatialiv unless Less than
smeniiicant Mitieat:on Sien:ficant
impact lncupotated Impact NO impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ✓
vista?(Source 1-4)
b. Substantial v damage scenic resources. _ ✓
including, but not limited to. trees. rock
outcroppings. and historic buildings within a i
state scenic highway? (Source 1-4)
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual ✓
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source 1=3)
d. Create a new source of substantial light or ✓
giam which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?(Source 1—I)
SUMMARY la-dl:
amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imnact Fee Ordinance Adontion: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to
aesthetic resources because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in Iieu fee and adding
a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed with the
proposed fees are anaivzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan"
below.
I
J
3
3
t
4{
E
Adontion of the Contra Costa Counnv Parks Caoital Imnrovement Plan: _
Construction of New Parks. Community-Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1_5 1
of the CEQA Guidelines, because specific sites have not vet been identified for new parks and communiry
use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
improvements cannot be completed. Further environmental CEQA analysis will be performed once =`
specific locations are identified to determine if there are any impacts to aesthetic resources resulting from t
the development of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will have a less than
significant impact on the aesthetics of the parks and surrounding properties. Generally,the proposed
improvements include installing the following: nes; playground structures,picnic facilities,restreoms,
paths and walkways(access improvements)and landscaping, and irrigation and correcting drainage
problems. New and upgraded lighting is proposed to be installed only at Lefty-Gomez. Hickory Meadows.
and Andre; Young parks,where lighting already exists(see Appendix A improvements 23.222, and i=).
These lights will be designed and installed so as to not create any additional impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
County has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing sport
field(s) and constructing restroom facilities. Improvements to school parks must be approved by the
applicable School District. These improvements will have less than a significant impact on the aesthetics
of these areas because no new lighting is proposed.
Pommial.V
S14tIL.Cant
ImDaCL
- Potenvalie Jniess Less than
simficant m tient on Significant =
imp_act Incomorated kn_cact No irt_caet
II. AGRICL'LTL'RAL RESOURCES:In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects. lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and She Assessment Model(199')
prepared b}-the Caiifornia Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessjng impacts
on aaricultural and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,unique Farmland or ✓
Farmiand or Statewide Importance
(Farmiand), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland flapping and
,Monitoring Proo-ram of the Caiifornia
Resources Agenc%. to nor:-agricultural us-z?
(Source '--1)
6
I
I
I
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ✓
use.or a Williamson Act contract?(Source I— �
4) I
C. Involve other changes in the existing ✓
environment which. due to their location or I
nature. could result in conversion of i
Farmland.to non-agricultural use?(Source I-
4)
SnIMARY (a-c):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park i
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to
agricultural resources because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and '
adding a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed
with the proposed fes are an_ alvzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital
Improvement Plan'below. !
i
-adoption of the Contra Costa Counn°Parks Canital Imnrovement Plan: i
I
Construction New Parks.Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 151-'.= of j
the CEQA Guidelines,because specific sites have not yet been identified for new parks. and community
use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impact of the specific
improvements will be performed at a later date. Further CEQA analysis will be performed once specific
locations are identified to determine if there are any impacts to agricultural resources resulting from the I
development of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will have less than
significant impacts on the agricultural resources of the specific site and surrounding properties because
none of the parks are located on agricultural or farmland. The improvements instead will enhance existing
recreational resources. Generally,the proposed improvements include installing the following: new
playground structures. picnic facilities.restrooms,paths and walkways(access improvements). j
landscaping. irrigation and correcting drainage problems.
i
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
Counn has a joint use agreement with the School District generall}r include improving the existing sport
field(s)and constructing restroom facilities. The proposed improvements must be approved by the i
applicable School District. These improvement will not impact any agricultural resources. The parks
within this categor v are already developed and not located on any agricultural or farmland and therefore no
chances in land use and no impacts on agricultural resources are expected.
I
I
4
F, }(
f
E_
i
} Potenttaiiv i
sisnifrcar.:
impact,
- Pmentiali}' lime;; Less than `-
sifftif::art Mitigation Significant
imeac: Incorporated ImDaet No lmcact
III. AIR QUALITY. Mere ayaijab:--. the significance
IT
r criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
t.
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the _ ✓ 1=
applicable air quality pian(Source: 1—?) _-
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to _ ✓
an existing or projected ai7 quality violation? 1-
(Source 1=3) i=
C. Result in a cumulativeh considerable net ✓
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1
standard(includine releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (Source 1-4)
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial _ ✓
pollutant concentrations? (Source 1—".)
e. Create obiectionable odors aff ctime a _ ✓_
substantial number of people? (Source 1—I)
SL'NMARY(a-el:
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imnact Fee Ordinance Adoration: Amending the Park-
Dedication
arkDedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to air =-
aualinv because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and adding a new park
impact fee. The environmental Impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed with the proposed
fees are analyzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan"below.
Adontion of the Contra Costa Counry Parks Canital Imnrovement Pian:
Construction of New Paris, Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 155 1.15
of the CEQA Guidelines.because specific sites have not vet been identified for new parks. and new
community use and support faciiities.an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
imnrovemenr will be performed at a later date. Further CEQA anajysjs will be performed once specific
locations are identified to determine if there are any Impacts to air quality resources resulting from the
development of specific improvements. ✓
s
i
i
Ir. rovements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvement,to existing barks will have less than
P e F P P
si-mimcant impacts on the air quality of the areas. Generally,the proposed improvements include installLne
the following: new playground structures.picnic facilities,restrooms, paths and walkways(access i
improvements), landscaping, correcting irrigation and drainage problems. The proposed improvements are
expected to encourage more neighborhood residents to use local recreational facilities instead of driving to i
ober resources. '_done of the proposed improvements will negatively impact the air quality of the area
because none of the anticipated improvements are generators of emissions which could negatively impact
h.iman health or the environment.nor would they_ generate sufficient vehicular traffic to indirectly 1
constitute a significant secondary erect.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools Where the i
Couniv has a joint use agreement With the School District generally include improving the existing soon
f:eld(s) and construction of restroom facilities. The proposed improvements must be approved by the
applicable School District. These proposed improvements will not impact the air quality of the area
because they will not conflict with any air quality plan or create objectionable odor and none of the
anticipated improvements are generators of emissions which could negatively impact human health or the
c ri irontnent. nor would they generate sufficient vehicular traffic to indirectly constitute a significant �
secondary effect.
Potentially _
sianincant
impact, I
Potential) Lniess Les than
stanif:can: Mitigation significant
impact Lncotpora:a It:bac: No imcz:t i
TV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse eff m either ✓
directly or through habitat modifications. on I
any species identified as a candidate.sensitive.
or special status species in local or regional
plans, polices. or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source 1=3)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on anv _ ✓
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communis• identified in local or regional i
plans,policies.regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Source 1-4)
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on f dcraliv ✓
protected Wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including. but not
limited to, marsh. vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal. filling, hvdrological
interruption.or other means? (Source 1=+)
i
d. Imeiiere substantialiy with the movement of ✓
any native resident or migratory fish or
Wildlife SpeCieS or with established hative i
residen: or migratory wildlife corridors. or
. - 9 i
1 4
a-
a
impede the use of native.wildlife nurser-
sites? (Source 1-1)
e. Conflict with anv local policies or ordinances ✓
protecting biological resources. such as tree s`
preservation policy or ordinance? (Source 1-
4)
E
i
1_
SUMMARY(a-e):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to �
biological resources because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and
adding a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed �
with the proposed fes are analyzed under the'=Adoption of Contra Costa Counn•Parks Capital
Improvement Plan'below. -
Adontion of the Contra Costa Countv Parks Canital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks.Community-Centers,and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1 S 14-5 of
the CEQA Guidelines,because specific sites have not vet been identified for new parks,and new communiry
use and support facilities an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific projects will be
performed at a later date. Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific location is identified to
determine if there are any impacts to biological resources resulting from the development of a specific proiect.
Improvements to Existing,Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will have no or iess
than significant impacts on biological resources of the sites and surrounding properties because the parks
are not currently located in anv riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. Generally,the proposed
improvements include installing the following: new playground structures,picnic facilities,restrooms, `
paths and walkways(access improvements), landscaping, and correcting irrigation and drainage problems.
The improvements will enhance existing recreational resources and not conflict with anv local policy or
ordinance protecting biological resources, including tree preservation ordinances.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
County has a joint use agreement with the School District generalh include improving the existing Sport
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities, and must be approved by the applicable School District.
These proposed improvements will enhance existing recreational resources and not conflict with any local
police or ordinance protecting biological resources. including tree preservation ordinances, and because
they are not located in any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community are not anticipated io have any
adverse impacts on biological resources.
1 CV
i
Pomrtia0v
significant
IF,.PeCt,
Potentially Unless Less than
significant M-inuon Signifzan:
Lnoac, incorporated impact No imoact
CLLTLR.AL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓
significance of a historical resource as defined
in 515064.5? (Source 1—I) — —
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓ l
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuantto X15064.5? (Source 1-4)
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ✓ I
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?(Source 1=1) �—
d. Disturb anv human remains. including those ✓
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
(Source 1=:)
SUMMARY la-11:
-Imendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adootion: ?,mending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to i
cultural resources because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and adding
a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed with the i
proposed fes are analyzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan`
below.
i
Adootion of the Contra Costa Coumv Parks Canital Improvement Plan:
Construction of-New Parks,Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section '_5145 I
of the CEQA Guidelines.because specific sites have not yet been identified for new parks. and new
community use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
improvements will be performed at a later date. Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to cultural resources resulting from the
development of specific improvements.
i
Improvements to Emstins Parks: Generally,the proposed improvements include installing the
following: new playground structures. picnic facilities.restrooms.paths and walkways(access
improvements),landscaping,and correcting irrigation and drainage problems.The improvements as
proposed are not anticipated to disturb any human remains or cause a substantial adverse change in
historical or archaelogicai resources. However. during construction if any significant cultural materials
such as artifacts.human burials or the lice are encountered during construction operations, suzh operations
shall :cease within 20 feet of the find.the Coumv shall be notified within^_�hours and a qualified
archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations.
I
1;
i
t i=
k
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
Counry has a ioint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing sDort €
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities. must be approved by the applicable School District and will �-
comply with the State guidelines. The improvements as proposed are not anticipated to disturb any human
remains or cause a substantial adverse change in historical or archaeiogical resources. However. during
construction if anv significant cultural materials such as artifacts.human burials or the like are encountered
during construction operations. such operations shall cease within 20 feet of the find.the appropriate
officials shall be notified within 24 hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further
recommendations.
1
Potentialiv _-
si� -
a_
=Dam
Potentialie unless Less than _
sittnificant Mitinnon Significant f-
- Impact incomctated Impact No imnac: -_
VZ. GEOLOGY"AND SOILS -Would the project?
a. Expose people or structures to potential ✓ '
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, iniui3% or death involving:
1. Rupture of a kno«tI earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alouist-Prioio Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
(Source 1-1) _
Strong seismic mound sha-in_a?
(Source 1-4.)
I Seismic-related ground failure.
including liquefaction?(Source 1-1)
4. Landslides? (Source 1-1)
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the ioss of _ ✓
topsoil? (Source 1=1)
C. Be located on a geoiogic- unit or soil that is ✓
unstable. or that would become unstable as a
result of the project. and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide. lateral spreading.
subsidence,liquefaction or collapse (Source
1._:1)
d. Be located on expansive soil. as defined in ✓
Table 18-_-B of the Uniform Building Code
(199=1). creatine substantial risk_ to lire or
property? (Source 1='.)
Have soils incaDable of adeauateh-s::pporting ✓
i
i
the use of septic tants or alternative waste
disposal systems where sm ers are not I
available for the disposal of waste water? -
(Source 1-4)
SU\1M.ARY la-el: `
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imnact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Pari:
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result m any impacts to
szeoloav and soils because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and adding a
new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed with the
proposed fees are analyzed under the`:Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan"
)--low.
Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks,Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15145
of the CEQA Guidelines, because specific sites have not yet been identified for new parks, and community
use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
improvements will be performed at a later date. Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine if there are any_ imp_acts to geologic or soil resources resultine from the
development of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will have no or less
than significant impacts on geology or soils of the area. Generallye the proposed improvements include
installing the following: new playground structures.picnic facilities.restrooms,paths and walkways
(access improvements).landscaping,and correcting irrigation and drainage problems.In fact.the proposed
improvements include correcting drainage issues and soil erosion problems at many of the parks.New
restrooms will be desimed constructed in a manner to meet current Uniform Building Code requirements.
which will lessen the potential for these structures to be impacted by earthquakes or other geologic events.
I
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
County has a joint use agreement with the School District aenerally include improving the existing sport
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities, and must be approved by the applicable School District.
\ew construction will meet the standards set forth by the State Architect and therefore not create
substantial risk to life or property, and therefore no impact is anticipated.
Pa nnaliy
s!arli cant -
kmna-:,
Potentialic Cniess Less than I
siummmant Vniamn. Sian ificart
irrna_t incomommi :moact No imP.ec:
VTI. EAZ.ARDS VND 114ZARDOUS i`ZATERLUS-
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ✓
environment through tine routine ffanspQrt.
I
F
S
F -
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Source 1-4)
✓ t-
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the — _ -
environment through reasonabh• foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?(Source 1-3)
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ✓
or acutely hazardous materials.substances. or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source 1-3)
d. Be located on a site which is included on a ✓
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government code Section
65862.5; and._ as a result would it create a s
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?(Source 1-3)
For a project located within an airport land use ✓
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport.would the project result
in a safer• hazard for people residing or
working in the project area.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ✓
airstrip, would the project result in a saf w
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g Impair implementation of or physically ✓
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
1=3)
h. Expose people or structures to a significant ✓
risk of loss.injury or death involving wildland
fires. including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?(Source 1-3)
Sn-IMARY (a-hl:
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinanc:: and Park Imnaet Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Par's Impact Fee Ordinance will not create any hazards or expose
peopie to hazardous materials because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee
and adding a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be
financed with the proposed fees are analyzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital
improvement Plan'below.
14
i I
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count-Parts Canital Imnrovement Pian: I
Construction of New Parks,Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1;-1 I
of the CEQA Guidelines,because specific sites have not vet been identified for new parks, and new i
community use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
improvements will be performed at a later date. Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific i
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to people from hazards or hazardou; materials
resulting from the development of specific improvements. i
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing park;will not expose users to i
hazardous materials, create a significant hazard. interiere with an adopted emergency response plan or
result in the emission of hazardous materials: accordingly no impact is anticipated. Generally,the proposed
improvements include installing the following: new playground structures, picnic facilities,restrooms,
paths and walkways(access improvements), landscaping, and correcting irrigation and drainage problems.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools --here the
Count•has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the exiting sport
field(s) and construction of restroom facilities. These improvements must be approved by the applicable
School District. Because none of the proposed improvements will expose users to hazardous materials,
create a significant hazard. or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or result in the emission
of hazardous materials.no impact is anticipated.
Pct-^ntialle - I
sisnifcar.:
imnac•
Petenraav L'niess Ler than
51a1.-:cant Minanor, Swi ficant
i^pact ince_-Pcrexd imimc: NO impa_.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would
the project: i
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ✓
- I
discharge requirements? (Source 1-4)
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or _ ✓_ j
interfere substantially with groundwater
I recharge such that there would be a net deficit
I in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
I groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? (Source 1-4)
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage ✓
pattern of the site or area, including through I
the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?(Source 1-
`1I
d. Subsar,tiall alter the existing drainage ✓
;; I
G
F
`r [
R P
C t_
pattern of the site or area. including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river. l=
or substantiallv increase the rate or amount of r`
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site" (Source 1-4)
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would ✓ �
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide t-
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff? (Source '_-4) =
f. Otherwise subsramially degrade water qualin? ✓ -
(Source 1-4) 's
g Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ✓
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
i;
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Source
l_
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ✓_
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? (Source 14)
L Expose people or structures to a significant ✓
risk of loss.iniurn•or death involving flooding.
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam? (Source 1-4)
j. Inundation by seethe. tsunami. or mudflow? ✓
(Source 1–4)
SUNCMARY (a-i):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adontion: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to
hydrology and water quality because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in iieu fee
and adding a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be
financed with the proposed fes are analyzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital
improvement Plan"below.
.adoption of the Contra Costa Coumv Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks. Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1514
ME the CEQA GuidelLnes,because specific sites have not yet been identified for new parks. and new
communing use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
improvements will be performed at a later date. Further environmental CEQA analysis will be performed
once a specific location is identified to determine if there are any_ iron_ acts to hydrology or water aualinv
resulting from the development of specific improvements.
16
i
i
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will not impact the
quality of the hydrology or water quality of the area. Generally.the proposed improvements inzlude
installing the following: new playground structures,picnic facilities.restrooms.paths and walkways
(access improvements).landscaping. and correcting irrigation and drainage problems. Proposed
improvements to the drainage pattern and infrastructure at several parks will actually improve the drainage
patterns.None of the existing parks expose users to risk related to flooding, according to the Contra Costa
Count•Public Works Flood Rate Insurance maps. New restrooms will meet applicable building codes i
related to waste water discharge.
I �
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the i
County has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing sport
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities. These improvements must be approved by the applicable
School District. New restrooms will meet applicable building codes related to waste water discharge.and
therefore no impacts to hydrology or water quality are anticipated.
Pc:emialy
sigraricam
Imoact,
Potentialh• Unless Less:har.
sletlII::an: \liti¢atlon sizt:ifican:
Impact Ircaroo ar d Imp No impact i
LY. LAND LASE.ANtD PL-.A.�-.N1\'G. Would the project:
a. Phvsicallv divide an established communis_' ✓
(Source 1-4)
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan. _ ✓
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including. but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan.
local coastal program. or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source
14
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat ✓
conservation pian or natural community
conservation plan? (Source 1=3)
i
ST%TK4RY (a-c):
i
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imnact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to land
use or planning. Currently. the County-Ordinanze Code and requires developers of new residential
property to pay park dedication fees or dedicate land for park purposes. Amending the Park Dedication
Ordinance and adopting a Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not conflict with any applicable land use policy
or regulation and is consistent with State law. i
i
€F
'r e=
a-
` E-
{{ k
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count-Parks Canital Imnrovement Plan:
t
Construction of New Parks.Communis-Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15 145 -
of the CEQA Guideiines. because specific sites have not Vet been identified for new parks, and new
communis-use and support facilities. an assessment ofthe potential environmental impacts of the specific U_
improvements will be performed at a later-date. Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific �
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to land use or planning resources resulting from
the development of specific improvements. }
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will not conflict with =_
s-
any applicable land use plan. Generally,the proposed improvements include installing the following: nes;~ �
playground structures,picnic facilities, restrooms,paths and walk-ways ('access improvements), �
landscaping. and correcting irrigation and drainage problems. The proposed improvements are consistent
with the current land use designations and will not alter;fie use of the property,physically divide an
established communise or conflict with a habitat conservation pian.
E
Improvements to Parks on School Property-: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
County has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing spore F
field(s) and -construction of restroom facilities. These improvements must be approved by the applicable
School District and therefore will not conflict with State law. The proposed improvements are consistent
with the current land use designations and will not alter the use of the propem°,physically divide an t_
established community or conflict with a habitat conservation plan.
Potenrafiv
simtificant
impact.
Potentialiv Uniess Less than
sta:ificant \titration Si-gi;ficarr
Impact inco:norated Lanae No imoact
X. ;NIIL\\ER.AL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availabilit• of a known ✓
mineral resource that would be of value to the � -
region and the residents of the state? (Source
b. Result in the loss of availabilit- of a locall- _ ✓
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general pian, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source 1—+)
SU%IMARY (a-b):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinan-ce and Park Impact Fee Ordinan-ce Adoption: amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Pzxk Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to
mineral resources because the ordinances_oropose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and adding
a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed with the
proposed fees are analyzed under the`:Adoption of Contra Costa Count-Parks Capital Improvement Plan"
below.
1s
i
i
Aciontion of the Contra Costa Countv Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks. Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section '_5145 I
of the CEQA Guidelines.because specific sites have not yet been identified for new parks.and new
community use and support facilities, an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific i
improvements will be performed at a later date. Further environmental CEQ A analysis will be performed
once a specific Iocation is identified to determine if there are any impacts to mineral resources resulting
from the development of specific improvements i
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will not result in the
lass of an%-mineral resources because no known mineral resources currently exist on anv ofthe sites,
according to the County General Plan. Generally.the proposed improvements include installing the
following: new playground structures. picnic facilities,restrooms. paths and walk-ways(access
improvements),landscapingand correcting irrigation and drainage problems.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
County has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing spore
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities. These improvements must be approved by the applicable
School District and will be coordinated with the State to ensure compliance with applicable State
regulations. The proposed improvements will not result in the loss of any mineral resources because no
(Drown mineral resources currently exist on any of the sites, according to the County General Plan.
Pot^ntially
Pote-mialic sienifican:impact, Less than
siert ficant Unless Mammon Sien;F ant Na
Imnac: incorporated impact lmpz_*.
XI. NOISE . Would the project create:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of ✓
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance. or applicable standards of other i
agencies?(Source 1-4)
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ ✓
excessive around borne vibration or ground _
bome noise levels?(Source 1-4)
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient ✓—
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?(Source
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase ✓
in ambient noise leveis in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?(Source
e. For a proiect located within an airport land ✓_ i
use pian or,where such a pian has not been
adopted, within tvo miles of a public
airport o: public use airpor_ would the
protect expose peopie residing or workirg
I
i
in the project area to excessiv a noise levels? £'
i
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ✓ �'
airstrip, would the project expose people t
r =
residing or working in the project area to 1`
[- excessive noise levels €
SUMMARY (a-fl: t^
t"
r
.Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance.Adoption: Amending the Park-
Dedication
azkDedication Ordinance and adopting the Pari:Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any noise impacts
because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and adding a new park impact
fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed with the proposed fes are
analzed ander the`:Adoption of Contra Costa CountParks Capital Improvement Plan'below.
r
Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan: t
Construction of New Parks,Community-Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15145 "
of the CEQA guidelines. because specific sites have not}-et been identified for new parks, and new
community use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential em=ironmentai impacts of the specific
imprrn omens will be performed at a later date.Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to noise quality resulting from the development
of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: Generally.the proposed improvements to existing parks include
installing the following: new playground strictures, picnic faciiines.restrooms.paths and walkwav-s
(access improvements). landscaping. irrigation and correcting drainage problems.It is expected that the
proposed improvements may result in more users of the park thereby increasing noise but this increase is
consistent with the purpose of the recreational site and is considered temporary in nature and therefore
considered a less than significant impact.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
County has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing sport -
fold s)and construction of restroom facilities. These improvements must be approved by the applicable
School District. The proposed improvements will enhance existing facilities. and therefore it is anticipated
that the improvements will not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise level in the area.
_r,
i
I
i
Foterria:h
sinificant
impact.
Fc:entialh L"niess Less than
simificant Alitisation Sigrif:cant
impact incorporated impact No Impact
:XII. POPULATION AND HOU-SI!N7G—
Would the project: i
a. induce substantial population growth in an ✓
area, either directiv (for example. -by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly(for example. through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?(Source 1-3)
b. Displace sub-tantial numbers of existing _ ✓
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (Source 1-4)
C. Displace substantial numbers of people ✓
necessitatina the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (Source 1-4)
I
SUMMARY(a-c):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any imparts to
population growth and the need for housing because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current I
park in lieu fee and adding a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed
improvements to be financed with the proposed fes are analyzed under the"'Adoption of Contra Costa
County Parks Capital Improvement Plan'below.
Adoption of the Contra Costa Countv Parks Capital Improvement Pian:
i
Construction of New Parks, Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 155 14-5
of the CEQA guidelines.because specific sites have not vet been identified for new parks, and new
community use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential enviromnental impacts of the specific.
improvements will be performed at a later date. Further environmental CEQA analysis will be performed I
once a specific location is identified to determine if there are ant_impacts to the population or the need for
housing resulting from the development of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will not induce
substantial population growth. or displace people necessitating the construction of replacement housing.
Generally.the proposed improvements include installing the following: new playground structures.picnic
facilities,restrooms,paths and walkways(access improvements). landscapina, and correcting irrigation and
drainage problems. ,
I
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements,which must be approved by
the appiicabie School District. generally include improving the existing sport field(s) and construction of
restroom facilities. Because the proposed improvements at the schools will not induce substantial
population groteth.or displace people necessitating me construction of replacement housing.no impact is
anticipated.
i
Pmertiall
sigranzart
ImDzzt.
Potenua.ly Uniess Less than
sinificant Minimum Simiinear.:
impact Irccroo:ated Imnac: \o impar:
XIII. PLBLIC SERVICES - Would the project:
a. Would the project result in substantial ✓
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
hovemmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities.the
construction of which could cause sjenifi ant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios. response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1. Fire Protection?
2. Police Protection?
1. Schools?
4. Parks?
Other Public facilities?
(Source 1-4)
SLNIMARY:
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance-and Park Imnact Fee Ordinance Adontion: Amendina the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to pubijc
services because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and adding a new
park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed with the
proposed fees are analyzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County-Parks Capital Improvement Plan"
below.
Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks, Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1 5 14_
of the CEQA auidehnes, because specific sites have not yet been identified for new parks. and new
community use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific -
projects will be performed at a later date. Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to public service resources resulting from the
development of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to exisima parks will improve the quality
of the recreational facilities and may result in a higher level of use. However.the parks are currentiy being
served by the Sheriff-s Department and County fire districts and this slia–lit increase in use will not create
an adverse impact that would result in the need for new Governmental services. Generally,the proposed
improvements include installing the following: new piayaround structures.picnic facilities.restrooms.
pamS and.valkways('access improvements). landscanina. irjgation and correctm2 drainaGe problems. -
t=
. i
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
County has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing sport
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities. The proposed improvements must be approved by the
arplicable School District. The improvements will improve the quality of the recreational facilities and i
may-result in a higher level of use. However the parks are currently being served by the Sheriff`s
Department and County fire districts and this slight increase in use will not create an adverse physical
impact resulting in the need for new governmental services..
Per-n:iaile
il?r:ILatlt
im�acC
Poterniaila Uniess Less tear.
significant - Mitisavon Significant
Impact incomorated Intna: \e impact
VV. RECREATION-
a. Would the project increase the use of existing ✓ _
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?(Source 1-3)
b. Does the project include recreational facilities _ ✓
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source 1-4)
SUMMARY(a-b):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imnact Fee Ordinance Adontion: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will provide the County with a i
comprehensive park fee program to increase the park acreage with the County and improve existing parks.
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks, Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1514:
of the CEQA guidelines,because specific sites have not vet been identified for new parr.and new
community•use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
improvements will be performed at a later date.Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific i
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to recreation resources resulting from the
development of specific improvements. .
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks mag result in a siiaht
increase in the number of people using the existing parks but not to a point where there will be significant i
adverse impact on the physical condition ofthe parks and their infrastructure. Nophysicalexpansion
(additional land)is proposed as par of these improvements. Generally-.the proposed improvements
include installing the following: new plavo-round structures. picnic facilities. restrooms, paths and
walkwa-s (access improvements), landscaping.irrigation and correcting drainage problems.
I
F_
. f
RE
4
Y
p�
F Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
Counnv has a ioint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing sport
1
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities. All of the proposed improvements will be contained within }
t the existing boundaries of the subject school and may result in a slight increase in the number of people
using the park facilities,but not to a point where there will be significant adverse impact on the physical
[ condition of the parks and their infrastructure.
f
I._
i
Poientiaiiv
sienificart _
Potentiafiv Lniess Less than g
sianifoani Minanor. Simiificant
impact incomorated Impact No im_o-ct
M`. TRANISPORTATION-TRAFFIC - Would the
project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is ✓ r
substantial in relation to the existine traffic
load and capacin of the street system (i.e..
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads. or congestion at
intersections)? (Source 1-1)
b. Exceed.either individual) or cumulatively.a _ ✓
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or hiahv ays?(Source 1-4)
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns. ✓
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safenv risks?(Source 1-3)
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a desisn ✓
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g..farm
equipment)? (Source 1—I)
Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓
f. -Result in inadequate narking canacin? ✓
g. Conflict with adopted policies. pians, or ✓
programs supporting alternative rransportation
(e.g..bus turnouts.bicycle racks)?(Source 1-
4) -
KNIMARY (a-a) :
Amendment of Park Dedication. Ordinance and Part:Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to
n-ansportationt.affic because the ordinances n.opes_primarily raising the current park in iieu fee and
adding a new park impact fee. The ervir nmentai impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed
i
i
with the proposed fes are analyzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa Count-Parks Capital
Improvement Plan"below.
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count°Parks Capital Improvement Plan: i
Construction of New Parks,Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1 145
of the CEQA Guidelines, because specific sites have not yet been identified for new parks. and new
community use and support facilities.an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
improvements will be performed at a later date.Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to transportation or traffic resulting from the
development of specific improvements. I
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks may create additional
heal user of the facilities.but will not cause traffic to exceed the service standards established by the I
Count or have a significant impact on traffic patterns. Generally,the proposed improvements include
installing the following: new playground structures.picnic facilities.restrooms. paths and walkways
(access improvements), landscaping, irrigation and correcting drainage problems.Access through the paries
will be enhanced by new walkways and pathways. V I
:Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
-ounry has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing sport
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities. The proposed improvements must be approved by the I
applicable School District. No new sport fields are proposed so additional traffic to the sites is not
expected and no new parking areas are proposed. The proposed improvements may result in a slight
increase in local.users of the facilities.but will not result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle i
trips or cause traffic to exceed the service standards established by the County.
Potentialiv
sitmincant -
imoac:, i
Pe:eraally Unless Less than.
sixnircant milization SieniIlcant
M..na: Irccrpomed Impact No immc:
XVI. UTILITIES AAT SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the
project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ✓_
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (Source 1=4)
b. Require or result in the construction of new _ ✓
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (Source 1-41
C. Reauire or result in the construction of new ✓
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities.the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(Source i-=)
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to ✓ _
R
}
F
1 serve the project from existing entitlement
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlement needed?(Sour_e 1=3)
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ✓
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the proiect that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?(Source 1-4) -
f. Be served bv, a landfill with sufficient ✓ f
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source =
1-4) s
g Comply with federal. state and local statutes ✓and regulations related to solid waste?(Source
SLXMIARY(a-M:
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to
utilities and service systems because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee
and adding a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be
financed with the proposed fees are analyzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa Count Parks Capital
Improvement Plan"beiow.
Adoption of the Contra Costa Count Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks, Community-Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15145 of
the CEQA Guidelines.because specific sites have not vet been identified for new parks. and new
communiry use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
improvements will be performed at a!ate.date. Further CEQA anaivsis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine ifthere are any impacts to utilities and service systems resulting from the
development of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements (particulars.the construction of new
restroom facilities)to existing parks may require additional utilities and service lines to be brought to the
sites. Because these existing parks are currently being served by the applicable water and sanitary server
districts.the proposed improvements toil;not have a significant impact on the environment. Generally,the
proposed improvements inciude installing the following: new pia}-ground structures.picnic facilities.
restrooms. paths and walkways(access jmprovements), landscaping and irrigation and correcting drainage
problems.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where in--
County
heCount-has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing Spon
field(s and construction of restroom facilities. The proposed improvements must be approved by the
applicable School District. Because these existing parks are currentit being served b,.the applicable water
and sanhar_v sewer districts.the nroposed- improvements will no,have a slgnincam MIT) t on the
environment.
26
f
• I
i
Powntialiy
simifi_art
:nvact.
Poternaliv times Less than
si nificant M:asanan siariacan:
Impact :reoperated imp=. \o impact
�(VI AkNTDATORY FL'3DLNGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-
I.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade ✓
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife
species. cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce
the number or restrict the ranee of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?(Source 14)
b. Does the project have impacts that are _ ✓
individually limited, but cumulativeiv
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects.the effects of
other current projects. and the effects of
probable future proiects)? (Source 1-4)
C. Does the project have environmental effects _ ✓
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings. either directly or indirectly?
(Source :=l)
i
SL11M.ARY (a-c):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imnact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance do not have the potential to degrade
the environment. affect fish or wildlife habitat.threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community. er result
in significant impact to cultural resources because the ordinances propose primarily-raising the current
park in lieu fee and adding a new park impact fee.
F:`-CDBG;"a i Ded:catior T.-LE=cndDraft init;a:i^-a :dcc
i
I
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count-Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks, Community- Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 145
of the CEQA Guidelines. because specific sites have not yet been identified for new parks, and nen
communis•use and support facilities. an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the specific
proiects will be performed at a later date. I=urther CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine if there are anv significant environmental impacts to resulting from the
development of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements will enhance the quality of existing
parks, are consistent with the Countv's General Plan,are not located near existing fish and«Midlife habitats
or threaten or eliminate endangered plant or animals. Therefore.no substantial adverse effects are =
anticipated.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
Count-has a ioint use agreement with the School District will enhance the quality of existing parks, are
not located near existing fish and wildlife habitats or threaten or eliminate endangered plant or animals.
Therefore.no substantial adverse effects are anticipated and the improvements will not result in cumulative
impacts.
E
,s
r„
_
_ I
Iz
i
_ - - - - - - f
< K K K K K K K KK < KK K K K•K K _ 'K Z'Z Z Z Z Z Z Z.Z Z.Z Z-Z
1
-x -x x x x X._ :x x x
x x-x-x x x x X.
- x x•x x x x x x x x.x•x x-x \�I[ j
°1
n
• a/ l
r
aC
a
x x x-x x.x x x xxx. x x x x x x x x x.x x
IJ
- - m °a^\\
x x x-x x x x.x x.x - �a
x x
. as
Oma oa
x x x •x=x a-x x x xxxx x x x x .\ �� i
\ a
�B
(y \ I
LC
ix
a x
41
n
I
i
I
.J I
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A N TEGATIVE
DECLARATION (1\OTICE)
PROJECT:
• Adoption of Ordinance NO. 2007-19. amending the County's Park
Dedication Ordinance (Division 920 of the County Ordinance Code)
• Adoption of Ordinance No. 2007-17. establishing a Park Impact Fee
• Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement
Plan
DATE NOTICED MAILED: April 3, 2007
I do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the referenced Notice was
mailed to the addresses on the attached list.
n
Robert T. Calkins
I do herebydeclare under penalty of perjury- that the referenced -Notice was
mailed to the addresses on the attached list.
Danielle Kelly
I
_V
CON'IA COSTA COC NTY CC\-R'. COS-.A CG -Y CO\;R_ COSTA CO _'.31ARY
CJ —Y ADNUN]S-ahl'OR 7 OR-CG\T? _ELK'S O:f:C3 S S N C-.SMV=LL
5.i P^�fiST?EETc COURT S:':°E _=0..s?AZK eLD
MARTINS-2. CA 9455= "-LAR"NEZ. CA 54=:1 °L°ASA\- . ._ . CA 9»5_3
O\TRA COSTA=IRE D:STR:C, CROCiC.T7 C CRQ \.Z EAST CO\-2A COSTA=1?2
- .�i IS_GEORGE ::i.DiJTita- i3- .,A{ STREET _
_Cl0 GEARY RO:D 14 T_0 UNG AV=:?7E. 3ZL�-tVCCD. CA 5413
PL=AS A�N- 1;i:, C? 94:': C_10CK.E:TT- CA 9152f --
COti'RA COSTA-!' 3.:C WO:R{S CCC E-003 CON+ ROI_AD CONTA COS-A CO. SE=R:r
-It.:5NSS?_C D STRICTS `,•r ; SR CO_.S=RI`A':0 .D_�TR:�T -D\L\I TRiT, ._ SCS,,V�_ "`.%.A,-::
_.5 'L^^v.ZE2,_ G AMER :).-Z-'.T- P:XE STPEE G:ACR
E
Vc
1L4I2T14_Z. CA 94553 VAIRT,%EZ. CA 0,45531 ."..,R E7 CA 54552
SAN ZAMON VAL:L-i• E3_ KE\Sl\GTJ\ FI2=DIS 2'C—
COtiTR-.COS7-. CC�N'TY , _
\VA7_="Z AGENCY E `.v 1 BOL_IS^,=R Cai:YC\ DIG,AD U'\S.`NG I ON. CA 9-•
651 ?!:\'E STREET \0R7,I.1,"I\G
SAN Z�MVCIN`. CA 3
J4AZ."ll* Z. CA 94553
S-
{OR_AGA-ORI\D_ FIR: CO\"R-k COSTA RESOURCE
ZODcC I:�ZC:,_=S i IR= PROTECT:0\ CO
D`STR'=- `:=ER.'nT:Dti
ROTECTIC", DTs-2:C- „ YT ,
c'SC :2=FC GfO VALE_EY:ROAD _: O.SDA ,AY _ _: C_A .G'` ROAD
ORT\DA, CA 9' CONCORD. CA 9152:
i
KENSINGTON C0\,-lvf:•\7Y D'A=LO 03%-!N- \:TYS=3V_,CE CO\.RACOSTA :iC_QL':-0
SER."C°S D:ST-UCT DiSTR1C7 A 3n-=L',E'."T D'5731CT
2: ARLfNGTO\ ::V__\'_'E ?0. :30X 1 ..SCN RCL;
KENS--0\, CA 9;?0% DIALLO. CA 9A52S CONCORD: CA 9.1520
C=\TRAL CONTRA COS:.. C-- ;O; S SAN:T�2 RICT
t.� V!C`x ]."��\..ARS• D.]1 Rl� . I:(v,:_ � ,. V^Tj -
S.a_N17AZY OTS-R:CT ,^ E30\ ? r'O '-,ON i IG5
0:9IMHOFF PLACE �;.yRT \�Z. C., 54,-;j' CaKI_SY C, 9455.'MAPTINEZ. CA 9»5::
RODE-0 _SANITAWi DIS:RIC: I EST _
S.ECE SA'N'TA:Y DIST R:C='
S30 SAS ?A3L0 AVENILE DTS RICT P 0 BO\ 53'
IOD=O CA 97571= 2y10!P_ ;O? DRIB= _C_RRi-G. CA 94_`30
31'2^•\ kMTARY 9'.S-2:CT CROCLE-. fAL0N_ 5 \T7A-ZV DE r-. DiA3LC 5.=,'.�:--.T:O\
?.0 3^_•X 3=2 D:STR:C- D!S'R:C-
3YRON. CA "45,1-4 ?.0 13O\ :%52503 P:T.TS3LRG-A\ IGC !
\i OC_a.
_OS DANG'S . __...0 ti?= `.'T- DiA:.'._O T-'=:.._T:-l'A-": =S- COQ-R; CSS
DISTFIC_ `:A_`i`A-E De_T:JCI
0 0. 3On e5ve _5;-`j -ARR AVE L' L_ RJ!i^^ O
✓
Pi. S3 RG. CA 9,.c. CO� OtiD. CA 9452-, RICE-:\'O'N'D. 2^._-Si
r
ti n� kt'PRO C RECREAT.13N.AND
3vRn�. I- -
P.i{ i; . RIC.
J ST2 Ci0. r. _.Lf�.__ v :kl�_GW P 2D�
328: .IT. DIA3LO 3'-VD P
P.0.'?OX 5 1 I TS3LR�. CA 9=
F.4�'c-TE, CA �;5�' 3RENT'KOOD. CA 94;:3
?LLAS.:AT rlI'L R:.Cf:EA:'iON 6c RO: L:NGWMD 1'I'_F.3"
GREEN `A_'_E R_CRr-A.IOti sz PARTK J STRICT
R! CREA-'O\ A\D =_P,K
?Asci: C1��RTCT : GREGO tY L. \: 21
?0 OX':2 FL=ASA\"' fi:.-- CA 94.2. 9 �rRE.=�\�t`OGD DR�:c
z,AN D.AABLC, CA 9a3C6
D:A3:0. CA 945_f
BET'--L IS,LA\D :_'tiIMAL CON-RA COS..A i':?. 37 STRICT CAST:_!_: ROC{ CC \''r: +TE3
MDRO:°E '`\T D STRIC T
'.0 30k. '0 =0r, P'\= CREmEK R010
P 0. 30;:244 CONCORD, CA 94:24 i
BET HE'- :S',A\D. C:, 94=11 WALNT C2EEti. C >=_9.
h-
EAS- E-,1' SIC(?�'_L-I i i'`r' ==.5 3A1' MUD SPFCLz_ t�.�ti".=D` :-00N RA COST.A
DIS-RTCT , TR,`:SiT JD:S:R;CT
71 0- =0`;24C55 Po BO%2.405: :CC" -R?.\K_('. S 7:z",ET
OAK? AND. CA 94523 OA.K.-ANJ. CA 9�t =: tO.A A\J. CA 943.2
BAY AREA RAPD TR.�\S;- J:ST SAY ARE
; A.n Q-A:_T"�' D! 3:_"\-SA\_ZAX'0\
-1UASt_'RY 0r-=lC= (.=N\AG=M1=:ti 'DTST''cICT SERVICES Da 'RIC-
'0. BOX 12C 8;-z S39 E-L'.S
CA '_?ND. CA 94503 S \^?AtiC:jCO. CA 9 .09 DUBLIN. CA 94565
AS':FIAT REG:01�A_?.kRK
:cECr A.Y:A-1G\ J:S i 2;CT =C" D`-S�_CO ".=Rl'DAY R=C_'_..':,T:0\;
D:JT2::Mi R - - �^ DR_ AG= DIS�'RICT
'.0. BOX 5-1S: .0 ROk i
2 y 0
x01 !� Jt�. CA 54514 3^Y 25=
OAti_ik\D. 1A 05 13YRv\. CA
9-.S
_
EAS-CO TRA COSTA IRRIGA7I0X 3Y;t0*:-3 T'H Y 13_1'G:AT10\ CITY OF CLAYTON
DiSy:2TCT ti1.tc'i' E'ER
523 Fir.Stmt PO BOX L5 • 60-M, � TAGS R
.:ERI. v.= T.:A_L
3R-_N %V00r). CA 94513 BYR .. .- L AY TO N C 9 4- -
CITY OF CONCORD CITY OF BRENTNVOOD CITY OF SAN P.ABLO
BRADLEY `YARD
?EGG_' =E==8:'RE Pz�SELA E=7✓=R 0\:E- A'_VARAD0 SQU.�RE
1950?ARKS(7= D.R. ' 'e T .RD ST
COXC•DRD CA 94519-25723RE\T`•.'GOD CA 945:3 5.+\ ?A3`_� 0:19-
CITY OF EL CERRITO CITY OC WALNL"T CRUK CITY' OF PLEASANT FIfLL
VARY DODGE, ED'.iv S1 \ K1CIE EGO
RY LANE
IC'sC S .\ Pa37_0 AVE\Lr :355\JE. S:'2_ET _ (-
CER2:�0 Ca 515_0 " :,� -CRic - =aS_\: .. C i45=3
CITY OF MARTINEZ CITYOF.4\T(OCtI CITY OF PITTSBURG
,°L:'_ E 320\.
�5 CIVIC A'�c:�L�
PO3 ?: r �.-
_� ' :� PI''ST_RG C ,54ci i
-
•Y
v
2
CRti
Y OF HERCLES CITY OP PINOLE CITY OF RICHt1O rD
3C ARD LOOM s :-,T?:CK, SAMSE_L
It
CIVICDR:VE =1 ?EAR STREET
143: \1F�R�A'.�'A�'. S0 "F.
HERCULES CA 9��-'. P:�OLC CA 4�:C� P_:CH-V0\0 CA 9-33-
CITY OF LAFAYETTE TOWN OF NIMAGA TOWN OF D.1*`'VILLE
T2 CY' 103 'SG\ J. j. E c :L E:ZALE-i =�D50�
3eXIT DIA3:A BLVD--S-E.2:0 PO GO 1R" =-)L3 GO�D± WAY
L_` -AYE--E CA 94549 �`.OR_%GA' CA:111141;c6 CA :t.'E
KLEY
CITY OF SAN' RANT ON CITY OF ORI IN CITY OF LSON
R
EVA F:O?JARD '0 A`000 ?,� ?AL=__SO'a
22 22 CA'�'ItiG �t'OA 26 ORT\0A, .AY 323: t4:ir. S:-e1!
SAN RAivION CA 9=._33 ORO:DO
A Ca Si'S? :�KL=Y. CA 945,61
_-
4
I
'OWN )BAY PLEaSa.` H LL
'_-G DIS'" i S�:C AREA Z-S '.AL U`C_C< F
ATTR: Virgil Koehnc C-
F l r" TY 0'PLEAS.\.\T I I:_ C-'0 MY OF F;A=N�- CR.E--K
°� r'�.
:SI 3 Wiiiew L_i",e Road - :30)GRKDRY 1-.•V\E 16H6 N NIA`:NLEE-
€-
7i5co� CA 9455 is-1068 'LEASAti Iii CA i3+3= L\i T ?-
L- FEEL CA 9453'
i
C_A1'T0'�: _TG ti CE DIS- : -.1 R;f;EZP^:= R10G= :TCT_ ':`ART'\EZ PARK:*G DI.T ' I-
Cr0 CI-Y OF C:nYTOti C-0 C:T` G'l! .P:7N=E7_ C 0 C17Y OF ti'AR7LN` I-
Y
cCCC iEF.' AGE'inw: E R-ET S-REE. :,-- - :R'ETT, S-ZEE` s_
CLAY(,)N. CA 945,1' :;AZT:N_Z C.A94 =3 ',!AR7:N;Z CA 4__3
LA=;.YET T-COR=-,kREA M7C=- LAF?,Y-.-E STR==: ._:G t:TCE Z' CG CGi\C l'A�_=Y'.RR�'TC=
C'O Cl-Y OF L=.?A 'E TTS UO Cl I'V OF L: AY `TE C O CI-Y 0;:C01-CORD
3675M-7 DIA3L0 =-VD-STZ.-;C 3675 M7 D'ABLO 3L r-\.STE 2 O 1 5.PAk7KS.D= DR--v=
kFAYtTT:. CA 4.549 _kFA4=T':= C .9,549 Mk-CO'.0 CA 54511-2=
CONCORD d::Ri;A'GO0 N1-C= 1 CONCORD 31-:\TEnTc_- '—TG ?. I:LL DA31_O V:ST:1 `:.". TE DIST
C,0) r �� r 1... \, r n,r r•--Y
-0;, CONCORD C-G CIT. 2' CONCORD �• �. r J- PLEA VSAM ..ILL
195 3 PARKS:DL• DIV,`- °.SPK=IDL DRI:E -`�"=
CONCORD C.;945'.9-257€ CO,�COU) CA yy?9-2FII
AtiT:OCHP:ARIU\G M-CE .A :CRAG 4 S-REE' _TG -C _ O=.KL Y :CE SE'MCES
C-O CIT`' aNT'C'CY C C TO".'% OF '. OR.%GA C 0 C'T' OF 0.4KLE`'
PO 301: PO 33.1 :__ :--• :::ir. S'=:c.
-IGCI' �A 94-31-393'• %l0RA=..CA 9-556 „-"EY CA 5-45:
ANTIOCH BRENTWOOD CONCORD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDE•VELOPNIENTAGENCY REDEVELOPMENT ACYNCY
PO BCx_cC,7 ua 'f : RD -Z 7,-,. 9.o PARK IDE DR":F
A -:OC=. ..A i=5� :i..r.. . •�:J..r .. ; 3 J CORD C:; 443'.5
CLAYTON HERCULES EL CERRITO
RED FVELOPNTENT AGE-NCV REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY" REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
_ li ?A 3_G..\
"T�l L3 ,S- l' 1_ r l J ur CE'ZZ70 CA
@i
PINOLE PITTSI3CRG RICHMOND i
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVLLOPNIENT AGENCY
2':3 1 PEAR STREET 65 CTVlC AVT:N. PO BCX 4046
PrNO'-L• Ci 94564 P_'-TSBURG CA 94=65 RLC?-l'O\:D CA 94504
I
NALNFUT CREEK DANV1LLE SAN PABLO
REDEVELOPNIE>tTAGENCY REDEVELOP.MENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMEST AGENCY
1666 N VAN STREET :10_A GONDA WAV ONE A 4ARADO SQUARE
«'AL\Li'CRE--K CA 9=596 E CA 94526 SA: PA3:-0 CA 942"05
PLEASANT HILL LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT SAN RAMON REDEVELOPMENT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY AGENCY
100 GREGORY ,AtiE .6-3, ViT DIA31-0 3-' VD .S'E- 210 2232 C=M-N0 RA-M0N'
?L=ASAST=FILL. CA 5452- '-PJ .YEME. CA 9..49 SAN R? Oh. CA 94:03
CONTRA COSTA COCN'TT OAKLEV RE•DELOW-MENT CROCKETT CONIM SR%'CS DIST.
REDEVELOPNIENT AGENCY AGENCY AT7 : KE';-! Pc;ERSO\
2=?u -e:d Or e. Sr:te :90 1,23: �„,in. Slree! P. 0. LOX
\iar:a�zx. CA 9553 O ZKI-EY CA 94+51 CROC:LTT.CA S43-2
S TAX Dl\'IS1Gt CALENDARS-CONTACT-�a3E_S'=L255' �".Al'_I\G LAB:--' i
I
I
I
I
I
NOTICE OF A
PUBLIC HEARING
You are hereby notified that on TUESDAY. MAY 1. 2007. at approximately 1 :00 p.m.
and thereafter in Room 107, McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,
Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will conduct public
hearings on and consider each of the following matters:
1. adoption of Ordinance No. 2007-19, amending the County's Park Dedication
Ordinance (Division 920 of the Count- Ordinance Code).
2. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2007-17, establishing a Park Impact Fee.
3. Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan.
The proposed amendments to the Park Dedication Ordinance include: increasing the
land dedication requirements: increasing the amount of fees required in lieu of land
dedication: and providing a waiver of dedication and fee requirements for specified i
affordable housing developments. The proposed Park Impact Fee ordinance provides
for the adoption of developer fees to be used for the acquisition of parkland and
development of park and recreation improvements needed to serve new residential
development in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The proposed Contra
Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan outlines park and recreational facility
improvements needed in order to provide park and recreational services to the growing
communities in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Data indicating the estimated costs of providing the park and recreation improvements
and land acquisitions to be funded with the Park Dedication in-lieu fee and the Park
Impact Fee, and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the improvements and
complete the acquisitions, are available by contacting Bob Calkins, Contra Costa
Community Development Department, 2530 Arnold Drive. Suite 190, Martinez, CA.
Phone: (925) 335-7220. Email: rcalk@cd.cccountv.us i
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been issued for i
this project. i
If you challenge the project in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the County at. or prior to. the public hearing.
I
p _ I
t7
I
AFFID AN'IT OF NOTICE OF A
PUBLIC HEARING
Project:
1. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2007-19, amending the Countv's Park
Dedication Ordinance (Division 920 of the Count- Ordinance Code).
?. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2007-17, establishing a Park Impact Fee.
3. Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Improvement Plan. �
I
Date Noticed Mailed: April 13, 2007
I do hearbe- declare under penalty of perjure- that the referenced Notice was
mailed to the addresses on the attached list.
Robert T. Calkins
I do hearby declare under penalty of perjure- that the referenced Notice was �
mailed to the addresses on the attached list.
I
Susan Childers j
3raddock & LocanJeff Lawrence Davidon Homes Hoffman Land Dev. Construction
1155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle Steve Abbs Beth Burns
=201 1600 S. Main Street, Ste-4150 1380 Galaxy Way
Danville, CA 94506-40^13 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Concord, CA 94522
Home Builders Assoc. of Paramount Homes SEECON Financial & Company
r Northern CA - Bob Glover Peter Hellman Jay F. Torres-Muga
P.O. Box 5160 P.O. Box 429 4021 Port Chicago Hwy.
San Ramon, CA 94583-5160 Concord, CA 94522-0429 Concord, CA 94520
CCC County Administrator CCC Auditor-Controller's Office CCC Library
051 Pine Street 625 Court Street Susan Caldwell
Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Plea Oak Park Blvd.
= Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Contra Costa Firs District Crockett Carquinez Fire_ District East Contra Costa Fire
Mike Georoe 746 Loring Avenue 134 Oak Street
2010 Geary Road Crockett, CA 94525 Brentwood, CA 94513
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Contra Costa Public Works CCC Flood Control and CCC Sheriff Administrative
Mise. Spec. Districts Water Conservation District Services-Finance
255 Glacier Drive 255 Glacier Drive 651 Pine Street, 7ah Floor
Martinez. CA CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
CCC Water Agency San Ramon Valley Firs
651 Pine Street Protection Kensington Fire District
North Wing 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road 217 Arlington AvenueKensington, CA 94707 ---
Martinez. CA 94553 San Ramon, CA 94583
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Moraga-Orinda Fire Contra Costa Resource _-
Protection District Protection District Conservation
1680 Refugio Valley Road 33 Orinda Way 5552 Clayton Road
Hercules, CA 94547 Orinda, CA 94563 Concord, CA 94521
Kensington Community Diablo Community Service Contra Costa Mosquito
Services District District Abatement District
217 Arlington Avenue P.O. Box 702 155 Mason Circle
Kensington. CA 94707 Diablo. CA 9452E Concord. CA 94520
Central Contra Cgsta Mt. View Sanitary District Ironhorse Sanitary District
,Sanitary District P.O. Box 2757 P.O. Box 1105
5019 Imhof Place Martinez. CA 94553 Oakley, CA 94561
Martinez, CA 94553
Rodeo Sanitary District West County VJ'astev ate-r District Jtaas Sanitary District
800 San Pablo Avenue 2910 Hilltop Drive P.O. Box. 537
=rodeo. CA 94572 Richmond. CA 94806 .1 Cerdio, CA 94530
I
Crockett-Valona Delta Diablo j
Byron Sanitary District Sanitary District Sanitation District
P.O. Box 382 P.O. Box 578 2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Hwy.
Byron, CA 94514 Crockett, CA 94525 Antioch. CA 94509
Los Medancs Mt. Diablo West Contra Costa
Healthcare District Healthcare District Healthcare District
P.O. Box 8698 2580 Park Avenue. Suite #1 2000 Vale Road
Pittsburg, CA 94565 Concord, CA 94520 Richmond, CA 94806
Alamo-Lafayette Byron, Brentwood Ambrose Recreation and j
Cemetery District Knightsen Union Cemetery Park District
3285 Mt. Diablo Blvd. P.O. Box 551 3105 Willow Pass Road
Lafayette. CA 94549 Brentwood, CA 94513 Pittsburg, CA 94565
Green Valley Recreation and Pleasant Hill Recreation and Rollingwood-Wilart
Park District Park District. Park and Recreation
P.O. Box 112 147 Gregory Avenue 2395 Greenwood Drive
Diablo, CA 94528 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 San Pablo, CA 94806
Bethel Island Castle Rock County
Municipal Improvement Contra Costa Water District P.O. Box H2O Water District
P.O. Box 2.44 Concord, CA 94524 200 Pine Creek Road
Bethel Island, CA 94511 Walnut Creek, CA 94598
East Bay Municipal East Bay MUD Alameda-Contra Costa
Utility District Special District 1 Transit District
P.O. Box 24055 P.O. Box 24055 1600 Franklin Street
Oakland. CA 94623 Oakland_. CA 94623 Oakland, CA 94612
Bay Area Rapid Transit Bay Area Air Quality Dublin-San Ramon
District Treasury Office Management District Services District
P.O. Box 12688 939 Ellis Street 7051 Dublin Blvd.
Oakland, CA 94604 San Francisco, CA 94109 Dublin. CA 94568 I
I
East Bay Regional Reclamation District 800 Discovery Bay
Park District P.O. Box 262 Reclamation/Drainage District
P.O. Box 5381 P.O. Box 262
Oakland, CA 94605 Discovery Bay. CA 94514 Byron, CA 94514 i
I
East Contra Costa Byron-Bethany City of Clayton
Irrigation District Irrigation District Mary Pelletier
626 First Street P.O. Box 160 6000 Heritage Trail
Brentwood, CA 94513 Byron, CA 94514 Clayton, CA 94517
City of Concord City of Brentwood City of San Pablo
Peggy Lefebvre Pamela Ehler Bradley Ward
1950 Parkside Drive 708 Third Street One Alvarado Sauare i
Concord. CA 94519-2578 Brentwood, CA 94513 Pleasant Hill, CA 94806
City of EI Cerrito City of Walnut Creek City of Pleasant Hill
Mary Dodge Edmund Suen Rich Ricci
10890 San Pablo Avenue 1666 N. Main Street 100 Gregory Lane
EI Cerrito. CA 94530 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
City of Martinez City of Antioch City of Pittsburg
Diane Perkin Julie Brown Marie Simons
525 Henrietta Street P.O. Box 5007 65 Civic Avenue
Martinez, CA 94553 Antioch, CA 94531-5007 Pittsburg, CA 94565
CITY OF HERCULES CITY OF PINOLE CITY OF RICHMOND
Tim Hansen Richard Loomis Patrick Samsell
111 Civic Drive 2131 Pear Street 1401 Marina Way, South
Hercules, CA 94547 Pinole. CA 94564 Richmond, CA 94804
s: City of Lafayette TOWN OF MORAGA TOWN OF DANVILLE
` Tracy Robinson Jennifer Lau Elizabeth Hudson
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste# 210 P.O. Box 188 510 La Gonda Way
r
Lafayette, CA 94549 Moraga, CA 94556 Danville, CA 94526
x
CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY-OF ORINDA CITY OF OAKLEY
Eva Howard Radha Wood Paul Abelson
22 Camino Ramon 26 Orinda Way 3231 Main Street
San Ramon, CA 94583 Orinda, CA 94563 Oakley, CA 94561
TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY Pleasant Hill LTG District 1 Svc Area R-8 Walnut Creek
ATTN: Virgil Koehne C/O City of Pleasant Hill C/O City of Walnut Creek
1800 Willow Lake Road 100 Gregory Lane 1666 N. Main Street _
Discovery Bay, CA 94514-1060 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 =-
Clayton Ltg Mtce District 1 Martinez Pine Ridge Mtce Martinez Parking District 1
C/O City of Clayton C/O City of Martinez C/O City of Martinez
6000 Heritage Trail 525 Henrietta Street 525 Henrietta Street
Clayton, CA 94517 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
Lafayette Street Ltg Mtce Z1 Concord Valley Terrace Mtce
Lafayette Core Area Mtce _
C/O City of Lafayette C/O City of Lafayette 4 C/O-City of Concord
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste# 210 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste#. 210 1950 Parkside Drive
Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette. CA 94549 Concord, CA 94519-2578 €
s
Concord Kirkwood Mtce 1 Concord Blhn Terrace St Ltg P. Hill. Diablo Vista Water District
-
C/O City of Concord C/O City of Concord C/O City of Pleasant Hill
1950 Parkside Drive 1950 Parkside Drive 100 Gregory Lane }'
Concord, CA 94519-2578 Concord. CA 94519-2578 Pleasant Hill. CA 94523
Antioch Parking Mtce 1 A Moraga Street Ltg Mtce 1 Oakley Police Services
C/O City of Antioch C/O Town of Moraga C/O City of Oakley
P.O. Box 5007 P.O. Box 188 3231 Main Street
Antioch, CA 94531-5007 Moraaa. Ca 94556 Oakley. CA 94561
ANTIOCH REDEVELOPMENT BRENTWOOD CONCORD REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY
P.O. Box 5007 708 Third Street 1950 Parkside Drive
Antioch, CA 94509 Brentwood, CA 94513 Concord, CA 94519 I
I
CLAYTON REDEVELOPMENT HERCULES REDEVLOPMENT EL CERRITO
AGENCY AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
6000 Heritage Trail 111 Civic Drive 10890 San Pablo Avenue
Clayton, CA 94517 Hercules, CA 94547 El Cerrito, Ca 94530
PINOLE REDEVELOPMENT PITTSBURG RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT
3E Pear Street CY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY
2
Pinole, CA 94564 65 Civic Avenue P.O. Box 4046
Pittsburg, CA 94565 Richmond, CA 94804
WALNUT CREEK
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DANVILLE REDEVELOPMENT SAN PABLO
1666 N. Main Street AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Walnut Creek. CA 94596 510 La Gonda Way One Alvarado Square
Danville, CA 94526 San Pablo, CA 94806
PLEASANT HILL LAFAYETTE SAN RAMON
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
100 Gregory Lane 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Ste# 210 2222 Camino Ramon
Pleasant Hill. CA 94523 Lafayette, CA 94549 San Ramon, CA 94583 i
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OAKLEY REDEVLEOPMENT CROCKETT COMM SRVC DIST
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY Attn: Kent Peterson
2530 Arnold Drive, Suite #190 3231 Main Street P.O. Box 578
Martinez, CA 94553 Oakley, CA 94561 Crockett, CA 94525
i
City of Antioch City of Brentwood City of Clayton
P.O. Box 5007 _ 708 Third Street 6000 Heritage Trail
Antioch, CA 94531-5007 Brentwood, CA 94513-1396 Clayton, CA 94517-1250 i
I
I
City of Concord Town of Danville City of El Cerrito
1950 Parkside Drive 510 La Gonda Way 10890 San Pablo Avenue
Concord. CA 94519-2578 Danville, CA 94526-1722 EI Cerrito, CA 94530-2392
I
City of Hercules City of Lafayette City of Martinez
111 Civic Drive 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Sten 210 525 Henrietta Street
Hercules, CA 94547-2392 Lafayette, CA 94549 Martinez, CA 94553-2337
I
Town of Moraaa
P.O. Box 188 City of Oakley City of Orinda i
Moraga. CA 94556 3231 Main Street P.O. Box 2000 I
Oakley. CA 94561 Orinda. CA 94563
I
I
I
r=_
9
ZA
City of Pleasant Hill City of Pinole City of Pittsburg
= = 100 Gregory Lane 2131 Pear Street 65 Civic Avenue
_== Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-33. 3 Pinole, CA 94504-1716 Pittsburg, CA-94565
City of Richmond City of San Pablo City of San Ramon
1401 Marina Way South One Alvarado Square 2222 Camino Ramon
Richmond. CA 94804 San Pablo, Ca 94806 San Ramon, Ca 94583-1372
City of Walnut Creek
666 North Main Street
Walnut Creek. CA 94596
s
Oak
r
i