HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05152007 - D.5 __ --
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ��= =��� Contra
' Costa
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICPCountai
Director of Community Development may_
DATE: May 15, 2007
I
SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2007-17,
ESTABLISHING A PARK IMPACT FEE, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . CONTINUE the public hearing to receive comments on proposed Ordinance No. 2007-17, which
would establish a park impact fee to fund park and recreational improvements as set forth in the
Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan.
2. CLOSE the public hearing and CONSIDER the proposed ordinance.
3. CONSIDER the proposed Negative Declaration regarding the adoption of Ordinance No. 2007-17 j
and any comments received during the public review process.
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. 2007-17 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. ACCEPT the Park Impact Nexus Study. dated February 2007, prepared by SCI Consulting Group.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES ❑ NO SIGNATURE:: /'
I
_X—RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMM DATION OF BO D
COMMITTEE `
--�'APPROVE _ OTHER
JSIGNATURE(S): i
ACTION OF BOV ON .2Je7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _XqT#ER
67
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _hr/�.4– ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, ON THE THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Robert T. Calkins, 335-7220 ATTESTED C%G�
Orig: Community Development/CDBG JOHN CULL , CLERK
cc: County Administrator OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i
County Counsel AND COU _ ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works i
Auditor-Controller BY
D TY
I
I
I
I
i
7. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2007-17, substantially in the form attached.
8. DIRECT the Community Development Director and the Auditor-Controller to establish a trust fund I
for park impact fee revenues and the Treasurer to invest said monies with interest to accrue in the
trust fund account.
9. DIRECT the Community Development Director to review the fees every March 1 the fee is in
effect, and to adjust for the effects of inflation or deflation as described in the attached ordinance. I
10.DIRECT the Community Development Director to file a Notice of Determination with the County i
Clerk.
11 .DIRECT the Community Development Director to arrange for payment of a$75 fee to the County
Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination. i
I
FISCAL IMPACT
This action will result in the County collecting additional revenues that can only be used to develop and/or
improve park and recreational facilities in the County. The proposal to waive 50 percent of the land and i
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 park impact
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: I
Staff completed an Initial Study and determined that adopting Ordinance No. 2007-17 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.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
If Ordinance No. 2007-17 is not adopted, the County would not collect fees that could be used to improve
the park and recreational opportunities provided to Contra Costa County residents. i
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
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 June 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 (TWIC), to
present for future Board consideration, draft ordinances to implement the new park impact fees and park
dedication requirements (Quimby) described in the Study.
Attached is the final Park Impact Fees Nexus Study. dated February 2007, prepared by SCI Consulting
Group. Drafts of the Study were reviewed by the TWIC in 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. The current proposed fees are slightly higher. by approximately
$500, than the fees considered by the DLC in 2004. This is due. in part, to continuous refinement of the
Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan that has occurred over the last several months. ;
One of the recommendations contained in the Study is that the County should establish a new park
impact fee to fairly allocate the costs of park development to all new residential development in the
unincorporated County pursuant to and in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §66000
et. seq.) In order to impose a park impact fee, the County has to show, among other things. that there is
a reasonable relationship or"nexus"between new development on which the fee will be imposed and the
need for the new park and recreational facilities to be funded with the fees.
i
Proposed Park Impact Fee Calculation: The fees outlined in the proposed ordinance were calculated
based on average household size. parkland acquisition costs, parkland development costs, community
6D H-C DBL Pzrk Ded:cation Tract Fund Board Or"e.re Par:�ax-js Studs and C;P iPzrk Impact Fees un:%if 1SJ17.&c I
I
I
use facilities costs and support facilities costs.
i
Average Household Size: Because the proposed park impact 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. 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
Parkland Acquisition Cost: The land costs that are used to calculate acquisition costs are based on the
results of a survey that showed that the land value assumptions the County should be using are
$500.000 per acre (West,Central County) and S350,000 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. '
I
Given the County's per capita parkland standard (3 acres of parkland for every 1.000 people) and the
land cost per acre, the cost of land per capita is $1,500 (.003 x $500.000) and $1,050 (.003 x 350.000)
for West/Central County and East County. respectively.
Parkland Development Costs: Staff has determined that the average park development cost per acre is
$298,000. This cost represents the average estimated current dollar costs for typical neighborhood park
improvements similar to those in existing County parks (see Appendix B —Typical Neighborhood Park
Pro Forma in the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan for more information).
Consequently. the parkland development cost per capita is $895 (.003 x $298.000). I
Community Use Facilities Costs: The residents in the unincorporated areas of the County currently have
use of three County-owned community use facilities (although the County also has facility joint-use
agreements with other public agencies. primarily School Districts, the existing level of service per capita
is limited to facilities owned by the County). These facilities provide approximately 7,200 square feet of
useable space to the unincorporated area residents served by the County. Therefore, based on the
current population of the unincorporated areas of the County (157.350) the existing level of service for
community use facilities is 45.8 feet per 1,000 residents. Staff has determined that the average
construction cost of a new community use facility is $300 per square foot. Consequently, the total per
capita cost of providing the four new community centers identified in the Parks CIP $13.75 (or$13,750
per 1,000 new residents in the County unincorporated areas).
I
Support Facilities Costs: As the County grows, its administrative and maintenance facilities will be !
impacted. requiring increased space to serve the new residents of the unincorporated areas of the
County. Staff has determined that the approximate existing level of service for administrative and !
maintenance park facilities is 35 square feet per 1 ,000 residents. The Parks CIP identifies a new i
maintenance facility and anew administrative facility to be constructed within the next five years. Based
on the existing level of service and the average construction cost of $276 per square foot, the total cost
per capita is $9.66 (or S9,666 per 1 ,000 new residents in the County unincorporated area).
i
The following tables present the calculation of the proposed park impact fees based on the average
household size and the other four factors discussed above:
I
I
i
I
K7 H:CD3G park D:diaa:_gin Trust Fuad Bca:d 4rJer r_-Fa:k\zsu=Stedc and CIP+Pa:k lrrpaa Faes enh-m;.1 `-doz
i
I
j
West/Central County
Categories Parkland Parkland Community Use I Support Proposed Park
1 Acquisition ! Development I Facilities Facilities Impact Feel
Dwelling Unit 1
Single Family S4.488.93 S2,679.11 S41.14 S28.91 $7,238
Detached I _
i
To:vnhomes S3.570.68 I S2.131.07 $32.72 522.99 $5,757
i I I
Multi-Family Unit S3.233.19 I $1,929.65 529.63 S20.82 $5,213
I Mobile Home Unit j $3.013.57 S1.798.58 ! S27.62 S19.41 $4,859
1
i
East County
Categories Parkland Parkland 1 Community Use Support ! Proposed Park
Acquisition Development Facilities 1 Facilities Impact Feel
1 Dwelling Unit
Single Family S3,142.25 S2.679.11 S41.14 i S28.91 $5,891 i
Detached I 1 1
Townhomes 1 S2.499.47 S2.131.07 S32.72 S22.99 $4,686 i
Multi-Family Unit S2,263.23 I S1.929.65 $29.63 S20.82 $4,243
I I I
Mobile Home Unit 1 $2.109.50 $1,798.58 S27.62 I S19.41 $3,955
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.
Other Provisions of the Proposed Ordinance: The proposed park impact fee also includes the
following provisions:
I
Waiver for Affordable Housing Developments: At the May 1, 2007 public hearing, the Board directed I
staff to revise the provision providing a 50 percent waiver of the park impact fee for affordable housing
units to also include development projects that are subject to Chapter 822-4 of the County Ordinance
(Inclusionary Housing Ordinance).
i
Section IX of the draft Park Impact Fee Ordinance (see page 4) has been revised by adding Section B— I
Partial Waiver for Inclusionary Housing Units. As proposed. 50 percent of the park impact fee 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 developer decides to
pay the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee in exchange for constructing the required number of affordable
units. 50 percent of the park impact fee shall be waived for the number of inclusionary units for which the
in-lieu fee is paid. Consequently, 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
Ordinance when the developer pays the in-lieu fee. i
Developer Constructs Inclusionary Units i
Park Impact
Fee/Unit Subtotal
Market Rate Units 85 $7,238 $ 615,230 i
Affordable Units 15 $3,619 S 54.285
Total Park Impact Fee: S 669,515
i
i
i
SD H-CDBG Pa:k Dedrare:n T-u_r Fund Beard Order re Park Nexus Stud%and CIP:Park Impact Fees cnly i5.1 fl -dec
i
I
Developer Pays In-Lieu Fee
Park Impact
Fee/Unit Subtotal
Market Rate Units 85 87.238 $ 615.230
Market Rate Units 15 $3,619 8 54,285
In-Lieu Fee Paid
Total Park Impact Fee: S 669,515 i
As the above example shows, the Park Impact Fee paid is the same whether or not the developer
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 ordinance as defined in Section 82-24.004 of the County
Ordinance and Government Code section 65852.2. A provision has been added at Section X C. of the
proposed Ordinance No. 2007-17, exempting second units.
Adiustments to Fees: The proposed ordinance has a fee adjustment provision allowing for an automatic
increase or decrease in fees based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban
Consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Metropolitan Area. Adjustments will be made on
March 1 of each year beginning in 2008.
Reporting Requirements: In compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, the proposed ordinance requires the
Community Development Department to make available to the public an annual report that includes j
information on the amount of fees collected and interest earned. how the funds were spent, when
construction of specific improvements funded with the park impact fees will commence and if there were
any refunds of fees paid. This report will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors after the end of each
fiscal year.
Conclusion: Projected new residential development in the unincorporated areas of the County will I
create additional demand for parks and recreational services. In order to adequately serve the additional
residents. new park and recreational facilities and support facilities are needed and existing parks need I
to be improved to accommodate the additional demand for parks and recreational services generated by
new residential development. 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 I
minimal. Staff recommends adoption of the new fee so that the County can sufficient fees on new
residential development to ensure that its system of parks and recreational facilities is able to adequately
serve the growing population.
Attachments:
1. Park Impact Fee Nexus Study. dated February 2007
2. Ordinance No. 2007-17
3. Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration
4. Initial Study (Environmental Checklist Form), dated April 3, 2007
5. Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed 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
6D Fig CDBG Park D-T.;atran Tr_=t Fund Hoard Order re Park Sesu�Stud%znd CIP:Park Impact Feesertcr.l5.57-d-3e
I
I
ORDINANCE NO. 2007- 17 i
(uncodified)
I
(_adoption of Park Impact Fees)
The Contra Costa Counts-Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: i
SECTIO\ I. SUMMARY. This 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 residential development in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa Count-.
SECTIO\ II. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee
Act(Goy. Code. N 66000 et seq.) and Article 11. section 7 of the California Constitution. I
SECTION III. NOTICE AND HEARING. This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the
procedure set forth in Government Code sections _5=1986 and 66017-66018 and all required I
notices have been properly given and public hearing held.
SECTIO\ IV. DEFINITIONS. As used in this ordinance: �
I
A. 'Project applicant"means a property o«•ner, or duly designated aeent of the
property owner. who has submitted to the Count-a request for approval of a development project
on the property-.
B. 'Development project`means any project undertaken for the purpose of
development. "Development project`includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for
construction or reconstruction.but not a permit to operate.
C. "Public facilities"includes public improvements. public services and community
amenities.
I
D. ''Dwelling unit"means a building or a portion thereof, or a mobile home. r
designed for residential occupation by one person or a group of two or more persons living I
together as a domestic unit.
E. '-Parkland"means land that is used or is to be used as a park.
SECTIO\ V. PURPOSE OF FEES: USE OF FEE REVENUE.
I
A. The purpose ofthe fees described in this ordinance is to generate funds to acquire
parkland and develop parks and recreation facih ies to serve new residential development in
unincorporated areas of the Count.
Ordinance No. 200',•-17 I
I
B. All fees collected pursuant to this ordinance will be used to acquire parkland and
develop the parks and recreational facilities identified in the Contra Costa Count-Parks Capita,
Improvement Plan. dated January-')(--)0 .. as adopted by the Board of Supervisors and as may be
Me
nded from time to time("Parks CIP"').
SECTIO\ VI. FINDINGS. The Board of Supervisors finds and determines as follows:
A. The February 2007 Park Impact Fees Nexus Study prepared by SCI Consulting
Group (''Nexus Studd%') establishes the legal and policy basis for the imposition of park impact
fees on residential development projects within the unincorporated area of the Count-.
B. The Parks CIP. as adopted and as may be amended by the Board from time to
time. identifies the public facilities to be financed with the park impact fees.
C. The Nexus Study and the Parks CIP contain sufficient information for the Board
to make the findings set forth herein. and the Board declares that it has relied thereon in reaching
its conclusions set forth herein.
D. The nexus findings, in conformance with Government Code section 66001.
contained in the Nexus Study, are incorporated herein by reference. Asset forth in more detail in
the Nexus Stude:
1. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the types
of development projects that are subject to the fees in that the fee revenues will be used to
acquire, construct and rehabilitate park and recreational facilities to accommodate the additional_
demand for parks and recreation services generated by newv residential development.
'. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the new park and
recreational facilities and type of development project on which the fees are to be imposed. in
that new-residents from new residential developments will increase the demand for park and
recreational services and the associated need for park and recreational facilities to serve those
developments.
1. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the
cost of the park and recreational facilities. or portion of the facilities attributable to the
deyelopmens on which the fees are to be imposed. in that the fees are determined by applying-
the total cost of the facilities per capita to four r:sidential land uses according to their respective
household size.
SECTION X-II. FEE ADOPTION AND COLLECTION.
A. Park impact fees are hereby adopted to fund the park and recreational
improvements identified in the Parks CIP Except as otherwise prodded herein for specifically
described territo v. and subject to Sections Lt and X. park impact fees shall be imposed upon, and
collected from al,' residential devOopment projects in the unincorporated areas of the County per
dwelling unit. as follows:
Ordinance No. 200'-1'
Dwelling Unit Fee !
Sinsle-family Detached
Townhome S5,7�7 ,
Mult -Family S5.21 3)
Moble Home S4.859
B. Within the territory in the unincorporated area of the County within the territorial
jurisdiction of the East Count-Regional Planning Commission. described in Section 26-2.15 12
of the Count-,•Ordinance Code, and subject to Sections IX and X. park impact fees shall be
imposed upon and collected from all residential development projects per dwelling unit, as
follows:
Dwelling Unit Fee
Single-family Detached S5.891
Toy;-nhome S4fiM
Multi-Family S4.243
_Mobile Home S3.95?
C. The fees specified herein shall be a condition of approval of all new non-exempt
residential development projects involving the addition of at Ieast one dwelling unit to the real
property where the development project is located.
D. The project applicant shall pay to the County the fee imposed on the development
project in the amount established by this ordinance. The fee shall be collected prior to the
issuance of a building permit. ;
E. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the Count-Auditor-Controller
within thirty(30) days of receipt for deposit into a separate capital facilities account or fund. and �
for investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance
and the Mitigation Fee Act.
SECTIO\VIII. FEE CREDITS. If the County requires a project applicant. as a condition
of project approval, to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of dedication pursuant to Division 920 of
the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. or to construct any portion of any of the public
facilities identified in the Parks CIP. as amended. the value of the dedicated land_ the total
amount of in-lieu fes paid and.or the cost of construction of the public facilities. as determined
by the Communis•Development Director. shall be applied as a credit against the payment of fees
required by this ordinance. For purposes of calculating the amount of the credit, the project
applicant shall have the sole burden of demonstrating land values and costs of construction to the
satisfaction of the Communis-Development Director.
Ordinance No. 2007-17
SECTIO\IX. FEE N;AIVERS.
A. Partial Waiver for Affordable Housing Units
I. Upon written request of the project applicant. the Community-
Development Director may waive fifty(50)percent of the part: impact fees for dwelling units
that the Community Development Director determines. in a written finding, fit into one of the
following categories (1) Rental units affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area
median income: or (2) ownership units affordable to households earning less than 120% of the
area median income.
2. As a condition of such waiver, the project applicant shall enter into a
regulator agreement with the Count_ guaranteeing the use, occupancy, affordability. and term
of afrordability of such dwelling units. Rental units for which a waiver is °ranted under this
section shall be restricted to that use for a minimum of 55 years. Ownership units for which a
waiver is granted under this section shall be restricted to that use for a minimum of'50 years.
I
B. Partial Waiver for Inclusionary-Housing Units. In lieu of the partial fee %vaiyer for
affordable housing units as set forth in Section MA, development projects that are subject to
Chapter 822-4 of the County Ordinance Code shall be eligible for a partial fee waiver as follows: i
1. Fifa percent of the park impact fees 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 the Count-Ordinance Code.
Fifty percent of the park impact fees shall be waived for each for-sale unit
to be developed and sold as an inclusionary unit under the terms and conditions of Section 822-
4.41 ON of the County Ordinance Code.
2. If a fee is paid in lieu of constructing some or all inclusionary units in a
development project,pursuant to Section 8'-2-4.404 of the Count Ordinance Code. 50 percent of
the park impact fees shall be waived for the number of inclusionary units for which the in-lieu
fee is paid. '
SECTIO\ Y. EXEMPTIONS FROM FEE. The following types of development
I
projects are exempt from the payment of park impact fees:
A. Development projects for which the Count_-is the project applicant.
B. Development projects involing only the reconstruction or replacement of
buildings following (11 damage or destruction by fire or other natural disaster. or(_'--) voluntary
demolition by the owner, provided that the number of dwelling units within the reconstructed or i
replaced building is no greater than the number of dwelling units in the building prior to such
damase. destruction or demolition.
C. Development projects involving only the construction of second units. as j
defined in Section 82-24.004 of the Count:-Ordinance Cod: and Government Code section
6_585_._.
I
Ordinance No. 2007-177
4 I
I
I
I
_ 4
D. Development projects with rested rights pursuant to an agreement by and between
the project applicant and the Count_..
I
E. Development projects exempt under any provision of law. j
SECTIO'_\ �I. ADJUSTMENTS TO FEES. The fees established by this ordinance
shall on March 1 of each year.beginning in 2008, be automatically increased or decreased from
the amount then applicable by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in
the Consumer Price Index for all urban Consumers. all Items. for the San Francisco-Oakland-
San Jose Metropolitan Area. as published by the L.S. Department of Labor or its successor. for
the 12-month period ending December=1. I
i
SECTIO\ X11. REPORTI>\G REQUIREME\TS. I
I
A. Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year. the Community
Development Director or his designee shall make available to the public a report regarding the
capital facilities account or fund established for receipt of deposits of the fees collected pursuant
to this ordinance. The report shall be reviewed by the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting in
accordance with Government Code section 66006. The report shall contain the following
information for the fiscal year:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. i
_'. The amount of the fee_
The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
4. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.
5. An identification of each public improvement on which fees were
expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
6. An identification of an approximate date by«-hick the construction of the j
public improvement will commence if the Board determines that sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, and the public
improvement remains incomplete. I
A description of each interfund transfer or loan from the account or fund.
including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and. �
in the case of an interfund loan. the date on which the loan will be repaid. and the rate of interest I
that the account or fund will receive on the loan.
S. The amount of refunds made pursuant to Government Code section I
66001(e) and any allocations pursuant to Government Code section 66001(8.
B. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the capital facilities account I
or fund :established for receipt of deposits of the park impact fes. and every five years thereafter. I
the Board shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or i
fund. remaining unexpended. whether committed or uncommitted. pursuant to Government Code
section 66001:
i. Idertif_-the purpose to which the fee is to be put. i
Ordinance No. 2007-17 i
� I
I
I
I
_. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for j
which it is charged. !
3. Identifi all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete
financing in incomplete improvements identified in the Parks CIP. i
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in
subparagraph 4 is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
I
SECTION XIII. JUDICIAL REVIEW Arty-judicial action or proceeding to attack.
i
review. set aside. void. or annul the fees established by this ordinance shall be commenced
within one hundred tient} (120) dais after the effective date of this ordinance. Any action to �
attack an increase adopted pursuant to Section XI shall be commenced within one hundred �
tient (120) days; after the effective date of the increase. j
i
SECTION XIV. SEVERABILITY. If anis individual component of the park impact fee or
any provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability-of the remaining fee i
components and or ordinance provisions. and that Board declares that it would have adopted i
each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. �
SECTION XV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 60 days after
passage. and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of the
Supervisors voting for and against it. in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general
circulation published in this County..
PASSED AND ADOPTED on / 20d by the following vote: i
I
AYES: Gioia. tiilkema. Bonilla. Giover and Piepno
" NOES: None
ABSENT: None
+uc r-XrN: None i
i
I
i
ATTEST: JOHN CULLEN, Clerk of the Board of Supe
and County Administrator
/ I
Bv:, -
Deputy Chair j
LW I
,-_.
H = C or=-.:�-�_��_«-�:-,-�_RE pro._
I �
I
Ordinance No. 2007-17
i
I
-6- i
I
I
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
i
FEBRUARY2007
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
3
* PRRED 3Y:
=CorsultingGroup
4745 idiange!s Boulevard
Fairfield.CA 94534
Phone 707.430.4300
Fax 707.430.4319
_ kf\f t-Vsc-cg.com
I
I
Paaei
I
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by SCI Consulting Group (formerly Shilts Consultants, inc.)
under contract with the County of Contra Costa.
The work was accomplished under the generai 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 =ateman, Community Development Department
Hillary Heard, Community Development Depanment
Lisa Carnahan, Public Works Department
Dave Edmonds, Public Works Department
Dante Morabe, Public Works Department
Wick Smith, Land Information Systems
Jim Kennedy, Community Development Department
Linda Wilcox, Office of the County Counsel
I
i
i
Park imoact Fee Nexus Study.2007
vGJa^:Of v0,^,7a;Gait 'Consuttinail- UP
i
i
i
Dane ii
r
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 Parklaid Dedication Requirement(Quimby)................................................................... 6
2.3 Parklaid Acquisition Costs per Capita............................................................................ 7
2.4 In-LIeL Fees(Quimby).................................................................................................... 8
SECTION 3. PARK IMPACT FEES (AB 1600).............................................................................9
3.1 Parklaid Acquisition Costs per Capita............................................................................
3.2 Parklaid 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=ees Calculation.............................. .....13
3.G Park Impact Fees Credit................................................................................................14
3.7 Nexus Findings..............................................................................................................15
SECTION4. A:3PENDICES........................................................................................................17
Appendix A. Contra Costa County 0%,med Park Inventory....................................................18
Appendix B. Recent Vacant Land Saies(Contra Costa County)...........................................19
Appendix C. Average Household Size by Housing Type ......................................................23
Appendix D. Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction (SFR Fees Oniy)................................24
Appendix E. Contra Costa County Park Capital improvement Plan......................................25
Park impact Fee Nexus Sway.2007 _— —
^t =-ansuttinal.-oUD
i
I
Pay iii
List of Tables
i
I
Table 1 —Recommended Parkiand Dedication Requirement(Quimby)............................................3
Table 2—Recommended In-Lieu Fees(Quimby) .............................................................................3
Table 3—Recommended Park Impact Fees.....................................................................................4 I
Table 4—Parkland Dedication Reouirement.....................................................................................6
Table 5—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita(West/Central County)..........................................7 i
Table 6—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita(cast County).........................................................7
Table 7—In Lieu Fees(West/Central County)................................................................................8
I
Table 8—In-Lieu Fees(East County) ...............................................................................................8
Table 9—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita..........:...................................................................10
_Table 10—Parkiand Development Cost per Capita........................................................................10
Tabie 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 i
Table 14—Support Facilities Cost per Capita.................................................................................12
Table 15—Park Impact Fees Cost Components(West!Centra'County)......................................13
Table 16—Park Impact Fees(cast County)...................................................................................14
Table 17—Summary of Park Impact Fees......................................................................................14
Table 18—Contra Costa County Owned Park inventory.................................................................1 B
Tabie 19—Vacant Land Valuation..................................................................................................19
Table 20—Average Household Size by Housing Type...................................................................23
Table 21 —Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction, 2007..............................................................24
I
Park impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 �—
GoLm of Contra Costa - ;..onsuttin9Group !
I
I
I
L
f
f
Paae 1
Section 1. Executive Summary
This Park impa^i Pees Nexus Study(`Study')was prepared pursuant to the "Mitigation Fee Actas
found in Government Code&63000 et. seq. and the"Quimby Ac°' as codified in Government Code
& 66477. The purpose of this Study is to establish the legal and poiicy basis for calculating the
imposition of park impact fees on neer residential development within the unincorporated areas of
Contra Costa Coanty('County°).
The County is initiating preparation of a Parks and Trails Master Plan ("Master Plan') 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
achieve these long-term objectives,this Study proposes hnio types of park fees.
First, the County's parkiand dedication requirement and in-iieu fees are updated to reflect current
iand values and the County's maximum allowable park acreage. per capita standard under the
Quimby Act. The land andor fees ("Quimby Act in iieu fees') are required as a condition of
subdivision map approval and may be used to develop new or rehabilitate existing parks or
f_
recreational facilites.
Secondly. a park impact fee; as authorized by the passage of AB 1600 (known as the Mitigation
Fee Act), is proposed to finance the costs of park improvements to serve new development. In
general. these fees may only o e used to develop new park or recreational facilities. They are
_
iustified as an offset to the future impact of residential development on the County's existing park
F
and recreational facilities.
E
f
The combination of Quimby Act fees and park impact fees imposed on neer residential
development provides a sound and comprehensive park fee program. The imposition of both fees
ensures that financial impact from all residential deveiopment (subdivided or non-subdivided
proiecis) on County parks and recreational facilities aro fully recovered. =urthermore, the parkland
dedication requir=ment under the Quimby Act allows the County to require the dedication of 'land
for park facilities. Witn only Quimby in-lieu fees in place.the County could oniy accept fees for the
cost of land acquisition and purchase the land via willing sellers. Moreover, the park impact fees
also provide for Dark deveiopment costs, Including the costs of community use facilities,
administrative facilities and maintenance facilities. Unde; the Quimby Act, only the cost of 'land
acquisition is allowed in the ca;culation.
Ever,tnouch Iano tiaiue is the cn1v cost c m Me. al10wed In the c azu1non,',-0 Me QJ1MU%1 I'-Ileu Tee. revenue r^.m
dict',Tees-=lay be sten:^n za-k;ann acc4'ISCor ana oeveio=cni c-neY:ca'ks c"e'aDII::Zaoft oT ex:si:nc Ga' S.
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study,2007
Count:o`��nsa:-Os:a =--•�ansuttingi aup
i
i
Page 2
Procedurally, this Study recommends that the County subject all residential development to the
park impact fee and that residentlai development subject to the Quimby Fact receive a credit against
the park impact fee equal to the value of iand 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
population to establish a cost/fee per unit.
i
1.1 Summary of General Findings
Based on a review of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan ("Parks CIP"), the
veneral Plan and applicable County ordinances,the following general findings are presented:
1. The Quimby Act aliows 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
5301.123 per acre.
3: The County's parkland dedication requirement and in-lieu fee ordinance has not been
updated since 1990. Pursuant to Chapter 920-6 of the County Ordinance Code, the
County currently requires 350 square feet of land per new dwelling unit to be dedicated for
park and recreational purposes. In subdivisions containing fewer than 50 Darceis. only the
payment of fees is recuireed. Those fees are currently 4",2.000 per dweliing unit, except for
East County, where the fee is S1.350 per dwelling unit. I
4. The County's current Dark dedication requirement and in-ileu fees are based on 1990 U.S. I
Ce-sus figures for average household size: iand values of 5145.000 (West and C entral
County) and S75.000 (=ast County): and inciude park development costs of S85.000 per
acre.
Park Impact Free Nexus Study.2007 _
vCunl'e Coram Coda --- ConSuttlnaGroup
I
y
Paae 3
1.2 Summary of Recommendations
Based on the findings presented in the Study,the following recommendations are Presented:
1. The County's parkland dedication requirement ordinance should be amended to re lest
average household size: based on the 2000 U.S. Census, of the four housing types shown
below.
Table l—Recommended Parkland Dedication Requirement(Quimby)
z
Quimby Park Dedication
Requirement(Sq.Ft per
Housing Types Dwelling Unit)
Single-Family Detached 391
To::^nomes 31,i
Multi-Family Un 282
tdobre Home 283
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 shavm below. Since iand costs in the eastern areas of the County were found to be
relatively lower than the rest of the County, septi ate in-lieu fees for East Contra Costa
County should be maintained. The recommended in-lieu fees are presented in the
x foliowina table.
t.
Table 2—Recommended In-Lieu Fees (Quimby) (_
1
Quimby In-Lieu Fee '
(Central and West Quimby In-Lieu Fee
Housing Types County) (East County)
Sinal9 Famiiy Detached 54.489 -3.142
s_
Tovmhcmes -3.5'1 S'_.499
V.0 i-Fam'.ly Unit 53.233 52.233
f lcbite Home -3,014 52.109
Paris Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
Count:of Ccr.ra Costs _ :onsuftinaGroup
i
paac 4
I
3. The County should establish new Dark 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 I Central Contra East Contra
Categories Costa County Costa County
I
Sinaie-Family Detached 57.238 55.891
i o ^.homes S5.757 S4.686
Mufti-Family knit 55.213" 54.243
Mobbe Nome S4.859 53.°55
Se:and Units S2_.410W S+c6c
I
4. If the County recuires a developer, as a condition of project approval,to dedicate Darkland, i
to pay fees in-lieu of parkland dedication andior 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, facijities or improvements constructed, or
amount cf 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 Act (Gov. Code. § 00477 et.
seq.).
0. The Countys new park impact fees should be adopted and implemented in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act(Gov. Code, §66000 et. seq.).
1.3 Organization of the Study
This Study has four sections and is organized as foliows: i
• Section 1 provides a general summary of findings and recommendations.
C Se.3 bon 2 updates the County's park dedication requirement and in iieu fee Dursuant to the
Quimbv Act.
o Section 3 caicuiates park impact fees as authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act.
a Sectior.4 includes the appendices to the Study.
I
I
Park impact Fee Nexus Study,2007
;.oun;:of-,cnn Costa -•- :onsuriinge�roup
i
Pace 5
Section 2. Park Dedication Requirement and In-Lieu Fees (Quimby)
The Government Code contains specific enabling legisiation for the acquisition and development of
}
community and neighborhood parks by a city or county. This legislation, codified as Section 66477
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 lard uses
in the County.
2.1 Parkland:itandard
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 areas of the County. 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 amour:of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds'that limit.' Though
r-
not reievant to unincorporated Contra Costa County, if existing park area exceeds three acres per _
1.000 persons. tf-.e legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to
exceed five acres per 1.000 persons residing within a subdivisior,.3
r
Since the County existing park area for the unincorporated areas is less than 3.0 acres per 1,000
residents, the Countys maximum dedication andior fee allowed under the Quimby Act is three
acres of parkland for every 1.000 persons. t
t
1 (Appendix A presents the County's owned parkland inventory)
-'e Goir:ry also wins 39.2 acres of unoeveic.ned pard. :'e e'. e j ° ae
'aad "o'. V ID .auITD' tic: aIEOV �cr only.. Ve:ooec
oardard to be Ic,-,:u-nd r-tie ca culailoa of tae exlstr oar`:tc rocu€a➢on.a c.
-zovem ne-t S 7:a'2'
Park impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 —�
.. _m,ci rlorua:;os;a _- :onsutvna�-oup
i
I
pane o i
2.2 Parkland Dedication Requirement(Quimby)
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:
Proposed Average .0O3
Numbe,of Units X Household Size X 3 Acres per 1.00
by Housing Type by Housing Type Population)
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
Single-Famiiy Detached 2.993 0.003 391
Tovnnomes 2.380 0.003 311
t ulti Gamily linit 2.1;,5 0.003 282
MoG"e Home 2.009 0.003 233
For example, a single-family subdivision of 500 detached units would require a 4.5 acre land
dedication for park and recreational facilities.
5C0 39' 195.500 So.=t or 4.5
Sinc:;Family X Allowable Sq. Ft = Acres of Dedication
Detached Der Singie-Family Parkland for the
Residemaal Units Detached Un' Subdivision
Park impact Fee Nexus Study,2007
;Mnw G 0' n.-ra v�srC onsutting3:out
i
Pace 7
2.3 Parkland Acquisition Costs per Capita
Table S below presents the per capita cost for parkland acquisition based on land acquisition cost
s estimates from tha Parks CIP. As shown, land value for Nest and Central County is estimated to
be 5500,000 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 o, 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 mos:appropriate conservative figures for the purposes of this Study.4
Table 5—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita(West 1 Central County)
E
Acres per 1,000 Acres per Land Cost
Fee Component PopulationCapita' Cost Per Acre per Capita
4
Parkiand Aca_usiicn 3.0 0.003 S5C0.000 S1.500
'me
s: --
Casa,'.on 3.0 acres ner'.CC= ,L'.".G7ia::9`QL:TCS St r=d.
a s
z
i
Table 6—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita(cast County)
;G
Land Cost Per
Acres per 1.000 Acres per Acre(East Cost
Fee Component Population' Capita Contra Costa) per Capita
Parkland Acquisition 3.0 0.003 535;.000 S1.050
Notes:
svel on I. -_ores Pe-4.0'_ cu aeon Cuirnn s-annarc.
'%ss::Ted ia9C va:L'a are Ca=_e�CC Va�3a ia��SaieS IC CF,:c`,G�a CJaC.'2S DreSen[e7 IC tfe;C�7a:Ost=
C oCrav'ark's�abl_=':Irr roveme:Ran and Acnendix B mo mks Si:;o'r-
Park Imoact Fee Nexus Study.2007 "— -
:,cL•Ctv;;�;Cn::a COSi2 -=- :ansuttinaG-our-
4iwool I
i
paae 8 I
2.4 In-Lieu Fees (Quimby)
The following tables present the calculation of the in-lieu fees based on the par capita land cost
from Section 2.3.� As previously mentioned, land costs in the eastern areas of the County Mere
found to be relatively lower than the rest of the County. Therefore, separate in-lieu fees for East
Conta 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
facilities.
Table 7—In Lieu Fees(West!Central County)
Average
Household Size Park Acquisition In-Lieu Fees per
Housing Type per Dwelling Unit Cost per Capita Dwelling Unit
Sincle-Fainly Detached 2.993 S1.500 S4.489
iownhomes 2.380 S1.500 S3.571 I
Multi-Family Unit 2.155 S1.500 S3.233
Iviobile Home 2.009 51.500 S3.C14
Table 8—In-Lieu Fees(East County)
Average
Household Sae Park Acquisition In-Lieu Fees per
Housing Type per Dwelling Unit Cost per Capita Dwelling Unit
Sirgi -Family Detached 2.993 $1.050 53. 142
.ownhomes 2.380 57.050 S2.499
Multi-Family Unit 2.155 S1.050 S2.253
Mobile Home 2.009 51.050 S2.109
o
Per car;a lana costs are oaseo uron recant vacan`.lar-safes In—On-,a Osta Ccunty as Dr=_semed in Acoendlx S.
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
.AurL.cf-CTra Costa _._ -�onsutiingu�oc.cp
Paae g
Section 3. Park Impact Fees (AB 1600)
This Section presents the calcuiation 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
the different residential land uses in the County.
rg
In order to impose such fees. this Section will demonstrate that a reasonabie relationship or
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 will present findings in order to meet the Drocedural
requirements of the Mitigation =ee Act. also known as AB 1600, which are as follows:
1. Identity 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.
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
k facility and the type of deveiopment proiect on which the fee is imposed.
5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
k
the cost of the pubiic faciiity or portion of the Dubiic facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
rZ
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
c summaries the per capita cost of acquiring parkland in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Again, parkiand acquisition costs are based on iand value estimates of S500.000 per acre for West
and Central County and 5350.000 per acre for=ast County from the Parks CiP. As shown.the 3.0
acre per 1.000 copulation 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 7
ouncrc`Gor-re asp onsuitina�roup
i
Page 10
Table 9—Parkland Acquisition Cost per Capita '
Land Cost Per
Parkland Acquisition Acres per 1,000 Acres per Acre('east Cost
Fee Component PopulationCapita Contra Costa) per Capita
I
West 2 Oen ral County 3.0 0.0-03 S500.000 S',5C0
East County 3.0 0.003 5350.000 51.050
Ncros: I
Cased cn 31.0 acres ner UP...cocuatm.,stanoard born the acumv=-arks CI'.
I
`Cased on vacana land es" iates ft-n the Ccameg darks OR
!
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 papulation level of service standard is i
multipiied by the average per acre cost for parkland development to arrive at a Der capita cost.=
The average Dark develooment cost per acre shov%n represents average estimated current dollar
costs for typical neighborhood park improvements simiiar to those in existing County parks. Any
facilities other than restrooms, such as community centers or support facilities, are included as i
separate cost components.
Table 10—Parkland Development Cost per Capita
Average Park
Acres per 1,000 Acres per Development Cost
Fee Component Population' Capita' Cost per Acre 2 per Capita
Parkland Deve!oon ent 3.0 C X03 S288.413 S895.24
Scums. 00mra CL.osro'Courity'a.Ks Ca [imc ovement P+a
I
tvoles_ I
Base--o-.^...ares De,1O czc2naiion steniard'^T Cou-w"e"Im V.D. -
`ive',aaa re:•oarK ouve. c^-e'.".cost:e'acre-or!m.',Os -;:D 5
:... .
i
The ave.20e DarK oeve:o me^t cost ner acre is troy:inetea:ds C��. l
I
Park impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
��4Vonst tinaC.'ou
County of Comm Costa p
I
Pa3e
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 shovm in Tabie 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.
Table 11—Community Use Facilities per Capita Standard
Existing Sq.Ft.
Existing Space Current per 1.000
Facility per Sq.Ft. Population Population
Crod'et Community Cente• 4 000 157-350 25.4
Lefty uomez Recreat:or.Budding 800 157.350 5.?
ontara Bay=ark Community Center 2.400 157.350 15.3
Total Community Use Facilities 7.200 45.8
Source: Contra--�)sta Ccu qty.P;;biic:'forks Department
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 foo;from the
x
Parks CIP, the total cost per capita is $13.75 dor S13,750 per 1.000 new residents in the County
unincorporated areas).I =
Table 12—Community Use Facilities Cost per Capita
Construction
Level of Service Cost Cost Per
Fee Component Standard per Sq.Ft.' Capita 2 -_
Ccmm.tnity UseFacilites 45.8 sq.ft per'.000 pccuiaticn 5300 S13.75
F:oma
yvefa0- :a..ryrs-us i0r xs"re,saua.'e foCt for ccmmugt;useieCEk- Crc e--3 EF:re'-a,ks CIP _
:crts:'i;Vt10 w5:C SC.f:.^IC :7i!ed D'r'Ene a%IS[!'IC!Etld GT._`•.��e^er C3D�.e
i
The'a%Ili es used to Ca;Cu aie the exisnno leve!of se nCC Der cao:ia 5 I"rnaO:t0 ia01sa1eS DV.^.iec by the Courty. he _
l.v^uni�also nas tac!5iv lomi-l!se aueements with otre-Dubin a_-enc es. -
Since a' cf:he ex:s,:n-0 communit.use Tac;llties are lo--ate-- in oar£S. .1he cyst of iand acau;si5on is n-ci ed In the
oark'and acowsitor cn.mc.,^ent cf r..e oar.K IT.:.aCt ice_ -=
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 = —
�o r.cf Ccni.a acs:a = ansuivnavroup
I
i
Paces 2
3.4 Support Facilities Cost per Capita
As the County's population grouts, 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 shoves the approximate existing level of service per 1.000 residents for
administrative and maintenance park fa ilities.
Table 13—Support Facilities per Capita Standard
Existing Sq.Ft,
Existing Space Current per 1,000
Facility per Sq.Ft. Population Population
Park Administrative Fadiities 2,700 4.57.50 17.2 j
Park Maintenance Facilities 2.800 157.35E 17.8
Total Support Facilities 5.500 35.0
Sou-ce: Contra Ccsw G_rty.°uC C'Viwvs Depa irne7t
I
1�7tes:
''e estnate7 scuars iWt2ce cF a•amnis:.ntive reorese9ts 7!9 icier;area occ7^ed 5y
-_Gec:al DStrlc5 in We Pu&:c:.orfs Bu l7!^7 and—ens-a!S9rv.,css Ue7a.^.r^.e7:0-Mces.
The Parks CIP identifies a neemaintenance 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 5276 per square foot
from the Park CIP, the total cost per capita is 59.66 for 59.660 per 1;000 new residents in the
County unincorporated area).
Table 14—Support Facilities Cost per Capita i
Construction Cost
Fee Components Level of Service Standard Cost Per Sq.Ft. per Capita'
Paris Admtnrstrativ9 Facilie9s 17.2 sq.A.per 1.00 oopu;ation 5276 S4.7=
?art,hlaintera^.^9 F2cIIT9s 5^ ft p9'1.GC0 p0^uJlatic: S2''3 94.92
Total Support Facilty Costs S9.66
Nr
five7279 rAnstr;.—c i cost re-sc.'-.-.jl-Died 7v ipe eXati'ic!9v91 ser:c9 cer car:z?-
Park impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 —�
Ccunr of Conn Costa _--:onsaat;na%;oup
i
Pace 13
3.5 Park Impact Fees Calculation
Tables 15 and 18 presents the calculation of the park impact fees based on the percap;ta cost
components fo-Nest Central County and East County. The average household size for the four
housing types is multiplied by the per capita cost for parkland acquisition, parkland development;
community uses facilities and suppor�facilities costs to arrive a: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 (labeled as "Second Residential Units.") insufficient data exists to calculate the average
household occupancy of second residential units in the County; therefore; a co^servative estimate
of 1.0 person per unit is utilized.
E
Table 15—Park Impact Fees Cost Components(West I Central County)
Per Capita Cost Components -
Park Impact
Parkland Parkland Community Support Fees per
Categories Acquisition Development Use Facilities Facilities Dwelling Unit
4 Single=amiiv_ Dem&ed S4.488.933 S2.679.11 S41-14 S29.91 $7.238
I ov nnomes S3.570.68 S2.131..07 532.;2 S22.99 55:757
F
Multi-=artily ini: 53.233.19 S1.S29.35 529.63 S20.82 55.213
Mtobiie Home Un::, S3.0 23.57 S1.798.58 S27.52 „?9.41 54.859
i
Second Residentiai Units S1.500.00 S895.24 S13.,5 S5.66 $2.419
ko'es:
The=es ar=rc-injee to the nearest dc la, t
i
;
_ApDenjix.,rrv.,;u-s 7!e oalcu;a,._-.-of-Me avemne nousenold s?e tosazh.7ousn_-rice. -
_ i
Park Imoact Fee Nexus Study.2007, —�
ou^t cf Cor.ra Ccs z ==-`�onsut�:narou�
f
nin
i
=aae is i
Table 16—Park Impact Fees(East County)
Per Capita Cost Components
Park Impact i
Parkland Parkland Community Support Fees per
Categories Acquisition Development Use Facilities Facilities Dwelling Unit'
S`.ng!e Family De aged 53.142.25 S2,679.11 S41.1= S28.91 55.891
Townhomes 52.499.47 52,131.07 S32.72 S22.99 $4,686
Mul`o-Family lint S2.263.23 S1,929.65 S29.63 S20.82 54.243
I-Zobile Home Unit S2.109.50 S1.79.8.58 S27.62 S19.41 53.955
Second Residential Uri;s S1.050.00 5895.24 S:"s.'S S9.66 51,969
Nimes:
TCe'ees are ro,.nded:c tre nearesi-�oi'ar.
A summary of the Nark impact fees for West!Central County and East County are presented in the
table below. �
Table 17—Summary of Park Impact Fees i
Park Impact Fees per Dwelling Unit
i
West I Central Contra East Contra
Categories Costa County Costa County
Sing!c—Family De ached 57.238 S5.891
Tminhomes 55,757 S4.686
Multi-Fam'iy Unit 55.213 54.243
fitb:!e Home S=.E59 S3.9.555
Second Units S2,4?9 S?.939
-..c fees are rounds-.c:-e rearms.oc;iw.
3.6 Park Impact Fees Credit
If the County requires a developer, as a condition of approval of a development project, to dedicate
parkland. to pay fees in-lieu of parkland dedication and;o- to construct facilities o- improvements,
the park impact fees imposed on that development project should be adjusted to reflect a credit for
the cos; of the dedicated parkland, facilities or improvements constructed. or amount of fees paid
in-iieu ol ;,arkiand dedication by the deveicper.
r
l
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study,2007
Do nn c :,Ont a Costa
� Consuttina' -oup i
Page '.5
3.7 Nexus Findings
This sub-section frames the results of Section 3 in terms of the leoisiated requirements to
demonstrate the legal justification of the park impact fees. The just incation of the park impact fess
on new development must provide information as set forth in Government Code § 06000 et seq.
The requirements are discussed below.
k Purpose of Fees
The Durpose of the park impact fees are to acquire and develop parkland, improve existing parks
a
and recreation facilities and provide recreational and community use and support facilities to meet
t
the needs of the new residential population within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa
County. _-
Use of Fees
The park impact iee proceeds will be used for(1) Darkland acquisition and (21J the development of
the park and recreational improvements identified in the Parks CIP (including but no: limited to
costs of design, construction and associated California Environmental Quality Act compliance
activities). The park impact fee proceeds may no!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; new park and recreation facilities and support facilities are needed V
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 proiects :are identified in the Parks CIP. The use of the park impact fees (acquisition, construction and r
rehabilitation of park and recreational facilities) is therefore reasonably related to the type of
3-_
development project (neer 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 recreationa: services is inherently population-driven. new residents
from new development Will increase the demand for Dark and recreational services and the
associated need for park and recreational facilities to serve them. To meet this additional demand.
r
new parks should be co.^structed and axisiing parks should be rehabilitated so they an
accommcdate additional increased use. Therefore, a reasonable reiationshio exists between the
need for new and rehabilitated Dark and recreationa: facilities and the new residential development
Dro ec:s uoon which the park impact fee will bis iMDosed.
Paris Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 i-
n�-- - __Consutzinavroup
t
- i
Face to I
I
Relationship Between the Amount of the Fees and the Costs Attributable to New Development
i
he 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 I
fpe 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 new
residential development upon which the fee will be imposed.
i
I
I
I
I
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
onsuttina-roun
�cuniq o�;,on„a Costa
Page 17
Section 4. Appendices
Appendix A. Contra Costa County Owned Park Inventor,
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 Oniy)
Appendix E. Contra Costa County Park Capital Improvement Pian
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study,2007 '—
.,�C.^,tv 0` -gt:a:;0-. - _ --:onsutiina Graun
Page 18 i
Appendix A. Contra Costa County Owned Park Inventory
Table 18-Contra Costa County Owned Park Inventory
I
I
Park Name Acreage Location
Crockett Community.'-enter 0.6 C=-Kett
Lefty Gomez Recreation Building 11.0 Rodeo
Montaivin Park 7.0 San Pablo
Montara Bay Park Community Center 4.0 San Pabio
North Richmond Sall'Field 3.5 Richmond
Rodeo Creek Trail 2.5 Rodeo
AiamoElementary School and Dark 2.5 Alamo
Ciyde°ark 2.0 Clyde
�IaD&Mee Park 1006.3 Damrilie
Livors a Park 4.4 Alamo
Marie Porter?ark 0.2 Clyde
Come']Park 10.0 Discovery Bay
Lynbrook Park 4.1 Bay Poin,
Slifer Park 6.4 Discovery Bay
Boecer Park 0.5 Bay Point
HicKory%4saaows Park 0.3 Bay Point
View point Park 0.3 Bay Point
Total County Developed Parkland 75.7 i
Souxe- CR::nry of Contra CRssa,PURI:.^,W rKs Depa"'ne:ir
Park impact"Fee Nexus Study.2007 777 � —�
Coumv of Gcn:ra Costa =_
pace�c
Appendix B. Recent Vacant Land Sales (Contra Costa County) _
Table 19-Vacant Land Valuation -
5 Average -
Location Price per Price per Sq.
Sale Property Description City Quadrant Sales Date Sales Price Acres Acre Ft
1 Site:o-87 SPR Los Lie creS Vies: Jan-03 S2C E5?X30 21.5 5959.044 521.81
2 „=F.Ste °'ler_::12s "hes: '"e+-33 55.153 42: 8.1. S51E.503 514.:3 -
3 20 Unit Scod:vs:5c Si:2 San�a5:o S:est Mar-32 S1.500 T. G' 16.26' S',2.77
4 25 SFR Lc, Ei SCorameVies' J2'03 52.783 Cr=_ 5.2 x38.837 512.37
1 Gor domino•:fi e :`.'amu:Creel, i2rcal titer D4 S?.=53.C7u I., 52.85.'.535 Sc5.83 S
L_
2 S!^5ie 7e.aa'Lot;Rise SIe Rieasa.:H J Ce--a Feb-04 S2e5:3C3 9.3 S'."?2.773 523.25
3 Ste is 14 .:u!L=army l;n� Conm-d Gerra „u C2 S4 4C CC:; z 5 5.21C.840 520.91
4 1.11 Zoned Lot crccrd Central kp-03 S25C.:0C C._ 58:2.052 S'0.79 -
5 33 Lc:Scad r:or Site h127._z Ce Itfa! Jap-02 S1.57 .3C 31 E914444 S'1_01 L
t
7 9 SFR We ;,ai%,Greek Central Jarr3' S1A4C 2Y 1C 5415.:27 S9. 3
,.FR Si:2 :a rut Gr22k C2- ai Jar-34 ?�0^.C. S C 3?9.843 S8.12 k-
3 P1 F Zoned Res.Acreage t13�9e9 G2nr& 1.1a00 53 wC�''; ]; R
y ;acc.32' 58.1 -
_ r::LSned k -eace Ccr ct- Gentra :)e---^-3 -ALG.li9_ :.J c 795 `.7.04
2.t
C
10 ��G t ad Rf 5:f10C!31ie .Ramon ie9i-3 De 0 5 i.2 flL 3.7 S332.353 37.73 f
1' 5=C:SFR Sunaivis:orSre l:a:^ut-re=_k Cenrra! Nov-32 _._2
-.0rf, 5.2 328.037 S7.53
R-5 Zoned Site Art-5,.• Ea: ".ay�3 S5? .003 1.3 5733 45 515 9
2 SFR.Subdivs:os Site Sren:aood East De---02 S?.483.C3 ?c 7 SSc0.774 S13.56
3 RJb::c ccco:St2 9re^rvxc Eas. ':ay-33 _9 SACS 543.,.973 S10?2 €_
4 3'SF3_oma are:rr ooc Jan-03 C.2 7 7 59.740 , -
5 °-D C Zcneo fine 6reascCd gas. 0;:V03 S1
.5_5.09 c 5347.17 S7.97
147 S=R Los 3•e7rvoce Eas: Jun-02 S.929-497 31 5327.571 57.52 R-5 Zoned Site Coakiey Ees: u 54CC.Cr9_ ?.2 5J2c'CC S7.5G t
8 aFR S=wT5cc Res: Feb 3- 5745.CC9 3-' 5237.531 55.43
____, ,.r.;r - =:xsrr.Baas CaM Fx-
3
D
Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.2007 '" -�
Ooim r Cor.;ra = _ :onsuttinavrouD
;'
Page 20
West Contra Costa County
Vacant Land Valuation
S1.o00.000 - - =-
-_ - -
Pane 21
Central Contra Costa County
Vacant Land Valuation
53,500.000
53.000.000
--
52,500.000
52,000,000 -
I
51.500.000
=- =_y9ssumpt�on-1
1500;080
s1.000.000 -
s500,000 '==
so
j Comparables
Park impact Free Nexus Studs,2007
Oouits of -o^tra vos-a =_- --+'Jr'•S1:I21ri0�rouD
i
< - 222
East Co! ar Costa County
Vent Lan Valuation
■ ■■■ R■
S ■7 &@ \ \ j
kKo
S500.000 � .
5 0/
�&■ \
! o� &■ x
a ~ Z --
S200,000
w
\
S100,000
■ ' t g
@p_b.
�
Par
�
�
�
. �
. �
�
kImn mFee eStudy.200 , c� -
A g #COMM �9c_�m�G:p
�
<• WWWWR
-
Peas 23
Appendix C. Average Household Size by Housing Type
Since the park fees aro based on per capita need and ievel of service, this Study recommends the .
allocation of the nark 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 townhomes). multi-family residences and mobile homes.
Table 20—Average Household Size by Housing Type
Contra Costa County
Total Vacant Occupied Total Average
Housing Housing Housing Number of Household
Housing Type Units Units Units Occupants Size
Sino! =a:ni y Detached 232.050 4.732 227.318 680.276 2.993
Tovnhomes 25.976 963 29.013 69.064 2.380
Mua;-=amiiv Dna 8=99_1 4.-70 80.624 17;.293 2.155
M0Me hOT9 7120 4E6 6.83= ;3.328 2.009
Averace:2010 Census; 5 .140 10.351 3;3.789 936.881 2.725
Park Impact Free Nexus Study.2007 — –
_- :onsulzinaGrou
Cojntr o-Gor.-re sro P
X
Paoe 24
Appendix D. Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction (SFR Fees Only)
Table 21 -Park Development Fees by Jurisdiction, 2007
I
Total Park Fees
Jurisdiction Park Fees per Single Family Residence(SFR) (SFR)
Courty of Conra Costa cast County-S1.350 SFR S1.350-52.030
(Current) Balance of County-S2.000 SFR
County of Contra Costa Parkland in-Lieu Fee-S4.489 SFR(West'Oentral) 51142 SFR;East) 55.891-S7.238
fPr000sedi Park Imoac'Fee-$2.749 SFR
i
Tow.of Danvil a Parkland Dediation In-Lieu Fee S;.873
City of Oakley Parkland Dedication in-Lieu Free,Park=acilities and Public Facilities=ass 58.080
Div of.Vnut CreeK Parkland Ded'.cation In-Lieu Fee S3.000-S8.000
C`.W of 3rentvrJod CaDital improvement Gee.Parks rt Trails S6.777
City of l Martinez Parkland In-Lieu Fee-S4,111 SFR S5.298 i
Park a^d Recreation Fees for Facilties 52.187 SFR
City c`.Antioch Parkland in-Lieu Fee-S1.050 SFR(Charged at time of building pe-rdt.) S1.050-S5.180
City of Ornoa Parkland Ded;cation In-Lief;Fes S?2.274
City of Concord Parkland Fee 58.170
City of Laye Atte Parkland Ir.-Lieu Fee S"^0.118
Town of Clavion Parkiasd Dedicat pn in-Lieu Fee 52.5ii9
I
Tow of Mora^ya Formula Only. FF1V of lard is determined at funs of mac approval. Fo^muia
i
City of Pies=_nt Hili Formuia Only. RAV of land is detemiinea at time of map approva'- Fornuia
Uty of Pittsburg, Parkland Dedica'don Requirement x RAM iand determined Dy appraisal. Foanuia
City o`Sao Ramon Parkland in-Lieu Fee based on 3-acres oer 1.000 populationand FMV Formula
City o`San Pablo Formula Only. FMV of land is oetermined at tme of map approval. Formula
Other Tri-Valley Cities
City c`Dubl.n Parkland In-Gsu Fee-S10.98 1 SFR S16.1 18
FUbiig Facilities Fee(Park Improvement Component;-55.137 SFR
Cit/of Liver-more ?ark Fes S13.31.5
City Cf PleaSan,O`1 Parkiand'usd'cai:os Ir-Lsc Fe.-S3.707 SFR S133.082
Pub is Faciiites Fee-S3.35 FR
Other
ih,o?`remont Parkland Dediga`.on In-LieuFee-515.666 SFR S23.636 !
Park FazAllies-S7.970 SFR
Cir;_'f Hayward Parkland Dediatio-in ep--se S1'.953
)San Leandro Parkland Acouisbon Fee-S11.279 S-R 5'.3.107 i
Park hDr3vement Fee-S41.886 SFR
.ojn.J of niameda Park Fes.S11.55C SF? S1?,55
I
Park impact Fee Nexus Study.2007
Cgurltr of CDnt:o Costa _:onsuttingi:.raup i
f
X95
\ Appendix E. ContraCosta County Park Cpi! | Improvement Plan
Reference § Hrbeymade to the Contra Costa County Park Capita Improvement Plan which § 2 .
\ A kleh �nrla �s' CounyPubi Works DeDartmen4 since ■ § too voluminous to be bund
\
with this Nexus Study.
\
/
\ �
/
ƒ
C
M �
f ParkImpact FeeaStudy.2007 .
& - -
p A a s @ \«—ouSngGro
»�
»
- _. -
- - -
- ± yQ=« - -
Community Contra Comm t.7.Barry, unc
U:A^lU:dtV Je:'0!�L-'E^l'l:ELtL
Development
Costa
Department
County
2530 Arnold Drive
Suite 190
Martinez. California 94553-8611 =-
Phone: -, -"k��
/9v j 335.'220 „-�.� April 3, 2200.;
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIENV AN`D IN'TEN7 TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
NEGATWE DECL.AR-kTION
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the'"Guideiines for Imnlementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development
Department of Contra Costa Countv has prepared an initial study on the following project: !
1. Adoption of Ordinance 1o. 200'-19, amending the County's Park Dedication Ordinance (Division 920 of the
Counry Ordinance Code).
2. Adoption of Ordinance\o.200'-17,establishing a Park Impact Fee.
3. Adoption of the Contra Costa Countv 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 dedicauon and fee
requirements for specified affordable housing developments.The existing and proposed in lief:fees are:
Existing Proposed
West/ ExistinL, West! Proposed !
Categories Central Countv East Countv Central Countv East Counry
Single-Family DetachedS^-.000 S1.350 54.489 S3.142
Townhomes S2.000 S1.350 53.571 S2,499
Multi-Familv Lint 52,000 S1.350 S3 _'33 S2.263
Mobile Home 52.000 S1.350 S3.014 S2,109
The proposed Park Impact Fee ordinance provides for the adoption of fees to be used for the acquisition of parkiand
and development of parks and recreation facilities required to serve new resi �lepna;nrinan.
areas of Contra Costa County. Currently.the County does not assess a park[mpact fee.,Tfie prop_oseTP- arklTpact
Fees are:
!
West/ _
Categories Central Countv East Countv —
NPK 0 4 2F:!7
Single-Family DetachedS7.238 S5.891
Townhomes S5.757 5=:.686 WV;R, COUN-1`CLERK
Muld-Faz-nily unit S5._13 54.243
U N'17
Mobile Home S^.859 53.935 I �Y j T`r r G� ��
Second Units S .419 S-969
TY
The proposed Contra Costa Countv Parks Capital Improvement Pian outlines park and recreational faciii_},
improvements needed in order to provide park and recreational se vices to the grov:ing communities in the
unincorporated areas o?the Countv_ which will be partially financed witi:the funds collected from the Part:Impact
Fee.
Office Flours trlondav - cddav:8:00 axr.. - 5:00 o.m.
Office is -.:oseG the 1.s.. aro &5tr ridays of eac., month
No potentially si_onincant environmentai impacts have been identified in the initial study. A cony o=the Negative
Deciararion and all documents referenced in the Negative Declaration may be reviewed in the offices o: the �-
Communiry Development Denamnent.at McBrien Administration Buiidinc.651 Pine Street,4"'Floor.North Win L;
or Comm:mirv-Deveiopment Department.Redevelopment Division.x:'_530:Arnold Drive.Suite 190,Martinez.during
normal business hours. -
Public Comment Period-The period for axeoting comments on the adeeuacv of the environmental document:stats
on April 4.200;and ends at 5:00 p.m..Monday.April_3.200". An: comments should be in writing and sub_nitted
to the following address:
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
2530 Arnold Drive. Suite 190
Martinez. CA 9=553
rcalkC cd.cccounty.us
Ann: Robert T. Calkins,Principal Planner
It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors tentativeiv set for Tuesday.Mav 1.MOT The meeting is anticipated co be held at
1:00 p.m. at the Board of Supervisor's Chambers at 651 Pine Street.Ma-tinez. CA. It is expected that the Board of
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 time and date of the hearing.
r =
Rot-,O. �. alkins _-
Principal Planner
i
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Proiect Title:
a. Adoption of Ordinance No.200"-19.amending the County's Park Dedication Ordinance
(Division 920 of the County Ordinance Code)
b. Adoption of Ordinance No. 200"-171. establishing a Park Impact Fee
C. Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan
? Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa Count Community Development Department
2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 190 i
Martinez. CA 94553
Contact Person and Phone Number: RobertT. Calkins (925)335-%220
4.
Project Location: Unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department
2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 190
Martinez,CA 94553
6. General Plan Designation: Countwide
Zoning: Count%xide
8. Description of Project:
The proposed amendments to the Park Dedication Ordinance include:in teasing the land dedication
requirements:increasing the amount of fes required in lieu of land dedication:and providing a waiver
of dedication and fee requirements for specified affordable housing developments.
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 sene nes;
residential development in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Currently.the Count"does
not assess a park impact fee.
i
The proposed Contra Costa Count"Parks Capital Improvement Plan (Parks CIP)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 Count}"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: j
a. Construction of new parks(Appendix A improvements 1-14).and nets"community use and
support facilities(Appendix A improvements 45—50).
b. Improvements to existing parks (Appendix A improvement 15 — 37). The Parks CLP
proposes to add additional fighting at three parks where fighting airead,, exists(Appendix A
4
F =_
improvements 1:,22 and.31.Ani nen-lighting or improvements to exiting light fixtures will
.s
ensure that these fixtures do not create glare and shine onto adjacent properties. During
_
construction of each of the proposed improvements,applicable storm water runoff restrictions -=
7 of Contra Costa County will be observed. All proposed restrooms and drinking fountains will
b comply with environmental health requirements and-or appiicabie public sanitation
requirements.
C. Improvements to parks on school property(Appendix A improvements 38—44). 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 indirecth_•
constitute a significant secondary effect.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Countvwide various including residential)
10. Other public agencies whose approval
is required(e.g.,permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement): School Districts:San Ramon Valle},John Swett Richmond,
i Cities of Danville and Walnut Creek
i
ENVIRON-IN1EVTAL FACTORS POTENTLkLLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project.involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- I
Land Lase and Planning _ Transportation; _ Public Services
Population&Housing — Circulation _ 'Utilities & Service
Geological Problems Biological Resources Systems
_ Water _ Ener5- & Mineral _ Aesthetics
Air Quality Resources _ Cultural Resources
_ Mandator Findings of _ Hazards Recreation
Significance _ Noise ✓ \o new Potentially
Significant
Impacts Identified
I
I
I
I
3' DETER-NMtiATION
Or the basis of this initial evaluation:
;{ ✓ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a _=
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant eriect on the environment.there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
s
have been added to the project. A%HTIGAIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project 'vLAY have a significant etrect on the environment. and an
ENXTRONMIENT_AL LMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project vLAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment.but at least one
effect(1)has been adequately analzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards.
and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENZ IROMME\T_AL D PACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there
NVILL\OT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been
analyzed adequateiv in an earlier 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
uoon a proposed prg�ct. -
April 3. 2007
Signature Date
Robert T. Calkins CCC Community Development Denattment
Prenared By For -
i�-- .i
—Signature
Approved By
i
SOURCES
In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation.the following references (which are
available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. 6=1 Pine Street 5th
Floor-North Wine. Martinez)were consulted:
• The County General Plan('_00-5-2020) and EIR on the General Plan
• Counn•-wide General Plan and Zoning Maps
• Draft Park Impact Fees\exus Study prepared by SCI Consulting Inc.. dated February 200'
• Dra$ Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan prepared by the Contra Costa County
Parks. Creeks and Trails Committee, dated 7anuary 2007.
• Draft ordinance amending the Countv's Park Dedication Ordinance
• Draft Park Impact Fee ordinance
• Appendix A—Summar-of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I
_ Potantialiv
simiftcant
impact,
Potentialiv Unless less than
simificant Mitigation Significant
impact incorporated Impact NO Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: �
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ✓
vista? (Source 1-3)
b. Substantially damage scenic resources. _ ✓
including, but not limited to, trees. rock
outcroppings. and historic buildings within a
state scenic highwav? (Source 1=1)
C. Substantiallv degrade the existing visual ✓
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source 1-4)
d. Create a new source of substantial light or ✓
glare which would adverseiv affect da} or
nighttime views in the area? (Source 1-4) I
i
SL'Ni'_yiARY (a-d):
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 lieu fee and adding
a new park impact fee. The environmental impacts of the proposed improvements to be financed with the
proposed fees are anal}zed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan'
CelOyy, i
i
-
I
f
f
C
a :
i!
Adoption of the Contra Costa Count Parks Capital Imnrovement Plan:
Construction of New Parkas. Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15 114
of the CEQA Guidelines.because specific sites have not vet been identified for new parks and community
USC 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 anv imnacts to aesthetic resources resulting from
the development of specific improvements.
t
Improvements to Exi ting Parkas: 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: new playground structures,picnic facilities.restrooms.
paths and walk ways(access improvements)and landscapingand irrigation and correcting drainage 1
problems. ?\etre and upgraded lighting is proposed to be installed only at Left•Gomez Hickory Meador s.
and Andrew Young parks,where lighting already exists(see Appendix A improvements_3._'_, and 15).
These lights will be designed and installed so as to not create anv additional impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
Count-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 in--
applicable
heapplicable School District. These improvements will have less than a significant impact on the aesthetics
of these areas because no new lighting is proposed.
Potemiallv
sisnlP.cB:T
Impact.
Pctentially tiniess Les tnan
significant M;tieaticn Si-mf:can:
impact mccmc:ated :moat: No impact
H. AGRICULTURAL RESOLRCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant enr-iromnental off cts, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode1(1997)
prepared bythe California Dept. of Conservation.
as an optional,model to use in assessing impacts
on agricultural and farmiand. Would the proiect:
a. Com_rt Prime Farmland.Unique Farmland or ✓
Farm:and or Statewide Importance
(Farmland'). as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland )`Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resource,Agency. to non-agricultural. use"
(Source 1
6
i
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ✓
use.or a Williamson Act contract?(Source 1-
4)
C. Involve other changes in the existing ✓
environment which, due to their location or
nature. could result in conversion of
Farmland.to non-agricultural use?(Source:-
4)
SL1.RL4RY(a-c):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park-
Dedication
arkDedication 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 fie. The en ironmental 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.
Adoption of the Contra Costa Countv Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
I
Construction 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 connnunit
use and support facilities, an assessment of the potential environmental impact ofthe 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
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
piayeround structures.picnic facilities,restrooms.paths and walkways(access improvements),
landscaping, irrigation and correcting 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 sport
field(s) and constructing restroom facilities. The proposed improvements must be approved by the
applicable School District. These improvements will not impact any agricultural resources. The parks
within this category are already developed and not located on any agricultural or farmland and therefore no
changes in land use and no impacts on agricultural resources are expected.
I
4
MMMUMM
a
Potenualiv
s1ar.1'.::.ffi:t s
i mam €-
?etentialic' Cniess Les than
sierifxart Mitieanon Sienifioant
z 1n:Cae: in vmoraied IMDact No'-Moat. s-
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available. the significance
criteria established by the applicable air auaiity -
management
_ or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the _ ✓
applicable air quality pian (Source: 1-4)
b. Violate any air quaint'standard or contribute to _ ✓ f
an existing, or projected air quality violation?
(Source 1-4) I
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net ✓
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
_ E
Droiect region is non-anaimnent under -an }_
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard(including,releasins emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone _-
precursors)? (Source 1=;) =
d. Expose sensitise receptors to substantial ✓_
pollutant concentrations? (Source 1=:)
e. Create objectionable odor affecting a _ ✓ f
substantial number of people?(Source 1-4)
SU.M%l ARY(a-e):
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 air
quality 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 i
fes are analvzed under the`:Adontion of Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan"below.
Adontion of the Contra Costa County Parks Canital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks. Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1- 4- _
of the CE QA Guidelines.because Specify sites have not ye.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 specie:
locations are identified to determine if there are any impacts to air quality resources resulting from the
development of specific improvements.
8
i
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will have less than i
significant impacts on the air quaiit of the areas. Generally,the proposed improvements include installing
the following: new playground structures, picnic facilities.restrooms,paths and walk- ays(access
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
other resources. None of the proposed improvements will negatively impact the air quality ofthe area
because none of the anticipated improve
mems are generators of emissions which could negatively impact
human health or the environment, nor would they generate sufficient vehicular traffic to indirectly
constitute a significant secondary effect.
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 Mort
field(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 Mite area
because they will not conflict with any air quality plan or create objectionable odors and none of the
anticinated improvements are generators of emissions which could negatively impact human health or the
environment.nor would they generate sufficient vehicular traffic to indirectly constitute a significant
secondary effect.
potentially
sWttincatt:
impact,
potennaily ;;niess Less man
sant--pnt Mniation Significant
impact incorporated Imoa. No Impact
IV. BIOLOGIC?.L.RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect either _ ✓
directly or through habitat modifications, on
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=1)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any _ ✓
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communis= identified in local or regional
plans,policies.regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?(Source 1-1) �
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federaily ✓_
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water :pct (including, but not
limited to, marsh. vernal pool. coastal. etc.)
through direct removal. filling, hydrological
interruption,or other means? (Source 1-1)
d. interfere substantialiv with the movement or ✓
an-,- native resident or migrators fish or i
wildlife specie- o: with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors. or
9
impede the use of native_wildlife nursery
sites? (Source 1=)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances V/ f
h protecting biological resources, such as tree _
preservation policy or ordinance? (Source 1— �-
4)
s
SUMMARY(a-e):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imnact Fee Ordinance Adootion: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to g
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 County Parks Capital
Improvement Plan'below.
t
Adontion of the Contra Costa Counry Parks Canital Imnrovement Plan:
Construction of New:Parks.Community Centers.and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1;1 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 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 project. i
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will have no or less
than significant impacts on biological resources of the sites and surrounding properties because the parks
are not currently located in any 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 any local poiicy 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 generally 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
policy 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 to have any
adverse impacts on biological resources.
H.
Potentialic
sienincant
Irapa-.,
Potennaliv t:riess - Less than
smn¢ccant Mitisaron Sitmifcxnt
Itnnact incomcrated impac: No impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15061..:? (Source I=1)
b. Cause a substantial adverse chane-- in the ✓
siQnincance of an archaeological resource
pursuamto §1-5061.6?(Source 1=:)
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ✓
pal--ontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (Source 1=1)
d. Disturb any human remains. including those ✓ i
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
(Source 1-1)
I
SLMMARY (a-d):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adontion: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance wiII not result in any impacts to
cultural resources because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in li--u 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 Counry Parks Capital Improvement Plan'
below.
I
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks.Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15'45
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 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.
Improvements to Existing 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 at-- not anticipated to disturb any human remains or cause a substantial adverse change in
historical or archaelouical resources. However,during construction if any significant cultural materials i
such as artifacts.human burials or the like are encountered during construction operations. such operations
shall cease within 20 f--t of the find.the County shall be notified within 24 hours and a qualified
archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations.
` I
li
F
S
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools «mere the
County has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing spore i.
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 any 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.
E
Po- ntially
sienincant
Potentially mess Less than `-
simifcan: Mitiea:ior. SiLmHkar.:
imn_act irooroom ed impact NO Imo_act -
XT. GEOLOGY-IID SOILS -Would the project?
a. Expose_ people or structures to potential ✓ F
substwitial adverse effects. includine the risk =
of loss. injury. or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault.
as delineated on the most recent
Alquis 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 ofMines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
(Source 1-4)
r
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
(Source 1-4)
I Seismic-related ground failure.
including liquefaction (Source 1=1)
4. Landslides?(Source i=1)
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of _ ✓
topsoil? (Source 1=4)
C. Be located on a geologic 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 landsiide. lateral spreading,
subsidence.liquefaction or collapse (Source
1-4)
d. Be located on exnansive soil. as defined in ✓_
Table 18-=-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994). creating substantial risks to iife or
property?(Source 1=)
Have soiis incanabie or aci-quatteiv supporting ✓
t"
i
the use of septic tanks or alternative taste
disposal systems where sewer are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
(Source 1=)
SL\.nlARY(a-e):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imoact Fee Ordinance Adontion: Amendina the Park i
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result in any impacts to
geoloz•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"
below.
Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks, Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1_5 141;
of the CEQA Guidelines, because specific sites have not vet 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 impacts to geologic or soil resources resulting from the
development of specific improvements. r
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. Generally,the proposed improvements include
installing the following: new play aground 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 designed/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.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where me
County-has a joint use agreement with the School District generally include improving the existing sport
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities.and must be approved by the applicable School District.
New construction will meet the standards set forth by the State Architect and therefore not create
substantial risk to life or properi, and therefore no impact is anticipated.
Poteemiali
sipif care _
imna-t.
Pot-enti0v unless Less man i
si2rificant Miti2atmr. Si2rincar.:
impact incc-poratea itnoac. \c annac:
VH. RAZARDS AND ILAZARDOLS NLATERLALS-
Would the proiect:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Bourg 1-1) _
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the _ ✓
environment through reasonably foreseeable t
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
t environment? (Source 1=) -
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ✓ _
or acutely hazardous materials_substances.or
g waste within one-auarter 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
pursuaztt to Government code Section
65,862.= and. as a result, would it create a =
shiniftc:ant hazard to the public or the
environment?(Source 1-1)
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
f
or public use airport,would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working jn the project area.
For a project within the vicinity of a private ✓
airstrip,would the projec.result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
projec?area?
g Impair implementation of or physically ✓
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
1-4)
h. Expose people or structures to a significant ✓
risk of loss.injury or death involving wildland
fires. including where wildlands are adiacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with w•ildlands?(Source 1-4)
SUMMARY (a-h):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Par's Impac:Fee Ordinance will not create any hazards or exnose
people to hazardous materials-because the ordinances propose primarih raising the current park in lieu fee
and adding a new park impact fee. The environmenal impacts of the proposed improvement to be
financed with the proposed fees are analyzed under the`:Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital
Improvement Pian"below=.
.c
i
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count Parks Canital Improvement Plan:
I
I
Construction of New Parks,Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1 5 14 5
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 i
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to people from hazards or hazardous materials
resulting from the development of specific improvements.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will not expose users to
hazardous materials, create a significant hazard. interf re with an adopted emergency response plan or
result in the emission of hazardous materials-, accordingly no iinpa=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 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. 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.
I
Pam-nnalh-
sienifi:ant
imoa:-
Pemntia ly finless Less than
stMircant Mitmation Simi:eant
impact Irxtpota:ed impact \o impar;
VIII. IIYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY" - Would
the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ✓
discharge requirements? (Source 1-4)
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or _ ✓
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit i
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
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)
Substantially alter the existing drainage ✓
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
ir a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (Source '_-
4)
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage 1
f
pattern of the site or area. including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river.
or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or offsite? (Source 1-4) _=
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would ✓
exceed the capacity- of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff. (Source 1=3)
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ✓
(Source 1-4)
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ✓
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Source
1 )
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ✓
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? (Source 1—I)
i. Expel_ people or structures to a significant ✓
risk of loss.iniury or death involving flooding.
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam? (Source 1-3)
i. Inundation bv seethe. tsunami. or mudfloiy? ✓
(Source 1--4)
SU%L%I_ARY (a-D:
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
hvdrology 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 fees are analyzed under the`Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital
Improvement Plan"below.
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count-Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks.Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1=14-4
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 environmental CEQA anaivsis will b-z performed
once a specific location:is identified to determine if there are any impacts to hydrology or water quality
resulting from the development of species improvements.
16
i
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will not impact the
quaiit of the hydrology or water quality of the area. Generally,the proposed improvements include
instaiiing the following: new playground structures, picnic facilities,restroomS.paths and walkways
(access improvements),landscapingand 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
County Public works Flood Rate Insurance maps.New•restrooms will meet applicabie building codes
related to waste water discharge.
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
Count•has a ioint 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.
i
Porentiah
si�ir.:znt
Irapa:_
Potetwaily Unless Less:har.
siarnfi nt Mirntior. Significant
Imoact Inc-3moratec' Imoact No i:noact
Ds. LAIND USE AND PL NNTNTG. Would the proiect:
a Physically divide an established community? ✓
(Source 1-4)
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan. _ ✓
policy, or regulation of an agency with
iurisdiction 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
1-4)
C. Conflict With any applicable habitat ✓
conservation plan or natural community
conservation pian? (Source 1-4)
SLNINLARY (a-c): i
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Imoact 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 Ordinance Code and requires developers of new residential
properr to pay park dedication fes or dedicate land for park purposes. Amending the Park Dedication
Ordinance and adopting a Park Impart Fee Ordinance will not conflict with any appiicable land use policy
or regulation and is consistent with State lays.
I
i
g
f
a
a
z
Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Pian: -
Construction of New Parks. Community- Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1;145 f
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 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
any applicable land use 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. The proposed improvements are consistent
with the current land use designations and will not alter the use of the property,physically divide an r
established community or conflict with a habitat conservation plan.
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 therefore will not conflict with State lacy. The proposed improvements are consistent
with the current land use designations and will not alter the use of the propem°,physically divide an
established communinv or conflict with a habitat conservation pian.
Potentialk
smnifi_ant
Impact
Potentially Un:•ess Less titan -_
sismif:cant Min¢anon SigniScan: -
.Mnact mcornorated impact \o:mo_a:.t
X. N1LNERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: -
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ✓
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?(Source
1—a.)
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- _ ✓
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a iocal general plan. specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source 1-4)
SUMMARY (a-b):
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
mineral resources because the ordinances propose primariiy 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 Paris Capital Improvement Plan"
below.
1S
Adoption of me Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Pian:
Construction of New Parks,Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15514-4
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 specjflc
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 impacts to mineral resources resulting
from the development of specific improvements
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will not result in the
loss of any mineral resources because no known mineral resources currently exist on any of the sites,
according to the Counn?General Plan. Generally,the proposed improvements include mstaliine the
following: new playground structures.picnic facilities,restrooms.paths and walkways(access
improvements), landscaping, and correcting irrigation and drainage problems.
i
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at exiting schools where the
Count•has a icint 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 and will be coordinated with the State to ensure compliance with applicable State i
regulations. The proposed improvements will not result in the loss of any mineral resources because no
known mineral resources currently exist on any of the sites. according to the County General Plan. i
Potentiaih•
Potentialiv s:!—nificant lmnac% Less than
sianificant U iess Mitigation. Sianificam No -
1rrP t Inrorporawd impact impact
XI. \DISE . Would the project create:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of ✓
noise levels in excess of standards i
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?(Source 1-1)
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ ✓
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?(Source 1-4)
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient i ✓
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?(Source
1A
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase ✓ i
in ambient noise levels in the proiect
vicinit above.levels existing without the
proiect? (Source 1-1)
For a project located within an airport land ✓
use pian or.where such a plan has not been
adopted. within two miles of a public
airoor or public use airport. would the
proieCt expose people residing or worsirg
10
--_
2a
m the proiecs area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ✓
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or workjng in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
SLM-M ARY(a-fl:
_ Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adontion: Amendins the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park 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 fees are
anahzed 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 15 145
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 emdronmental impacts of the specific
= improvements will be performed at a later date.Furdrer 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 structures.picnic facilities,restrooms. paths and walkways
(access improvements), landscaping. irrigation and correcting drainage problems.It is expected that the
f 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
a 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. 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.
c�-
20
r_
Y
S`
P
• I
Pote:tizih �
sign^:cant
mr-act,
- ,Ym entiaiiv Unless Less than
Rmfi-_ant Mineanor. Sieni£icant
impact ircorpoated ItrDw. \c impact
XII. POPULATION.UND HOUSING—
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an i ✓
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly(for example,through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?(Source 1-4)
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing _ ✓
housing. necessitating the construction of
replacement housing else;hers?(Source 1-4)
C. Displace substantial numbers of people ✓ _
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?(Source 1-3)
SUMMARY(a-c): V
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 m
population gro«th and the need for housing 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 j
County Parks Capital Improvement Plan'below.
Adoption of the Contra Costa Count°Parks Canital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks,Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15 14d
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 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 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 grotth,or displace people necessitating the construction of replacement housing.
Generally. the proposed improvements include installing the following: nein 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. which must be approved by
the applicable 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 i
papulation grovth. or displace people necessitating the construction of replacement housing.no impact is
anticipated.
21 '
Pctentialic
- sier ncart
1mDa^'
Potwttiaily 1n:ess Less than
significant %titisation Sieniacarn
4
- impact Ircotporated Imnae: KD 1—IDa^.:
zi XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project:
a. Would the project result in substantial ✓
adverse ph impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
Dovermnental facilities. need for new or
ed governmental facilities.the
physically alter
construction of which could cause sieniftcant
- - environmental impacts. in order to maintain
accepu'tble service ratios. response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public servjses:
1. Fire Protection?
2. Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
-_ Other Public facilities?
(Source 1-4
SL
11-iARY:
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 public
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 an
below.
=x
AdODtion of the Contra Costa Countv Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
0 Construction of New Parks,Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15145
of the CEQA guidelines. because specific sites have not ret 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 Improvement.
Improvements to Existing,Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks will improve the auajjt
of the recreational facilities and may result in a higher level of use. However,the parks are currently being
served by the Sheriffs Department and County fire districts and this slight 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 Dlaveround structures. pienic-facilities.restrooms.
- paths and walk (assess improvements;. iandssapjnc, irti-atien and se resting drainage problems.
z=
--
g( _ L
i
Improvements to Parks on School Property: The proposed improvements at existing schools where the
Coumv has a ioint use agreement with the School District generalh•include improving the existing sport
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities. The proposed improvements must be approved by the
appiicable School District. The improvements will improve the quality of the recreational facilities and
may result in a higher level of use. However the parks are currently being served by the Sheriff's
Department and Countv fire districts and this slight increase in use will not create an adverse physical
impact resulting in the need for new governmental services..
Potennaliv
sigrincarn
mpac:,
Potentials. finless Less that:
s:Entfcant _ Mitization Slemf cant
- it Mact incoma.ated Impact NO Impact
XIV. RECRE?MN -
a. Would the project increase the use of existing ✓ �
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
phvsical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? (Source 1-4)
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)
SL'NM.ARY (a-b):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will provide the County with a
comprehensive park fee program to increase the park acreage with the County and improve existing parks.
Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan:
Construction of New Parks, Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 15 1 4_
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 recreation resources resulting from the
development of specific. improvements. . i
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks may result in a slight
increase in the number of people using the existing parks but not to a point where there will be significant
adverse impact on the physical condition of the parks and their infrastructure. No physical expansion
(additional land') is proposed as part of these improvements. Generally,the proposed improvements
include installing the following: new playground structures.picnic facilities,restroom-,paths and
walkways (access improvements), landscaping. irrigation and correcting drainage probiems.
I`
i-
g�
I ad
S-
_ f-
E
j 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 snort
field(s)and construction of restroom facilities. All of the proposed improvements will be contained within
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. l
s-
Potertiali - €-
sisnincan:
Impact }
Potennali• Cniess Less than s
sienificant M isaticr. significant
impact incs-norated Impac: No imoac: -
XIS`. TRANSPORTATIO,—MAFFIC — Would the
s project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is ✓_
substantial in relation to the existing traffic =
load and capacity of the street system
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads. or congestion at
intersections)? (Source 1-4) _
e-
b. Exceed.either individually or cumulatively.a _ ✓
level of service standard established bw the
county congestion management agencv for
designated roads or highways?(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 insubstantial
safety risks?(Source 1-4)
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ✓
feature (e.g.. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g..farm
equipment)? (Source 1--A)
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓
a f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ✓
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ✓
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g..bus turnouts.bi--Vcle racks)?(Source I-
4)
SUI UM.—kRY (a-g)
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park impact Fee Ordinance Adonnon: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance will not result m anv jmpacts to
rranspoaation traffic because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current park in lieu fee and
adding a trew part;impact fee. The enyirnmen a impact of tiro proposed improyemert to be rinancec
,4
a,
with the proposed fes are analyzed under the"Adoption of Contra Costa County Parks Capital
Improvement Plan"below.
Adoption of the Contra Costa County Parks Capital Improvement Plan: i
Construction of New Parks. Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1:14_
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 anaiysis 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.
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements to existing parks may create additional
local users of the facilities. but will not cause traffic to exceed the service standards established by the
County or have a significant impact on traffic patterns. Generally,the proposed improvements include
-
instaliing 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.
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
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.
Potenttafiv
significant
Lmpac:,
Potentialh• unless Less than
simin-ant Atiganon Significant
Imnacc Incorporated impact No impact
X\T. tiTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the
prejec:: -
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ✓ i
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (Source 1-4)
b. Require or result in the construction of new _ ✓ i
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities. the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (Source 1�1)
c. Require or result in the construction of new ✓
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities.the construction of wdnich
could cause significant environmental effects?
(Source 1=1)
d. Have sufficient water suppneS available to ✓_
serve the project from existing entitlement
and resources. or are new or expanded
i entitlement needed?(Source 1-3)
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ✓
treatment provider which serves or may sen-e
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
J commitments?(Source 1-4)
i f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permined capacity to accommodate the
projects solid waste disposal needs? (Source
=' 1--4) _
g. Comply with federal. state and local statutes ✓
t_
and regulations related to solid waste?(Source
t-4)
1=
_ F
SLMNv1.ARY(a-M: -
F Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adoption: Amending the Pari:
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 tt
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 Canital lmnTovement Plan:
Construction of New Parks.Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 155 1.15 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 anaiysis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine if there are any impacts to utilities and service systems resulting from the
development of specific improvements.
}
Improvements to Existing Parks: The propgsea jmproyements i particulariy 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 servedby the applicable water and sanitary se«er
districts ,he proposed improvements will not have a significant impact on the environment. Genera'.l.the
proposed improvements include installing the following: new playground structures.picnic facilities.
restrooms,paths and walk-ways(access improvements). landscaping and irrigation and correcting drainage
probiems.
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
fields) and construction of restroom.facilities. The proposed improvements mus:be approved by the
applicable School Dis-Lrict. Because th--se existing parks are cu.:ently being served by the applicable Wa:er
anc sanitar: sew districts,the proposed-jmproyements-Wil;no:have a signjncant-impact on the
environment.
2e
i
� f
Potentially
sisnincant -
impact,
Potermaliv unless Less than
sm-ineant ti Inzation sienin'can,
tmpa:, a.o�arated impact \o Imp=�ZkNDATORY FLVDL\-GS OF SIGN�IC_4VCE-
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade ✓
the quajiry 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 ranae of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?(Source 1-4)
b. Does the project have impacts that are _ ✓
individually limited, but cumulatively
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 projects)? (Source 1-4)
C. Does the project have environmental effects _ ✓
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings. either directly or indirectly? 1
(Source 1=1)
SLM_t ARY(a-c):
Amendment of Park Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Fee Ordinance Adontion: Amending the Park
Dedication Ordinance and adopting the Park Impact Fee Ordinance do not have the potential to deo—Tad--
the
egradethe environment, affect fish or wildlife habitat.threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community. or result
in significant impacts to cultural resources because the ordinances propose primarily raising the current
park in lieu fee and adding a new park impact fee. i
H:-CDBG?ari:Dedicatia:Tr!st Rtna'D:ac.initial Ssd dc=
i
i
Adontion of the Contra Costa Count.-Parks Canital Imnrovement Plan:
F Construction of New Parks, Community Centers and Support Facilities: Pursuant to Section 1-145
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 environmental impacts of the specific
proiects will be performed at a later date. Further CEQA analysis will be performed once a specific
location is identified to determine if there are ani°sisrificant environmental impacts to resulting from the
development of specific improvements.
r
Improvements to Existing Parks: The proposed improvements will enhance the quality of existing
parks, are consistent with the County's General Plan. are not located near existing fish and wiidlife habitats
or threaten or eliminate endangered plant or animals. Therefore, no substantial adverse effect:, 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
i not located near existine 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.
y
2;
2
'8
I
_ _
_ _ S £
0
%
'<-Z.Z-Z'Z Z-Z Z Z.Z Z Z ZZ ( \
0 \�
--------------
x x X %,x xix•x x x x X
h
00
p \
yrs
% z x x x x.x % xx x.x•x \ _
A
_ x .x- _ ' - _ x z- x_x X..%
O
C
x x.%,x
00-
- X x z z % x x x x x.x % x x-% % x x x.x x x
x x x x xx x x hj I
a
da
- as
x
• u�q
X %-X - % -X % x \ hg •�\
j
s x
n
y
'C
9
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (NOTICE)
PROJECT:
• Adoption of Ordinance NO. 2007-19, amending the County's Park i
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.
-Qa2k-�
Robert T. Calkins
I do hereby- declare under penalty- of perjury that the referenced Notice was
mailed to the addresses on the attached list.
Danielle Kelly
CONT'.-;COSTA COI;`:-Y CON-R_A COS-.:CO'_`-Y CONTRA COS.A CO _a2ARv
CO:._N-Y 0.MfN1S-BATOR En'S O=f:C= S'S. N C-ALOWEL_
a_ P.N E S 7lE El _- COCK- S:'t- O,aiL?A-�K e_VD
MART _Z CA 9k..�_ . ,SRT 5 -. CA �3__� L ..SA\- -L' . r.94521
�--
%_O`'"'RA COSTA`:RE 7,37R C- CROCK=T?C?-QWN'2Z EAST CLO`—RA CCSTA FIRE
Mi:{=-GEO.tG-_: OAK STR__T
=C10 GE.,kRY ROAD 3 LOT)-NG AV_`2m 3REti,WC0D. CA qx;I z
?�=AS.:ti- "L_. C?. Ste__' :Mrr_ET€'. Cs S4_42=
CO's-R-� C STA-'L =IC:� ORS= CCC F_00 D COti-RO_r�1 CONTRA COS-A CO SFc3 r
71 MISC=_:_A EO'a SPEC DISTRLC"S '"AT.ERC0'SERVA-IO\ 7: '.RICT. AD\C\IS-R_TII\i=Sl ^_Z- . •NCE
? L_S G_M�I:.37R:v`E �:� G:..ACiEf< 3:2-�" _S_ P:\E SIRE E.T -'`FLCOPc
NIARTItiEZ. CA S1=53 �' - _V Z. CA 5»5S= ".kRT: :EZ, CA
a
CONTRA C,057COLLA-Y
SAX ?A%,01 �AL__EY FI?= IiE` =I'�GTO�= 71R=_D STR'C-
�T'A-=2 AGENCY
PRO-=C-iO\ 2:".AR_IJTON A:'EV_
=
cS 'f`:E STREET ,�OrZTi1::`i;G 30LLI1G"_:t CA":` C\ � % \i 'GTGti. CA 9-
€-
s .q` ,x-MO . CA 923;3
MA.Z7XE.Z. CA S.S'__
.Fl.) C::' =.COSTARESCURC_
RODEO -d-I_ZC _ES ERE "ROT, C-.O: ')*;S-,1`7
? 0-ECT;^\ D S-Z:C- --.-
16SC REF:_'GlO V A_LEY ROAD
__ 0t`DA ' AY _ _ C_.,�'-�ti ROAD
FIEZC�=5. CA _ 0R. N'DA. CA 9'563- CON' RD. CA 9-321,.9-.�» g
/_%.� ^T0N F,:N Z' O C fir.\�'_;V v ^'l\-• / 02Z QU -0 #
�c..11ti,.rlJ� C`J`1:v�...1TY D .•i�R_ J\•.. ._. EZ\;CE �.�.. .;tA CO ST a \..._..:..
S_RV CES D:SIX CT O.S 2:C7 A
_1 ARL;AGTO'\ AV=`_L P.O. BOX 15i :150N C'RC__
K_1S?::G70N. C947 3:..
0% DIA0. CA 945H CO` C3 •�:
v�J R�, CA 7LJ
"x
20
e
C_`.TJ,AL C0`T2A CGS..- - ,T__
b'i:'.A S._'�;"AP D_ST ICT i2�ti: 0 5= -:,�::TA3Y_,S_RICT
5...\I-A3Y O-S-R:C- P-0 ?0x i PO 3OX i 163
zzG! f�SIiOF.= P-ACE
t?.:R-I`.Z. CA y-___ :ART:\EZ. CA 9.,453 G.Kl_.Y. CA ?=:5
:
RODEO SAVTARt DISTRICT 1WES7 CO N'-Y4`AST=:` A'7_R
800 SA1 PA3_-3 AVE:VU D:S-R:CT S._ GE SA'�ITA Y DIS.itL.. -_
37
RODEO CA 9 _ 2- - _ P 0. _ -0 ^n
.,. �_? n:0 1•;_TG= DRi:- ^:., .- ,.
_ ._RR, _0. t_.53_` ..
iC T.'.OL�.C, -i -.36 -- -
3YRO"5Z.A7l;:-ARY ^ --2":T CROCK=-T \_0 A S=ai_.A v DE-TA DiABLC S.A\: -:;:0\
;,.o 30}._-� D.3TR2 C Ji-_. R.fC7 -
B`"RON. CA 345'4, P O I30 X : _=93 P:7TS3LRG-A`-[0Ci:
G C
_OS VDANOS __I-'f .� ,/I D7'A�_C` I'R_:!_T:!C Ar L_ l)` RA CGS .�
D:STR1C- 7JT7' -GA_-Ft-APE D:_-'\ICT
PC 30X 69a S.-_
PA:-,K AV _ -a , , c , _1 8\`A!__ RO .
Pf 'S3 O C%. 4,:c. R'C!.:'ON;D. -_.
s
F
S`
A_\.BROSE RECR-a-:ON AND
A!pL _L\F.�`'E CE\'E-ERv B�RCt, sZ :TVl00:�. P=.Rt 0:S-cIC'
a:ST-Z'C" kNlC- :7SCN LT C`C-VE7=?Y 3:C: `:x`11-LO PASS ROAD
D: ' 3? M3_0
P.O. 130X:51 PI- S3'.RG. CA 9-55;n . A _-D
AYE'TE.CA 9�gac ;REINT'. OOJ. CA 94:13
FL'c Au..NT-1TLL RECRE-A-1O\
A:Lt�"?-CIL .-IQ� PARKS STR'CT RO :_:NGctiGCD- 1'I_..?'
?AFLK Cl_TRICT 47 CrREG03'Y LA\=_ RrCRE,-:Oti :117 F--icy
0 OX .:2 FLCASA\- F1'__ CA 94 GREEN—' CCD DR",'.':
SAN -ASLO.CA :43;;'6
D A3=0. CA 94323
BET:-i,L ISLA\D \:.CPA:L �;?.. C CASi:E POC'%' COUNTY"'DATER
CC'��R.=,COS.-:\\ -_a7:S=Rr:�7 Df-STRICT
It1)R0`�Eti'.t1 i P.O Box,_CC
? 0- BOX 21- CG`:CO i0. CA 51==� 2c'C, Prti=_ C_RE=K ROA0
II
37_7hE.:S'_A\D. CA 94:11 ATN.- T CR EK.CA 9459=
EAST B-=.1".`.N:C?AL L7T;_' i'Y SA S T 3AY 1;U1) S PECI -k_A_%f=CA-CC%7'i ;; CO_-A
D15-RTCT .ZAx.SziT DI ST R:CT
0. BOX 2+C5= PO BOX 2,195: :CC'l =R:,\K" 7v ST1
OAK7A\'D- CIA 94623 CA 9,152_ O.A1'._-N'.) CA. 945.2
BAY ARE? RAPM-R.A\SI" DIST 3A."AREA Ai 3 Q' A.-'Y 7L'3:_:'N Z,t\ZA.' 0
TR.'-..ASvRt'OFFICE - MAN:G=;�E\T D:STnt!CT S. \'TCES D!STR1CT
? 0. BOX'2C7_,8 939 ST'-ET -_5: D��L� ?I_`.•:
?:Kl_A D. C-.94604 SAN:RAMC-SCO. CA 94:C; DL?3L 17N. CA 91_6S i
EAS":BAY REG:O SAL?.ART: DIS"_O RY BAv a_C _� A I:ON
DiST2'C- cECLA='A-1G'; D:SIR:CTS - `DRAJr `M T
?0. BOX 5308. .O 30. 52 PBOX 25_
OA;CLA.\D. C4 9-s;; D•SCO'.ERY BAY. CA 9.514 BYRO �
EAS- C0:"R, CCS" RRIGA703YR0'�-3 TF LNY I_R'GATION
SZCT CIT} OF CLAYTON'
DF. I
M.=.RY P___ET1ER
526 FirE.Scree. ?0 BOX 15
32_\TA'OOD: CA 91513 aY-410 N. CA 94 ��- F:-R1.A ,__ T2. t
CITY OF CONCORD CITY OF BRENTWOOD CITY OF SAN PABLO
BR=.DL5 Y `X.-
1950'WUKSIJ=DR THr" ST O..L -_i'-GADO
ZZ
A\ ?A3`_3 Cr.?�eJ-
CCtiCORD Ca 9-t5'S-2='8 92;.`:T'�."GCD CA 4::3
CITY OF EL CERRITO CITY Of WALNUT CREEK CITYOF PLEASANT HILL
Rlcl zcC:
VARY DO DG 'UN, `;L-.
LrSSC= t PA3 -.i%_'-Lc :655 :.i Iti 572==T -;z
L-_CE'2:-0 C .S153G AS \- iTILL C= 54:
CITY OF MARTINEZ CITY OF ANTIOCTI CITY OF PITTSBURG
q :i.;2;E 5Jl.IO,:s
- C;
PO 910VrX iC•
P:7?
r
CITY OF HERCULES CITY OF PROLE CITY OF RICHNIOti'D
T:%:FLANSEN 3CI-.ARD LOOV-S ?.4TZ:CK S.k!vISEL
civic Dr2:F° _..1 ?E.yRSTcZ-ET 1401 Mrk2-\AIVA". S0L'.'F
1- 'LES CA 9 P-NCL-CA 9-1-46= R:C"r'�'O�D CA 9e>3:
CITY OF LAFAYETTE TOWN OF MOkAGA TOWN OF BAN-VILLE
=6ii .VT DIA3:..O BLVD.S-E-_'.0 PO 130 : iS =:0 LA GO`DA WAY
_A7AYET-E CA 94549 Y:OR_ GA CA 44 'S 7Ati`."L' =CA 9-.3E
CITY OF Sal RANION CITY OF ORINDA CITY OF OAKLEY
V:\ HO:'VARD RADE-A ROOD
:W=A.?=LSO :
=50RND:?':AY ---. 1•tci:: 5:-e�! - =
SAN RA'.IOL CA 9�-4.3 OR-`:DA CA 9;553 O:vC_ Y', CS 9456'-
TOwti OF DISCOVERY BAY ?:E?SKti" y. 1_L'C*MST I S\,C ARCA R-= ''.'%,121'U-C2{
ATT'r: Virgil Koehnc CG C:TY'0-PL_r.S•L\T 1::_L C-'0 C:-Y OF.':A'L:� - CREEK
1s^.", :ci i. Lae Road :,JCr GREGJRY LANE l(r-N t1:1T?:S"REE-
T
Disc3.`a•8.: . :A 9•i51.-1066 °LEAS:\ti: F =_... C.. S5' "��.L\'(;i CREEn. :.A 94536
C:AYTON'-TG M-CE DIS- 1 -�'. t' FEZ PCS= R1DG=MTCE 'VART:NEZ PaRs^=L D:_,
COCl-Y OF CLAYTON C0C:TY0-N,. RT"\'EZ C-`0C1-`' OF !.:�R'I':E%
6C0C :SRI-AGE T2ti_: :1=\c2:ET`a S'2=ET 5 zN2 -TTA S-2�E-
CLAY-GN. CA 9.5551- !iA:ZT:\=Z CA 94551 . _.-17!\:=Z CA i-_.,-
_.4FAYET T-CORE AREA M C. Y=T'T=TR°=T 1_"G %17--L Z' COtiCORD \'A:..__1' .=RR!' `7
&0 C.-Y OF ;-A7AY=TT= C-0 CI-Y'0= _ArAY-r -T= GO CIT.Y 0= CONCORD
!S- DIA3 0 3LVD..ST�.31C 36?= !1 J"A9L0 3— STE.3.0 :?iC PARKS:DE DR:':
_..FAYETTE CA 9 _»9 -k=Al'_" = C."94-449
CO '00?D CA 94519-247-ii
CONCORD K:R-,-WO0D -C= 1 CO`CORD?T HN'-RR=- ='G :-11 L D1A3_0 V-S'\ `r; =.T=R D =T _
(--;0 C:I'Y 0' CO`:CORD GO C:T`.'0--CO.1CORy J= PLEASANT'"I'LL _
9=51'ARKS:']E DR1V 3 :4-4] ?n!?KS?Di D'•2iVc 1 Z-0 GREGO?Y
CONCORD C.' 9a5'9-357€ COtiCv 2D CA 'i--_ ?'_EAS=ti i 1 1_L CA:4523
^ti\T:CCi?:!RKItiG ti:-CE ;A ::ORAG S R7FE- :TG ':'-C 0.-_F:' -�' '0! :CE SER:-'CES
C0C'T='^-ANT'GCr ;:GTO=V`: OF ?`0RA'.A =OCI�" �^?OAK E`'
Ati IOC-I CA 3-1__ -,007 `:CRA:,.,.A ,-..c S�l CA 4'_�_
ANTIOCH BRENTWOOD CONCORD
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDCVELOP%TFNT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PO BuX:r - - S Ts--RD SZT;c==T c9 53 PAR--S D E DR'VE
ANT:OC-. CA 9-e5�` BRENT":OGD C'. 9-5:3 COM—ORD CA S45I9
CLAYTON RERCCI.LS EL CERRITO I
REW.VELOPMENT AGENC'- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVEL0PMENT AGENCY
a`:C�`'-t Z'TA is TRAL, !1 C:"'_ ..:J V= 1 =5 _ �\ ?. 3_0 A\'-1_= Y-
C=. CA i-t_, __ ..c2R:TO Cr.94i3=
a=_
I
�I
i
i
PINOLE PITTSBURG RICHMOND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGFNCY
2:31 PEA-STREET 65 CIVIC AVr_'� PO i3C7:aCab
PI\O:.E• CA )4554 P:7,'S9iiRG CA 94555R:CI�'O\D 94 jc
WALNUT CREEK DAN'VILLE SAN PARLO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPNIE•NT AGENCY REDEVELOPM EXT AGENCY
1666\ y`•AT\STI'-=-T 51_j LA GONDA WAS' J.N- ALVARADC SQ_'ARE
'iVALNUT CPE-EK CA 9>596 DA\V;-=E CA 94=?6 =:,: PA1_0 CA 94cO5
PLEASANT HILL LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT SAN RAMON REDEVELOPMENT �
REDEVELOPMENT AGLN.CY AGENCY AGENCY i
..00GREG 0RN':.A`� =6'- V.T DI<Z:_O S:_VD.3-.!:: 2222 CAM7N0 RkMON
?L�_:ASANT f(Li_. CA 94_523 ..AFAYlZT-r CA 94-449 SAN 'tAMON, CA 94-33
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OAKLEV REDELOYME\T CROCKETT COVItil SRVCS DIST.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY AT7N KEN7. PETERSON
2530 Aricle, D-iv:_ Suite 19'0 32-3: M i;rSireet P- 0. MOX ='"s
Martinez. CA 9»553 Q I:L?Z�', CA 5.:551 CROC:i=T-. CA S4523
S -AX DlV:510\ CAL=\DARS-CG\1 AC'S.lA3==S`S]32:5' tiAl`_I\G L'%3:31' i
I
i
i
NOTICE OF A
i
PIUBLIC 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 j
Ordinance (Division 920 of the County 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 i
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: rcaik@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
this project.
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
I
i
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE OF A j
PUBLIC HEARING
Project: I
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 Counts- Parks Improvement Plan.
Date Noticed Mailed: April 13, 2007 .
I do hearbv declare under penalty- of perjury that the referenced Notice was
mailed to the addresses on the attached list.
i
Robert T. Calkins
I
I do heem. declare under penalty of perjure that the referenced-Notice was
mailed to the addresses on the attached list. i
I
izf./-�-�.� ✓� ,..�(1-'-'..cam
Susan Childers j
I
i
i
r-.
3
i-
3raddock & LooanJeff Lawrence Davidon Homes Hoffman Land Dev. Construction
+155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle Steve Abbs Bath Bums
201 1600 S. Main Street, SteT150 1380 Galaxy Way
Danville, CA 94506-4613 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Concord, CA 94522
Home Builders Assoc. of Paramount Homes SEECON Financial & Company
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-ControllerCCC Librarys Office Susan Caldwell
651 Pine Street 025 Court Street 1750 Oak Park Blvd.
Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Contra Costa Fire District Crockett Carquinez Fire District East Contra Costa Fire
Mike George 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
Misc. Spec. Districts Water Conservation District Services-Finance
255 Glacier Drive 255 Glacier Drive 651 Pine Street, 1` Floor
Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
CCC Water Aaency San Ramon Valley Fire
Kensington Fire District
3 651 Pine Street Protection
North Wing 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road 217 Arlington Avenue
Martinez. CA 94553 San Ramon, CA 94583
Kensington, CA 94707
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Moraga-Orinda Fire Contra Costa Resource
g Protection District Protection District Conservation
1680 Refuaio Valley Road 33 Orinda Way ;,552 Clayton Road
Hercules, CA 94547 Orinda, CA 94563 Concord, CA 94521
Kensington Community Diablo Community Service Contra Costa Mosquito
Services District District Abatement District
F 217 Ari inaton Avenue P.O. Box 702 155 Mason Circie
Kensinaton. CA 94707 Diablo. CA 94528 Concord. CA 94520
Centra{ Contra Costa
Mt. View Sanitary District Ironhorse Sanitary District
Sanitary District P.O. Box 2757 P.O. Box 1105
0019 Imhoff Place
Martinez. CA 945:53 Martinez. CA 94553 Oakley. CA 9450-1
Rodeo Sani,ary Disrrim West County kAJastewater Disirict Siam 3aniiary District
B00 San Pablo Avenue 2210 Hilltoo Drive P.O. Box 537
scaec. CA 9457% Richmond, CA 94806 .I Cerrito. CA 94530
k �
1
i
f
f
Byron Sanitary District Crockett-Valona Delta Diablo I
P.O. Box 382
Sanitary District Sanitation District
Byron, CA 94514 P.O. Box 578 2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Hwy.
Crockett, CA 94525 Antioch, CA 94509
Los Medanos 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
Cemetery District Knightsen Union Cemetery Park District
3285 Mt. Diablo Blvd. P.O. Box 551 3105 Willow Pass Road I
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 I
Bethel Island Castle Rock County
Municipal Improvement Contra Costa Water District P.O. Box H2O Water District
P.O. Box 244 Concord, CA 94524 200 Pine Creek Road I
Bethel Island, CA 94511 Walnut Creek, CA 94598
I
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 i
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
East Bay Regional Discovery Bay
Reclamation District 800
Park District P.O. Box 262 Reclamation/Drainage District
P.O. Box 5381 Discovery Bay, CA 94514 P.O. Box 262
Oakland. CA 94605 Byron. CA 94514
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 i
Peggy Lefebvre Pamela Ehler Bradley Ward
1950 Parkside Drive 708 Third Street One Alvarado Square
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
- _ 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
Lafayette, CA 94549 Moraga, CA 94556 Danville. CA 94526
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 Core Area Mtce Lafayette Street Ltg Mtce Z1 Concord Valley Terrace Mtce
C/O City of Lafayette C/O City of Lafayette C/0-City of Concord
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste€ 210 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Stet 210 1950 Parkside Drive
Lafayette. CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Concord, CA 94519-2578
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 1A Moraga Street Ltg Mtce 1 Oakley Police Services =
C/O City of Antioch C/O Town of Moraaa 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
I
BRENTWOOD CONCORD REDEVELOPMENT
ANTIOCH REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY I
AGENCY P.O. Box 5007 708 Third Street 1950 Parkside Drive
Antioch, 5 94509 Brentwood, CA 94513 Concord, CA 94519
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 EI Cerrito, Ca 94530
I
PINOLE REDEVELOPMENT PITTSBURG RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY
2131 Pear Street 65 Civic Avenue P.O. Box 4046
Pinole, CA 94564 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Richmond, CA 94804
WALNUT CREEK DANVILLE REDEVELOPMENT SAN PABLO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1666 N. Main Street I
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 4190 3231 Main Street P.O. Box 578
Martinez, CA 94553 Oakley, CA 94561 Crockett, CA 94525
I
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
City of Concord Town of Danville City of EI Cerrito
1950 Parkside Drive 510 La Gonda Way 10890 San Pablo Avenue I
Concord, CA 94519-2578 Danville, CA 94526-1722 EI Cerrito. CA 94530-2392 I
I
I
City of Hercules City of Lafayette City of Martinez
111 Civic Drive 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd.. Ste# 210 525 Henrietta Street
I
Hercules, CA 94547-2392 Lafayette, CA 94549 Martinez. CA 94553-2337
I
I
Town of Moraga
P.O. Box 188 City of Oakley City of Orinda I
Moraga. CA 94556 3231 Main Street P.O. Box 2000
Oakley. CA 94561 Orinda. CA 94563 I
I
I
I
i
i
\ D@ G PBS atHm Cit d Pinole CG 9 Pittsburg
100 Gregory 2]S1P a qmG. 6 Civic Avenue
:
PleasantH\ C» 94523-3323
Pinole, CA 9 56 q 7]B Pte# bu g. CA 585
�ƒ �
\% Ci! G Richmond O\ of SanPablo City of San Ramer
1401 Marina Way South On Alvarado a 2222 Camino Ramer
> \
Richmond.£& 94804
San Pablo, Ca 94806 . n Ramon, Ca 94583-1372
\ O& of Walnut Creek .
`6 Nod Main Stag
Aetna Creak, CA 94590
ƒ \
- -
ay -
-
-
a