Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
Hanson Bridgett LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017 ELLIS F. RASKIN

SENIOR COUNSEL
DIRECT DIAL ( 415) 995- 5835
DIRECT FAX ( 415) 995- 3456
E-MAIL eraskin@hansonbridgett. com
July 25, 2023
VIA E-MAIL to cityclerk@brentwoodca. gov
Joel Bryant, Mayor
City Council
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Agenda Item No. F.1 – Appeal of the Planning Commission’ s Approval of the Costco Project (APNs 019-020-073 and 019-020-055); MS 351-22, DR 22-002, CUP 22-001, MSP 22-001, and Proposed California Environmental Quality Act Exemption Dear Mayor Bryant and Members of the City Council:

This office represents WCHB Development, LLC, the owner and developer of the Bridle Gate residential development project located immediately south of the proposed approximately 431 - acre Priority Area 1 Specific Plan area. We urge the City Council to grant WCHB Development, LLC’s appeal and to deny the Tentative Parcel Map (MS 351-22), Design Review (DR 22-002), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22 -001), and Master Sign Program (MSP 22-001) applications for the proposed development of the Costco Project (“Project”) at the two vacant parcels located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and east of Heidorn Ranch Road (APNs 019-020-073 and 019- 020-055).

As set forth in this letter, and in WCHB Development, LLC’s June 20, 2023 letter to the Planning Commission, the Project must be denied for the following reasons:

The Project does not qualify for an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA;” Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) under Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines (“ Guidelines;” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) or Public Resources Code section 21083.3 .

The Project is inconsistent with the City of Brentwood’s (“City”) General Plan and the PA-1 Specific Plan.

The Project does not comply with the City’s Municipal Code.

The proposed findings for the above -referenced Project entitlements are not supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, we urge you to deny the application or, at the very least, to continue this item to allow for further CEQA review. This Project will have broad-ranging environmental effects; it will permanently change the urban dynamics within the PA -1 Specific Plan Area and the entire City.

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
It is imperative that this City not rush forward and ensure that the Project complies with all applicable environmental and land use laws.

1. Background Regarding the PA-1 Specific Plan and the Costco Project As you know, the City approved the PA-1 Specific Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the PA-1 Specific Plan nearly five years ago, in November 2018. In October 2022, the City adopted a CEQA addendum for the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR and amended the PA-1 Specific Plan by changing various land use designations, including the land-use designation for the 19.04 -acre parcel in the eastern part of the Project site from Transit Village/Mixed Use (TV/MU) to Regional Commercial ( RC).

The Project site is located within the Lone Tree Plaza shopping center in west Brentwood near the Antioch/Brentwood city limits. The Costco Site and the majority of Costco’s associated facilities and site improvements would be located exclusively on APN 019 -020-073 on the eastern half of the project site. The proposed project would include the development of a new 152,000-square-foot Costco Wholesale warehouse and various site circulation, surface parking, and landscaping improvements. Uses at the Project site will include, among other things: a warehouse retail center, tire sales and installation, and a fuel facility.

2. Key Information is Missing from the Public Record
Preliminarily, we note that key administrative record materials ( see Pub. Resources Code, 21167.6, subd. (e)) have not been made available to the public. Those materials include, for example:

Appendices A through K to the Kittelson & Associates March 21, 2023 Transportation Analysis for the Project.

A final and complete copy of the June 22, 2021 Kleinfelder Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ( the version available on the City’s website and attached to the Project’s CEQA analysis is stamped “DRAFT”).

A final and complete copy of the September 28, 2021 Kleinfelder Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report (the version available on the City’s website and attached to the Project’s CEQA analysis is stamped “DRAFT”).

On June 26, 2023, WCHB Development, LLC submitted a California Public Records Act (Gov.

Code, § 7920.000, et seq.) request to the City for all Project application materials, including all materials that comprise the administrative record . A copy of the June 26 Public Records Act request and a transmittal email are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The City was required to determine, within 10 days of receipt of the request, whether the request (in whole or in part) seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the City; the City was required to promptly notify us of the determination and the reasons therefor.

Gov. Code, § 7922.535, subd. (a); see also id. at subd. (b) [this deadline may be extended by 14 days in unusual circumstances].) In a July 3, 2023 meeting, the City Attorney’s Office informed counsel for WCHB Development, LLC that the City would be reviewing potentially Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
responsive materials to screen out privileged documents. However, WCHB Development, LLC has received no other correspondence from the City regarding this request , and the complete contents of the administrative record have not been made available to the public. (See Gov.

Code, § 7922.500 [“Nothing in this division shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records .”].) CEQA requires a good faith effort at full disclosure to provide decisionmakers and the public with sufficient information to enable them to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of an action. (Guidelines, § 15151; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 712.) When CEQA is properly followed “the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees.” ( Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) Such detailed documentation “ helps insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or criticism from being swept under the rug.” (People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841.) The purposes of CEQA are frustrated, and prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs, where failure to include relevant information and documentation precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation. ( Pub.

Resources Code, § 21005; Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife 2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 228 [finding that the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s failure to provide substantial evidentiary support for its no significant impact conclusion was prejudicial in that it deprived decision makers and the public of substantial relevant information about the project’s likely impacts].) Missing documentation, to the extent it inhibits informed public participation, therefore thwarts the purposes of CEQA.

3. The Project Does Not Qualify for an Exemption from Further Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act
The City has taken the position that the Project is exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and Guidelines Section 15183 because “[ c]umulative impacts associated with full development and buildout of the Specific Plan Area, including the proposed project site, were fully addressed in the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR” and “[n]o additional impacts to on-site resources have been identified beyond what was envisioned in the EIR.” (See Staff Report, pp.5, 8.)
The Project does not qualify for an exemption under Public Resources Code section 21083.3 or Guidelines section 15183. The Project is not consistent with the development standards in the amended version of the PA-1 Specific Plan that was approved in October 2022. Furthermore, there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project and its site.

CEQA requires that “[w]hen a program EIR is used to avoid preparing subsequent EIRs, such as here, the public agency must examine site -specific program activities ‘in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.’ ” Center for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 238.

Furthermore, as the Specific Plan EIR states, “[d]evelopment projects in the Specific Plan Area that require further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.” (PA-1 Specific Plan Draft EIR, p. ES-1.) Here, substantial evidence shows that further environmental review is necessary.

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
The City’s response to WCHB Development, LLC’s appeal has failed to show that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 or Guidelines section 15183.
a. Background Principles Regarding the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires public agencies to disclose and analyze adverse environmental effects of projects before approving those projects. “[I]t is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) CEQA is “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Ibid.)
When reviewing whether a project will have adverse environmental impacts, public agencies must disclose, analyze and mitigate any environmental effects on “human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(4).) California’s environmental justice statutes require CEQA to be applied in a manner that fairly and equitably considers potential disparate impacts on the basis of age, disability, or other protected characteristics. ( Gov. Code, § 11135, subd. (a); id. at § 65040.12, subd. (e).) Fundamentally, the purpose of CEQA is to enable decisionm akers and members of the public to make meaningful and fully-informed decisions about new development and land use planning in their community. ( See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 448-450.) As the Court of Appeal explained in Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 704 -705, CEQA review procedures generally involve a “three -tiered process:” 1
The first tier requires an agency to conduct a preliminary review to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed project. [Citation.] If CEQA applies, the agency must proceed to the second tier of the process by conducting an initial study of the project.

Citation.] Among the purposes of the initial study is to help ‘to inform the choice between a negative declaration and an Environmental Impact Report [“EIR”].’ [Citation.] If there is ‘no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment,’ the agency prepares a negative declaration.

Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(2).) Alternatively, if ‘ “the initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project plans 'would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur’ and there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be used.” ’ [Citation.] Finally, if the initial study uncovers ‘substantial 1 “ The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors 1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.)” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390.)
Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment’ ( CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(1)), the agency must proceed to the third tier of the review process and prepare a full EIR . . . .

Citation.]”
As noted above, CEQA mandates a finding of significant impact, and thus preparation of an EIR, when substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, shows that a project may have a significant cumulative effect, or has “effects [that] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2), (3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(3), (4).)
CEQA and the Guidelines require a CEQA analyses to disclose and evaluate a project’s cumulative impacts and lead agencies may not, ipso jure, equate individually minor effects with cumulatively minor effects. Rather, CEQA mandates “a finding that a project may have ‘a significant effect on the environment’ ” where the “possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b), emphasis added; Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(3).) “[C]umulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2).) Cumulative impacts may compound or increase other environmental impacts, and a CEQA analysis must inquire into and discuss the incremental impacts of a project when added to closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future development projects taking place over a period of time. (Guidelines, §§ 15130, 15355, 15358; see North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura ( 2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 682; Kings County Farm Bureau v.

City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.) Even when a combined cumulative impact associated with a project’s incremental effect and the effects of other related projects is not significant, the analysis still must “briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail.” (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(2).) “A Lead Agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency’s conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.” ( Ibid.)
b. The October 2022 Addendum for the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR Did Not Disclose, Analyze, or Mitigate Project-Specific Environmental Effects Related to the Costco Project
As noted above, in October 2022, the City adopted a CEQA addendum for the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR and amended the PA -1 Specific Plan by (among other things) changing the land-use designation for the 19.04 -acre parcel in the eastern part of the Project site from Transit Village/Mixed Use (TV/MU) to Regional Commercial (RC).

The City suggests that the arguments raised in this appeal should have been raised when the City approved the October 2022 Addendum. In its response to WCHB Development, LLC’s appeal, the City states that “[t]he statute of limitation to challenge the analysis in the Addendum has expired, and as such, the Addendum cannot be challenged now.” (Appeal Response, p. 4.) However, this appeal does not seek to challenge the Addendum; rather, this appeal disputes whether the Project approvals now being considered are exempt from CEQA under California Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and Guidelines section 15183, as is asserted by the City. As discussed herein, to qualify for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 the Project must be “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.” As such, comparison of the Project to the PA-1 Specific Plan, the 2022 Amendment, and the corresponding CEQA documents is appropriate and necessary to determine whether the Project qualifies for a CEQA exemption.

For each specific comment raised in our appeal letter, the City’s response includes the general statement that “[t]he statute of limitations has run on that approval and the Addendum’ s analysis is thus presumed valid.” This response conflates the adequacy of the Addendum with the adequacy of the City’s decision to use a CEQA exemption for the Project. The fact that the statute of limitations has expired on the Addendum for the PA -1 Specific Plan Amendment does not mean that the City’s use of a CEQA Exemption for the Project is valid or cannot be challenged. Rather, the use of a CEQA exemption for the Project must be independently supportable under the CEQA Guidelines, and is subject to a separate 35 -day statute of limitations applies to the City’s decision to consider the Project exempt, pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision ( d). The City’s response to our comment letter ignores the fact that CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 specifically requires that a lead agency determine whether the Project would cause environmental effects with the following characteristics:
1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; 2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent; 3) Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or
4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.” Guidelines, § 15183, subd. (b).) Accordingly, the City mischaracterizes our comments on resource areas such as air quality, aesthetics, biology, etc. as comments on the adequacy of the Addendum. Rather, our comments relate to the inapplicability of the proposed CEQA Exemption and the need for additional environmental review due to project -specific environmental effects that were not addressed in the EIR or CEQA Addendum. Contrary to the City’s statements, these comments are not barred by any applicable statute of limitations .

Furthermore, it bears emphasis that the October 2022 addendum does not disclose, analyze, or mitigate the project-specific environmental effects of the Costco Project. The addendum only discussed changes to land use designations across the entire PA -1 Planning Area, and there are no references to (or discussions of) the effects of specific development projects within the PA-1 Planning Area. As shown below, those environmental effects must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an appropriate CEQA document.

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
c. Further Environmental Review is Required When Projects, Like the Costco Project Here, Will Have Environmental Effects That Were Not Studied in a Program EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides the specific requirements for environmental review of projects undertaken pursuant to a program EIR.2 Section 15168(c) specifies that “[l]ater activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” Specifically, “[i]f a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration.” Guidelines, § 15168(c)(1).) Here, numerous effects of the Project were not examined in the Specific Plan EIR and therefore an initial study and either an EIR or negative declaration are required. (See Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1180 (2005) [“It is now well established, however, that an initial study is the preliminary environmental analysis and its purposes include proving the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration, enabling an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration, and providing documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.” Internal alterations and quotations omitted.].) Here, the proposed warehouse retail center, tire sales and installation, fuel facility , and other proposed uses will have environmental effects that were never studied in the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR (or the Addendum). Indeed, the EIR anticipated that the Project Site would be designated as part of the transit Village portion of the PA -1 Specific Plan Area; service stations are prohibited in the Transit Village land use designation. The EIR never evaluated any of the sitespecific or use-specific environmental impacts associated with a large-scale retail or gasoline service station at the Project site.

The City’s response to WCHB Development, LLC’s appeal incorrectly states that “Costco’s warehouse retail center, including the tire center, is a retail use permitted in the Transit Village zone, and analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.” (Appeal Response, p. 3.) The service station portion of this use was not permitted, and any retail center that would have been authorized in the TV land use designation would have needed to comply with completely radically different development standards. (See PA -1 Plan, Table 6.2.) In particular, had the Project been developed in the TV (Transit Village) land use designation, it would have needed to include a mix of residential and commercial uses (with a minimum of 25 du/acre).

New traffic, GHG, and air quality analyses that were cited in the City’s CEQA analysis (prepared by consultants that include Kittelson & Associates and Ramboll US Consulting, Inc.) confirm that there are project-specific changes that were not examined in the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR or addendum. The findings of this analysis should have been disclosed in an appropriate CEQA document, and the Project therefore cannot rely on outdated environmental disclosures in the 2 The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR specifically acknowledges that it is a program EIR. (Draft EIR at p.

ES-1 [“This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168.”]).

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. Again, the City’s response to WCHB Development, LLC’s appeal fails to rebut the fact that the Project is not exempt from CEQA review.

Among other things, additional environmental review is required to evaluate the following impacts:
i. Aesthetics
As noted above, the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR anticipated that the portion of the Project site that will contain the proposed development would be part of the Transit Village land use designation.

The Transit Village is described as a land use designation that will allow for a “mix of high - intensity uses” in a “mixed use district.” Large parking areas are generally not anticipated to be found in the Transit Village, as parking is limited to 40% of the total lot area. (See Table 6.2.) In Regional Commercial areas, such as the proposed Project site, there are large parking areas with substantial outdoor lighting. The lighting associated with the Project will likely contribute to direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with lighting and glare, and there is no evidence in the record to substantiate that the proposed lighting will comply with the design guidelines set forth in Section 3.1 of the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR.

The City’s appeal response ( at p. 4) alleges that there will be no Project-specific environmental effects because “the Project is subject to the PA -1 Specific Plan lighting and design guidelines.” This response completely ignores potential impacts associated with non -stationary sources of light (e.g., from cars and trucks on site or traveling to the site), and it also completely ignores cumulative impacts associated with combined light and glare impacts from the Project and other projects in the vicinity.

The City’s response also ignores Project-specific construction impacts, which the City specifically identifies in the Project’s CEQA assessment: “Various temporary visual impacts could occur as a result of construction activities as the project develops, including grading, equipment and material storage, and staging.” (See p. 25.) These potential effects, as well as the effects of light and glare from construction activities, should have been evaluated in an appropriate CEQA document.
ii. Air Quality
According to the City’s analysis, “[t]he square footage of the proposed Project would be less than the corresponding square footage assumed for retail development for this portion of the PA-1 Specific Plan, and thus, it is expected that the proposed Project would have similar if not lower emissions for this portion of the PA -1 Specific Plan.” (See p. 38.) But a pure volumetric analysis for these land uses does not provide a complete picture of how changes in uses can lead to more significant air quality and GHG impacts.

As noted above, the Project Site was previously designated for mixed -use residential development as part of the transit Village, allowing for residential uses and a small number of limited commercial uses such as “and medical offices, personal services, retail and restaurants, entertainment, and personal hospitality uses.” Now, the site is Regional Commercial, which is for “parcels located along Lone Tree Way and State Route 4, and accommodates bulk retailers, department stores, supermarkets, hardware stores, smaller, specialty retailers, and professional Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
and medical offices.” Mobile traffic patterns for these two uses are very different, including the potential for more truck hauling and deliveries for Regional Commercial. These changes have not been analyzed. Furthermore, the specific fuel station use creates a larger potential for idling vehicles waiting for available fuel stations – this impact on TAC emissions is not analyzed in the PA-1 EIR and Addendum.

Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative air quality impacts associated with venting fumes, potential spills, and other events at the proposed fuel station are not evaluated in the EIR or the addendum. These impacts must be evaluated in further CEQA review.

The City claims that further Air Quality analysis is not needed because “the land uses assumed for development of the proposed Project are consistent to those assumed in the PA -1 Specific Plan in terms of potential mobile source emissions that may be generated by these land uses.” Appeal Response at p. 5.) However, this is inaccurate. As discussed WCHB Development, LLC’s comments to the Planning Commission, a gas station use, which was not a land use assumed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, creates a higher potential for vehicle traffic and idling vehicles. The City claims that “service station emissions were also specifically analyzed,” but as explained below, this analysis does not properly account for the true CAP emissions from mobile sources.

The Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report referred to by the City is premised on a flawed assumption of VMT that result in a undercounting of CAP Emissions (see also comments on Traffic/Transportation impacts, below). The City’s calculation on CAP emissions, including all calculation of all emissions from the running, idling, and starting exhaust emissions for on -road mobile sources relies on the trip generation and VMT analysis conducted in the Kittelson & Associates Transportation Analysis. (Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report, pp. 24-25). As discussed in the Traffic/Transportation section of this comment letter, the VMT analysis does not analyze actual Project VMT – instead, it conducts an analysis of cumulative regional VMT, and credits the Project with a negative VMT resulting from claimed diverted trips. Applying the results of this cumulative VMT analysis to Project specific CAP Emission results in an undercount of Project emissions, and leads to absurd outcomes such as the findings in Table 3 and Table 4 of the City’s CEQA assessment, which purport to show that the Project will result in negative emissions of PM10 and PM 2.5. By using the cumulative regional VMT as the underpinning for its project specific CAP analysis, the City fails to account for the potential Project-specific impact of CAP emission.

Furthermore, the City fails to assess whether the change in CAP emissions as a result of the Costco Project constitutes a new or increased significant impact. In Table 5 of the CEQA analysis, the City compares CAP emissions from operation and construction of the Costco Project to the studied levels of CAP emissions from operation and construction of the entirety of the PA-1 Specific Plan Area. Emissions from development of a single parcel will always be a fraction of the emissions of the entirety of the Plan Area containing that parcel – that is not evidence that the Project would not create new impacts. The City must compare the emissions from operation and construction of the Costco Project to the level of emissions from operation and construction attributable to the specific parcel as studied under the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR, i.e. development of the parcel with uses permitted under the Transit Village/Mixed Use Zone applicable to the parcel at the time, and determine whether the associated change in CAP emissions would create a new impact. The City has not done so, and therefore does not have a Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
basis to conclude that the Costco Project would not create new CAP impacts over and above those identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
iii. Biological Resources
Here, the CEQA analysis does not address the project-specific direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of a fuel service station or the other proposed uses at the Project site. Given the substantial amount of traffic and outdoor lighting associated with the proposed Project, further CEQA analysis is needed to understand and mitigate impacts on wildlife habitat and movement, including potential edge-effects on wildlife movement in areas near the Project site.

The PA-1 Specific Plan and the City’s response to WCHB Development, LLC’s appeal (see p. 6) admit that buildout in the PA -1 Specific Plan Area (including the proposed development at the Project site) could potentially result in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to special-status species. However, it appears that no site -specific planning surveys or biological resource surveys were conducted as part of the PA-1 EIR process, the 2022 Addendum, or the Costco Project CEQA analysis. Without Project -specific planning surveys, the Project cannot comply with the portions of the City’s Municipal Code that implement the Habitat Conservation Plan HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). (See Mun. Code, § 16.168.010 et seq.) Pursuant to the City’s HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance, the following materials must be submitted “simultaneously with the submittal of the request for approval of a development project” (Mun. Code, § 16.168.050, subd. (a)):

Description of the affected development project, including detailed information on the project footprint, extent of construction and extent of any ongoing maintenance activities subject to the HCP/NCCP.

One or more reports documenting the methods and results of planning surveys and the methods of applicable preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP.

Evidence of compliance or planned compliance with avoidance and minimization measures, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP.

Quantification of anticipated direct and indirect impacts on land cover types and habitat for species covered by the HCP/NCCP, consistent with Chapters 6.2 and

9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.

Estimate of HCP/NCCP implementation fees due and/or documentation of proposed land dedication and/or proposed habitat restoration or creation, consistent with Section 16.168.070 of this chapter.

HCP/NCCP application administration fee.

A planning survey report must be completed and submitted as part of this process. (See https://www.cocohcp.org/226/Application -Materials-and-Resources [link to Planning Survey Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
Report and instructions for submittal] and Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP, available at https://www.cocohcp.org/DocumentCenter/ View/957/Chapter -6-of -the-HCPNCCP-PDF [“All activities covered under this Plan are required to conduct planning surveys to verify the assumptions used in this Plan including the regional analysis of avoidance and minimization.”].) There is no evidence in the publicly-available record that shows that these materials were submitted to the City. In fact, there is no evidence that any planning surveys have been conducted that would substantiate compliance with this section. Without this information, it is impossible to verify whether the Project will comply with the HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance, and it is impossible to determine whether the Project will be able to comply with the biological resource mitigation measures identified in the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR.

The absence of this information also leads to a more fundamental problem. The City has failed to substantiate that baselined environmental conditions at the Costco Project site will not result in Project-specific impacts. (See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors ( 2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 119 [Under CEQA, lead agencies must identify the existing physical environment – i.e., the baseline set of environmental conditions – against which to compare a project’s expected impacts, in order to determine whether project impacts are “significant.”].)
iv. Geology and Soils
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR acknowledges the potential for significant impacts resulting from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. ( Draft EIR, p. 3.6-18.) Accordingly, the Specific Plan EIR requires that “[a]ll future projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to prepare geotechnical soils investigations to address seismic safety issues and provide adequate mitigation for potential hazards identified.” ( Draft EIR, p. 3.6-19.) Specifically, the EIR “[r]equire[s] the submission of geologic and soils reports for all new developments” and further provides that “[t]he geologic risk areas that are determined from these studies shall have standards established and recommendations shall be incorporated into development.” ( Draft EIR, p. 3.6-19.) Here, the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR never anticipated that a fuel service station would be developed at the Project site, and there is no analysis of heightened risks of geologic impacts (or soil contamination) associated with the operation of the uses proposed by the Project.

The City’s appeal response takes the position that potential geologic impacts were addressed in the “Project-specific geotechnical report, prepared by Kleinfelder, [which] was included in the Environmental Analysis as Attachment B.” (Appeal Response, p. 7.) But the February 22, 2022 Kleinfelder Geotechnical report states (at p. 47): “This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time.” Accordingly, the Kleinfelder report is out -of -date and cannot be used to substantiate the fact that there are no potentially significant Project-specific effects (see also SFGate (April 19, 2023) “Magnitude 3.8 earthquake rattles the Bay Area ,” available at:
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/3 -8-earthquake-shakes-bay-area-17907695.php).

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
v. GHG Emissions
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR never evaluated site-specific impacts associated with the transportation and sale of gasoline, and it does not evaluate whether these impacts are consistent with the state’s GHG reduction goals and strategies as discussed in the MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050.

The City’s CEQA analysis incorrectly assumes that “[t]he land uses assumed for development of the proposed Project are similar in nature to those assumed in the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR in terms of potential mobile source emissions that may be generated by these land uses.” The new uses proposed by the Project and their associated mobile source emissions are substantially different than those associated with the mixed -use transit village that was studied in the EIR.

Further CEQA analysis is needed to analyze and mitigate impacts associated with customer traffic and deliveries. The specific fuel station use creates a larger potential for idling vehicles waiting for available fuel stations – this impact on TAC emissions is not analyzed in the PA -1 EIR and Addendum.

As the City’s appeal response admits, the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to permitted uses under the then-applicable Transit Village/Mixed Use Zone, including “ personal services, retail and restaurants, entertainment - and hospitality-related uses, and upper floor multiple-family residences.” Entitlement of this Costco Project was not possible until the October 25, 2022 Amendments to the PA -1 Specific Plan to rezone the Costco site into the RC zone, which would allow for development of large format retail without a CUP. Fuel stations are also now permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit in the RC Zone. (Addendum, pp. 4-9 4-10.) Therefore, the project-specific impacts of development of large format retail and fuel stations on this site have not been adequately studied.

The City relies on Table 9 of its Environmental Assessment, which it claims that “the GHG emissions for the Project are less than the GHG emissions outlined in the PA- 1 Specific Plan EIR,” and therefore the Costco Project “would not create new impacts over and above those identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.”3
However, Table 9 compares the emissions from operation and construction of the Costco Project to the studied levels from the operation and construction of the entirety of the PA -1 Specific Plan Area. Emissions from development of a single parcel will always be a fraction of the emissions of the entirety of the Plan Area containing that parcel – that is not evidence that the Project would not create new impacts. The City must compare the emissions from operation and construction of the Costco Project to the level of emissions from operation and construction attributable to the specific parcel as studied under the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR, i.e. development of the parcel with uses permitted under the Transit Village/Mixed Use Zone applicable to the parcel at the time, and determine whether the associated change in GHG emissions would create a new impact. The City has not done so, and therefore does not have a basis to conclude 3 This argument also completely ignores the concept of induced demand, which has been welldocumented in academic literature (see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean -ClaudeThill/publication/5150965_Trip_making_induced_travel_demand_and_accessibility/links/0a85e5 3bf0e2b2d269000000/Trip -making-induced-travel-demand-and-accessibility.pdf).

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
that the Costco Project would not create new impacts over and above those identified in the PA - 1 Specific Plan EIR.

The City further claims that the “land uses assumed for development of the proposed Project are similar in nature to those assumed in the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR in terms of potential mobile source emissions that may be generated by these land uses” – however, no evidence or basis is provided for this claim. As discussed WCHB Development, LLC’s initial comment letter to the Planning Commission, a gas station use, which was not a land use assumed in the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR, creates a higher potential for vehicle traffic and idling vehicles. The City has not provided any analysis of whether this would create new impacts over and above those identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
vi. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Neither the PA-1 EIR nor the Addendum analyze the potential impacts of a fueling station, including the transport of fuel to the site and the potential for contaminated runoff. The exemption analysis essentially admits this and tries to split the difference by including “Project Requirements” calling for permit approvals with third party agencies and preparation of a hazardous materials plan. However, this is essentially an admission of significant impacts and potential mitigation measures that can be imposed, but since the Project is claiming an exemption, these Mitigation Measures are not being included under CEQA. The Project should prepare an appropriate CEQA analysis that includes these “Project Requirements” as mitigation measures.

The City’s appeal response does not rebut the fact that the Project’ s CEQA analysis fails to address potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Because the February 22, 2022 Kleinfelder Geotechnical report is out -of -date, the City cannot conclude that the Project will not result in potentially significant Project-specific effects related to geologic hazards and the underground storage of hazardous materials at the Project site. vii. Hydrology and Water Quality
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR acknowledges the possible impact of development on stormwaterrelated violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. To mitigate these potential impacts, Policy IF 4 -3 “[r]equire[s] all development projects to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on -site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process and as required by the City’s NPDES Municipal Regional Permit.” (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-16.) Furthermore, “Project applicants shall mitigate any drainage impacts as necessary.” (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-16.) The Project is also required to comply with the City-adopted Contra Costa Clean Water Program.

Here, however, there is no analysis of potential new significant impacts associated with changes to the area’s surface cover (including a substantial amount of paved areas that will be used for parking) and the new service station. There is no analysis or acknowledgement of potential contamination from automobile -related uses, including potential spills at the service station.

Further analysis is needed to determine whether there are additional undisclosed and unmitigated impacts, and whether the Project can be operated in a manner that complies with the EIR’s adopted mitigation measures.

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
As set forth in the initial comment letter to the Planning Commission , the City has not properly analyzed the water quality or hydrology impacts of the proposed Costco Project, in part, because it has not considered potential significant impacts related to increases in impervious areas. The City’s response letter argues that the hydrology analysis is adequate because the environmental analysis acknowledges that the Project would result in new impervious areas.

However, the City’s analysis fails to quantify how much new impervious area would be created by the Project as compared to what was contemplated in the Specific Plan EIR. The City’s environmental analysis provides generalized conclusions about hydrology and water quality impacts, but fails to identify how many acres of new impervious surfaces would be created, how many gallons per minute would need to be contained by stormwater infrastructure during peak storm events, how many acre -feet per year of groundwater discharge would be disrupted by the new impervious surface, and importantly, how the proposed Costco Project differs from what was analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR. As such, there are potentially significant impacts related to water quality, groundwater recharge, stormwater discharge, an hazardous materials that have not been considered.

Without any quantification of the proposed increase in impervious areas, the City has no way of knowing if additional stormwater infrastructure is necessary that differs significantly from that which was analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR, and which could cause new significant impacts.

For example, the City’s environmental analysis states “through compliance with the NPDES permit requirements, and compliance with the SWPPP, and stormwater control plan C.3 stormwater requirements the proposed project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.” (See Environmental Analysis, p. 83.) This analysis is inadequate, as it draws a conclusion without ever considering what types of chemicals could be present in the stormwater runoff due to cars, the newly proposed service station which will undoubtedly involve spills of gasoline (which contains cancer-causing benzene), and does not consider whether the stormwater facilities are properly sized, or could result in a discharge of the unidentified pollutants. As such, the hydrology and water quality analysis is inadequate and fails to consider potentially significant impacts of the Project. viii. Noise
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and Addendum do not analyze or mitigate potential noise impacts associated with changing mobile traffic patterns and operational uses associated with the proposed Project. Direct, indirect, and cumulative noise impacts associated with the changed land uses and traffic patterns must be evaluated in an appropriate CEQA analysis.

The noise impacts resulting from the Costco Project have not been adequately analyzed. The Costco Project is not a random retail establishment, but a large -scale wholesale store. The intensity of noise from delivery trucks and other operational activities will undoubtedly be far more significant and disruptive than the typical noise associated with standard retail businesses.

The constant flow of delivery trucks, loading and unloading activities, mechanical equipment, and other operational aspects will undoubtedly result in sustained and heightened noise levels throughout the day and night.

The City’s response concerning noise impacts, as outlined in the Project -specific Acoustical Assessment by Kimberly-Horn & Associates, Inc., leaves several critical concerns unanswered.

The assessment is ambiguous with respect to which data it relied upon in arriving at its Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
conclusions. Table 11 and Table 12, which the City cited to in its response, simply state that the sound level data from the nearest noise measurement location was utilized at the closest modeled receptor.” (Environmental Analysis at p. 97 -98.) However, there is no other retail/commercial project within the Project’s proximity that shares the same operational intensity and magnitude. The assessment fails to account for the amplified noise emanating from the steady stream of delivery trucks that is an integral part of a wholesale retail establishment like Costco, the frequent traffic pulling in and out of the parking lot, and the gas station.

Furthermore, Costco retail centers typically operate for extended hours, including weekends.

This prolonged period of activity can result in unaccounted -for noise exposure to nearby receptors. Noise generated by customers entering and exiting the store, shopping carts, and conversations can add to the overall noise impact. The assessment fails to show that it relied on the appropriate data when assessing the Project’s impacts on population or that it sufficiently accounted for the noise intensity resulting from a wholesale retail establishment like Costco.

Given Costco’s atypical scale and operational demands, the noise impact of the Project is likely to be significantly greater than what has been considered in the existing analysis. The City is required to ensure that any development, especially one of this magnitude, undergoes a comprehensive and transparent evaluation of all potential noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

The Costco Project’s Environmental Analysis also fails to take into account the number of trips that would occur during the construction phase, which would be approximately 500 daily trips and could exacerbate the noise impacts during construction. ( Compare Loomis Costco DEIR at p. 3.6-12.)4 The assessment also fails to assess the worst-case construction noise levels at the nearest use-all options. (Compare Loomis Costco DEIR at p. 3.6-12.) Moreover, the method that Kimberly-Horn & Associates, Inc. used in assessing the noise impacts of the Project’s operation is incorrect. The correct way to assess the Project’s operational noise would be to measure traffic noise levels on roadway segments near the project site using the FHWY Highway Noise Prediction Model, taking into account the different noise levels for weekday and weekend traffic patterns. (See Loomis Costco DEIR, Table 3.6 -9 [measuring noise levels from nearby roadways with a comparison between weekdays and weekends]; see also Tracy Costco DEIR, Table 3.11-7,5and River Crossing Costco DEIR, Table 4.10 -16.6) The assessment should also take into account traffic volumes derived from a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Furthermore, the assessment must take into consideration future traffic patterns, with and without the Project’s contribution, in order to more accurately reflect the Project’s long-term impacts. (See River Crossing Costco DEIR, Table 4.10 -15.) Additionally, nighttime interior noise levels due to the Project’s delivery trucks could be significant and require a more thorough analysis. (See Loomis Costco DEIR at p. 3.6-16.) The Costco Project’s Environmental Analysis simply shows the ambient noise level with respect to 4 The Noise chapter of the Costco Loomis Recirculated Draft EIR is available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/loomisca/uploads/2020/04/Loomis_Costco -DEIR-3.6- Noise_draft.pdf .
5 The Tracy Costco EIR is available at:
https://www.cityoftracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13855/637989204233470000 . 6 The River Crossing Costco EIR is available at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mzrku9m8fvbj58g/AABBtY_CqrXEYaKD4ooHhGiYa?dl=0 Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
certain receptors in the Project’s vicinity, without specifying whether the noise levels are measured when all activities (i.e., Costco’s retail, service station, and gas station) are happening at the same time and the specific hour of the day. (See River Crossing Costco DEIR, table 4.10-15.) A tire center alone can cause a noise level of up to 65 DbA, but Environmental Assessment Table 11 only shows noise levels of mostly below 65 DbA for the entire Project retail, service station, and gas station). Table 11 also does not show the distance between the listed receptors and the Project.

A more thorough study of the Project’s environmental impacts is required. If there will be a substantial increase in the noise levels due to the Costco Project, appropriate mitigation measures such as constructing a sound wall along the Project’s boundary to shield nearby sensitive receptors from nighttime truck deliveries, and installing dual pane windows with an STC rating of 35 and/or higher to reduce interior noise levels attributable to nighttime truck deliveries, may be necessary to protect public health and safety. ix. Population and Housing
The City asserts that the proposed development would not induce population growth, either directly or indirectly. While it is acknowledged that the Project may create local jobs, the City claims that these employment opportunities would not generate significant growth or expand the job base in a manner that would lead to notable population increase.

However, it is important to consider the specific details and context of the proposed Costco Project. The Project site was originally contemplated as a Transit Village, which would be used for mixed-use residential purposes along with a limited range of commercial activities, such as medical offices and personal services. The current designation of the site is Regional Commercial, which allows bulk retailers, department stores, supermarkets, hardware stores, smaller specialty retailers, and other similar uses. The two land uses result in different personnel intensity levels, and thereby, result in different population and housing needs. Further CEQA review is needed to assess potential impacts on population and housing resulting from the Costco Project.

The City’s appeal response claims that the Project’s employment growth would not result in significant site-specific environmental impacts related to other environmental topics. However, the assessment lacks a comprehensive analysis of potential direct impacts on employment patterns, transportation, and socio -economic factors, which could influence housing demands and population dynamics. The Environmental Analysis is conclusory and fails to offer concrete evidence or data supporting its claim that: “[t]he proposed commercial development would not induce population growth, either directly or indirectly.” (Environmental Analysis at p. 103.) The assessment merely asserts that the commercial store and fueling station would create local jobs but does not offer a detailed breakdown of the number of jobs, their types, or how they might contribute to the overall economic landscape.

A more detailed environmental analysis is required to delve deeper into the potential employment opportunities that the Project would generate and consider how these job opportunities might attract individuals from surrounding areas, potentially impacting housing demands. The presence of a large-scale Costco store, along with a gas station and service Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
station, could create a demand for workers from a broader region, leading to increased residential activity in proximity to the Project site.

Socioeconomic factors are also pivotal in assessing the Project’s influence on housing needs.

The response overlooks potential socioeconomic changes resulting from the increased job opportunities and consumer spending associated with the Costco store. For instance, the development may attract higher-income individuals to the area, potentially leading to changes in property values, rental prices, and housing affordability.

Given the significance of the proposed Costco Project, a more in -depth analysis of its direct impacts on employment, transportation, and socio-economic factors is warranted. The omission of a detailed discussion on the specific impacts on population and housing needs raises questions about the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the environmental impact assessment. In any event, substantial evidence suggests that the Project will have project - specific direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts related to population and housing. x. Public Services
The City’s analysis assumes that the Project “would not require the development of a new facility or modifications of an existing facility at this time.” (See p. 104.) Additional CEQA analysis is needed to determine whether the Project’s proposed uses, including the service station, will require new or additional fire or other emergency services in the City.

The City’s appeal response inadequately addresses the potential need for additional fire or emergency services resulting from the inclusion of a gas station and service station within the Costco Project. The Environmental Analysis’ conclusory statement that the implementation of the PA-1 Specific Plan would not create new impacts or significantly change previously identified impacts is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. (See Environmental Analysis at p. 104.)
The City’s CEQA analysis should have provided a comprehensive analysis of the specific impacts associated with the introduction of a gas station and service station. It should have considered the potential increase in fire risks and emergency service demands that come with these types of facilities. The Environmental Analysis does not adequately explain how the existence of a gas station and service station, with their distinct operational requirements and potential risks, would not heighten the need for additional fire services, including a new fire station, in the area.

Moreover, the Specific Plan, which originally contemplated more general urban uses such as residential, commercial, and mixed -use pedestrian transit, did not envision the introduction of a large-scale, intensive wholesale retail establishment like Costco, along with its gas station and service station components. The Project’s characteristics are substantially different and much more intensive than what the Specific Plan initially accounted for. As such, the Specific Plan EIR may not have adequately considered or assessed the unique risks and challenges associated with the Costco Project and its associated fire and emergency service demands.

The City’s Environmental Analysis must, therefore, undergo a more thorough and transparent evaluation of the potential risks and impacts related to the gas station and service station Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
components of the Costco Project. This should include a detailed assessment of fire risks, emergency service demands, and the necessity for additional fire stations or resources to ensure public safety and efficient emergency response in the area.

To make informed decisions and uphold the principles of responsible planning, the City must address these specific concerns. The inclusion of a gas station and service station within the Costco Project introduces unique challenges and potential impacts that warrant a detailed analysis and a proactive approach to public safety.
xi. Transportation and Traffic
As noted above, the Project Site was previously designated for mixed-use residential development as part of the transit Village, allowing for residential uses and a small number of limited commercial uses such as “and medical offices, personal services, retail and restaurants, entertainment, and personal hospitality uses.” Now, the site is Regional Commercial, which is for “parcels located along Lone Tree Way and State Route 4, and accommodates bulk retailers, department stores, supermarkets, hardware stores, smaller, specialty retailers, and professional and medical offices.” Mobile traffic patterns for these two uses are very different, including the potential for more truck hauling and deliveries for Regional Commercial. These changes have not been analyzed. Furthermore, the specific fuel station use creates a larger potential for idling vehicles waiting for available fuel stations – this impact on TAC emissions is not analyzed in the PA-1 EIR and Addendum.

The 2022 Addendum does not include any significant analysis of the changes to the land use map that were approved in 2022, including changes to the Project site. It concludes that employment generation under the amendments will decrease because of non -residential square footage decreasing overall, and it notes that dwelling unit counts are near identical. The addendum concludes that “none of the minor changes with the Modified Project have the potential to result in new or more sever environmental impacts […]”, and concludes no further analysis is needed pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. But as noted above, there will be substantial changes to the traffic patterns and mobile source emissions associated with the Regional Commercial uses.

The 2018 PA-1 Draft EIR does not specifically analyze circulation with respect to the Project Site, and does not analyze the potential for a fueling station on the site. With respect to operational truck traffic, the only specific analysis is the Draft EIR’s observation that “Currently, Lone Tree Way is designated as a truck route. The City Municipal Code allows truck drivers to use other city streets as well, provided those streets comprise the most direct route between the nearest truck route and the freight origin or destination, unless such movements are expressly prohibited by posted signs.” (3.14 -14). Further analysis of impacts associated with these uses is needed.

Furthermore, neither the original EIR nor the Addendum disclose or evaluate whether the Project will comply with the revised circulation plan that was adopted as part of the 2022 amendments to the PA-1 Specific Plan. It also appears that the Project now conflicts with new policies that were adopted as part of the 2022 amendments:

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
Policy C.11 – Require New development Projects that would generate more than 50 employees must implement Transportation Demand Management ( TDM) programs to address the impacts on vehicular traffic on streets within and beyond the project area. Here, the Staff Report estimated 250-300 employees at Costco, but there do not appear to be any required TDM programs for the Project.

Circulation Design Guideline No. 10 – Commercial and Office development projects should incorporate curbside drop off and pickup areas into their site design and circulation/parking areas to facilitate safe and convenient pickup and drop off options. The site plans (see, e.g., sheet A-002) do not show curbside drop-off and pickup areas.

Following the submission of WCHB Development, LLC’s initial comment letter to the Planning Commission, the Project’s potential traffic impacts were evaluated by Stephen Abrams , a traffic expert and President of Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering . Subsequent analysis of the Project-specific traffic impacts revealed the following:
1) Failure to Comply with CCTA’s Growth Management Program The City’s VMT analysis fails to comply with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s CCTA”) Growth Management Program Implementation Guide (which is attached hereto as Exhibit B). Compliance with CCTA (which Brentwood is a member of) Growth Management Program is required under the voter-approved Measure J. The Growth Management Program’s VMT Analysis Methodology is mandatory, and the City has been following the Growth Management Program’s VMT Analysis Methodology for other past projects in the City (e.g., the Trumark Trailside project that was approved on June 20, 2023 , the same day the Planning Commission approved the Costco Project ).

The City’s analysis states: “Since the City of Brentwood has not published guidelines associated with completing a CEQA transportation analysis or assigned VMT thresholds, the OPR CEQA Guidelines are followed in this analysis.” (EA, p.111). However, this entirely ignores the existing of the CCTA's GMP Implementation Guide. CCTA’s GMP Implementation Guide specifically states: “Compliance with the requirements of this document is mandatory as part of fulfillment of local jurisdictions’ requirements under the CCTA GMP.” (Implementation Guide at 103). CCTA’s GMP Implementation Guide has been used for the VMT analysis of other projects in the City, and no explanation is given as to why it was not used here.

The VMT analysis provided in the Brentwood Costco Transportation Analysis deviates from the GMP Implementation Plan guidance by skipping over the baseline VMT analysis and providing only a cumulative VMT analysis, focusing not on the actual VMT created by the Costco Project, but instead analyzing only the projected changes in regional VMT that will occur when considering the Costco Project in the cumulative context of Costco’s surrounding areas. In doing this, the City concludes that the Project will result in decreased VMT.

The flowchart on Page 104 of the Implementation Guide is clear that the VMT analysis is supposed to start with a Baseline Plus Project analysis. This project is not screened out and on

scenarios that are supposed to be analyzed. Later, on Page 116 of the Implementation Guide, it Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
states the following: “Projects that are unable to mitigate their project specific VMT impacts to less than-significant levels require a Cumulative VMT analysis.” Again, there is no explanation as to why the VMT analysis skips straight to the cumulative analysis without making any conclusions about the project-specific VMT impacts that would theoretically require the cumulative analysis provided by the City.

Without conducting the Baseline Plus Project VMT analysis it is not possible to know whether or not the established thresholds in the GMP Implementation Guide would be exceeded. The typical mitigation to address Baseline Plus Project VMT impacts is to prepare a Transportation Demand Management Program, which would be the likely outcome if the Baseline Plus Project VMT analysis had been conducted.

be taken is to “[i]mplement transportation demand management ( TDM) or physical design measures to reduce VMT generated by the project.” It is not clear why this project was allowed to avoid analysis of the average employee VMT which most likely would have led to the standard requirement of a TDM plan to reduce VMT. Implementation of a TDM plan for employees of a big box store like Costco is exactly the kind of policy the new CEQA transportation analysis methodology is intended to encourage . 2) Failure to Comply with Specific Plan Policy C.11 (Formerly C.10)
As the City acknowledges, PA-1 Specific Plan Policy C.11 requires new development projects that would generate more than 50 employees must implement TDM programs to address the impacts on vehicular traffic on streets within and beyond the project area. No such program is included as part of the Project. The City claims that conditions requiring consistency with the MTC/ABAG Regional Transportation Plan are sufficient to satisfy this policy, however these conditions are simply vague direction to maintain safe transit networks and promote the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. None of these conditions are sufficient to constitute a TDM Program to address the Costco Project’s impact on traffic. 3) Potential Increase in Hazards Not Analyzed
The City’s analysis also fails to address potential pedestrian safety hazards discussed in its own Transportation Analysis. Page 46 of the Kittelson & Associates Transportation Analysis describes how sidewalks would be installed along a portion of Lone Tree Plaza adjacent project but then states: “However, a gap in pedestrian facilities would still exist between these facilities and Heidorn Ranch Road along the out-parcel frontage.” There is also no sidewalk along the northern side of Lone Tree Plaza in this area and the gap in the sidewalk would be on the approach to the Heidorn Ranch Road intersection, which is forecast to have queuing deficiencies on Page 42 of the Analysis. The lack of a pedestrian connection from the project to the sidewalks on Heidorn Ranch Road should be considered a potentially significant impact on pedestrian safety and should have been mitigated with a sidewalk connection from the project to Heidorn Ranch Road.

Additional CEQA analysis is needed to evaluate the adequacy of emergency ingress and egress for the specific uses proposed by the Project.

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
4) Flawed Local Traffic Analysis
LOS D is the established standard for Lone Tree Way in the Brentwood General Plan, the Antioch General Plan, and also the East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance dated September 2017) such as Lone Tree Way. Page 38 of the Kittelson & Associates Transportation Analysis (dated March 21, 2023) states that, at the Canada Valley Road/Lone Tree Way intersection, “[t]he improvements described in the Background Plus Project Conditions section improve the intersections operations but are unable to bring the level of service to LOS D.” No explanation is provided as to why this intersection (located in the City of Antioch) is allowed to exceed all established standards on a route of regional significance under both background plus project and cumulative plus project conditions.

Furthermore, some mitigation measures proposed for the Project’s impact on local traffic would exacerbate existing traffic, or are otherwise infeasible. Pages 28 and 38 of the Kittelson & Associates Transportation Analysis concludes that the intersection of Heidorn Ranch Road and Lone Tree Way can be mitigated back to LOS D by adding an additional westbound left turn lane that would be created by removing one westbound through lane on Lone Tree Way, thereby reducing the through lanes on Lone Tree Way from three lanes to two lanes. The westbound direction where the lane would be removed has its highest volumes during the AM peak hour. This would likely cause significant impacts on AM peak hour intersection operations and queuing which were not analyzed in the report. On Pages 38 of the Analysis the discussion of the potential mitigations for the intersection of Empire Avenue and Lone Tree Way identifies improvements that appear to be infeasible. The analysis states that an eastbound through -right lane would be added by removing the exclusive right turn pocket. However, there is no receiving lane on the other side of the intersection for this additional through movement (four through lanes). This appears to be infeasible since creating the necessary additional (fourth) receiving lane on the east side of the intersection could require roadway widening and the removal of a bike lane and bus stop in this area.

There are also significant inconsistencies in the application of the background and cumulative growth factors referred to in the analysis. Page 23 of Kittelson & Associates Transportation Analysis describes how “background conditions represent adjusted year 2022 volumes, assuming the Sand Creek Road extension is constructed.” Then the analysis specifies “[t]he 2040 traffic volumes used for the Cumulative analysis were determined by applying a model growth factor.” At Heidorn Ranch Road the westbound PM peak hour movement is reduced by 350 vehicles to account for the extension of Sand Creek Road under Background (2022) conditions. But then the westbound through volumes are increased by only 36 vehicles (5%) from Background to Cumulative 2040 conditions. This equates to less than a 0.3 percent growth rate, which is not at all consistent with the CCTA’s growth forecasts for Lone Tree Way. Another example is at the intersection of Lone Tree Way at Hillcrest Drive. At this intersection there is a 12% reduction from Existing to Background on the eastbound through movement to account for the Sand Creek Road Extension but then inexplicably the through volume again decreases by 30 vehicles between the background (2022) and cumulative (2040) scenarios. It is also unclear why the through volumes on Lone Tree Way are reduced for the extension when intersection number 14 (Sand Creek Road at Heidorn Ranch Road) shows no through volumes on Sand Creek Road in the background or cumulative scenarios. This appears to indicate the analysis Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
does not actually include a connection/ extension from Heidorn Ranch Road to the west to Deer Valley Road, only a connection to the east to State Route 4. 5) Failure to Include Appendices
The table of contents for the Kittelson & Associates Transportation Analysis lists 11 appendices.

These appendices are meant to provide the background and buildout analyses supporting the conclusions in the Kittelson & Associates Transportation Analysis. However, these appendices were not included in the City’s Environmental Assessment, and the City did not provide any link or other access to these appendices. Without providing all appendices, the City has failed to provide the full information needed for the public to assess the environmental impact of the Costco Project.
xii. Wildfire Hazards
Neither the EIR nor the Addendum contemplated the types of uses proposed by this Project.

Further analysis is needed to evaluate ( and potentially mitigate) wildfire risks associated with the service station, retail uses, and other proposed activities at the Project site. Analysis is also needed to determine whether changes in the patterns of Project-related vehicle trips (including deliveries) may contribute to increased offsite wildfire risks. d. The Project is not Consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan and ProjectSpecific Significant Effects which are Peculiar to the Project Site Require Further Environmental Review
Guidelines section 15183 provides that exempt classes of projects include, but are not limited to, qualifying projects “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified .” (Guidelines, § 15183, subd. (a).) Such projects “ shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” (Ibid.; see also id. § 15183.3, subd. (d)(2)(A).) For the reasons discussed above , there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that require further analysis. Given that the original EIR never contemplated large-scale retail, service stations, or other similar uses at the Project site, the original PA-1 Specific Plan EIR requires substantial updates.

As noted above, it appears that the Project conflicts with new policies that were adopted as part of the 2022 amendments. These conflicts render the Project ineligible for a CEQA exemption under Guidelines Section 15183.

Finally, as noted below, the City cannot make the required conditional use permit findings for the service station. Because service stations in the Regional Commercial land use designation are only authorized as a conditional use when they are accessory to general large format retailers, the Project is not consistent with the applicable PA -1 development standards.

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2

4. The City Cannot Make Required Findings Necessary to Approve the Requested Entitlements
The City has failed to rebut the fact that findings cannot be made to support the requested Project entitlements. As shown above, there are site -specific conditions that render the Project incompatible with surrounding land uses, and the Project does not comply with the General Plan, the PA-1 Specific Plan, and applicable Municipal Code provisions.

Accordingly, the City cannot find that the Project is consistent with applicable development standards or that the Project will not result in environmental effects. a. The Proposed Tentative Parcel Map Findings Required Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.05.040 and Government Code Section 66474 are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence Findings made in support of an agency’s decision must be based on evidence contained in the administrative record, which comprises the entire body of evidence presented for consideration in connection with the project, and provides the basis to judge whether sufficient evidence supports the findings and decision of the agency. (Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515). A governmental entity “must render findings sufficient both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis of the board's decision.” (Id. at 514.) Substantial evidence must support an administrative agency’s findings and the findings must support the decision.” (Id.) The findings must “bridge the analytical gap” between the evidence and the decision. ( Id. at 521.) Here, substantial evidence does not support that the Project meets the applicable criteria for approval. As noted above, because the conditional use permit findings cannot be made, and because the Project does not comply with PA -1 Specific Plan policies, the proposed development is not consistent with applicable development standards. Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence to substantiate that the site is suitable for the proposed uses. Given inherent risks associated with the operation of gasoline service stations, substantial evidence shows that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as well as create potential public health hazards. b. The Proposed Conditional Use Permit Findings Required Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.830.005 are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
There is no substantial evidence that the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability of appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The evidence of undisclosed and unmitigated project-specific environmental effects, which is discussed at length above, shows that the opposite is likely true. Further environmental analysis is needed to substantiate that these findings can be made.

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
c. The Proposed Design Review Findings Required Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.820.007 are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
There is no substantial evidence that the Project will be harmonious with surrounding development or that it will otherwise meet the required design review findings. The site-specific environmental impacts identified above show that the opposite is true; the Project will result in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the surrounding community. Further environmental analysis is needed to substantiate that these findings can be made. d. The Proposed Master Sign Program Findings Required Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.640.008.B are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
There is no evidence that the proposed sign program will comply with applicable code requirements.

5. The Project Does Not Comply with Applicable General Plan, the PA-1 Specific Plan, and Municipal Code Provisions
As shown above, the Project does not comply with applicable General Plan, the PA-1 Specific Plan, and applicable Municipal Code provisions. For example, as noted above, PA-1 Specific Plan Policy C.11 requires new development projects that would generate more than 50 employees must implement TDM programs to address the impacts on vehicular traffic on streets within and beyond the project area. No such program is included as part of the Project.

The record also shows that the Project does not comply with the City’s HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance. The PA-1 Specific Plan and the City’s response to WCHB Development, LLC’s appeal (see p. 6) admit that buildout in the PA-1 Specific Plan Area including the proposed development at the Project site) could potentially result in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to special-status species. However, it appears that no site - specific planning surveys or biological resource surveys were conducted as part of the PA -1 EIR process, the 2022 Addendum, or the Costco Project CEQA analysis. Without Project -specific planning surveys, the Project cannot comply with the portions of the City’s HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance. (See Mun. Code, § 16.168.010 et seq.) Pursuant to the City’s HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance, the following materials must be submitted “simultaneously with the submittal of the request for approval of a development project” (Mun. Code, § 16.168.050, subd. (a)):

Description of the affected development project, including detailed information on the project footprint, extent of construction and extent of any ongoing maintenance activities subject to the HCP/NCCP.

One or more reports documenting the methods and results of planning surveys and the methods of applicable preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP.

Joel Bryant, Mayor
Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

19771324.2
Evidence of compliance or planned compliance with avoidance and minimization measures, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP.

Quantification of anticipated direct and indirect impacts on land cover types and habitat for species covered by the HCP/NCCP, consistent with Chapters 6.2 and

9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.

Estimate of HCP/NCCP implementation fees due and/or documentation of proposed land dedication and/or proposed habitat restoration or creation, consistent with Section 16.168.070 of this chapter.

HCP/NCCP application administration fee.

A planning survey report must be completed and submitted as part of this process . (See https://www.cocohcp.org/226/Application -Materials-and-Resources [link to Planning Survey Report and instructions for submittal] and Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP, available at https://www.cocohcp.org/DocumentCenter/ View/957/Chapter -6-of -the-HCPNCCP-PDF [“All activities covered under this Plan are required to conduct planning surveys to verify the assumptions used in this Plan including the regional analysis of avoidance and minimization.”].) There is no evidence in the publicly-available record that shows that these materials were submitted to the City. In fact, there is no evidence that any planning surveys have been conducted that would substantiate compliance with this section. Without this information, it is impossible to verify whether the Project will comply with the HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance, and it is impossible to determine whether the Project will be able to comply with the biological resource mitigation measures identified in the PA -1 Specific Plan EIR.

6. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Project is not eligible for a CEQA exemption, and the proposed findings for the above-referenced Project entitlements are not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we urge you to deny the application or, at the very least, to continue this item to allow for further CEQA review.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.

Very truly yours,
Ellis F. Raskin
Senior Counsel
cc: Alexis Morris
Erik Nolthenius
Jennifer Hagen
Katherine Wisinski

EXHIBIT A
1 Ellis F. Raskin
From: Ellis F. Raskin
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 7:30 PM
To: Wisinski, Katherine
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sean Marciniak; Niran Somasundaram
Subject: CPRA Request for Costco Development Project Records (MS 351-22, DR 22-002, CUP 22-001, MSP 22-001, and Proposed CEQA Exemption)
Attachments: 2023-06-26 CPRA Request.pdf; 3bclean- control.bin Hi Katy,
Our client, WCHB, LLC, respectfully submits the attached California Public Records Act request for records related to the Costco Project. The letter contains a full list of records that are the subject of this request, but we are particularly interested in obtaining a copy of the documents in the file or files) for MS 351 22, DR 22 002, CUP 22 001, MSP 22 001, and the proposed CEQA exemption. Is this something that can be easily transmitted electronically via a Zip file? If not, can we make arrangements for someone to come to City Hall to make copies of the contents of the file or files)? I’d also appreciate the opportunity to touch base with you by phone or videoconference at some point this week to discuss the Costco Project. Can you please let me know some times when you are available? Thanks in advance for your help with this matter, and please don’ t hesitate to reach out to me if you have questions.

Best,
Ellis Raskin
Ellis F. Raskin
Senior Counsel
Hanson Bridgett LLP
415) 995-5835 Direct
415) 995-3456 Fax
ERaskin@hansonbridgett. com
777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
San Francisco | Sacramento | North Bay | East Bay | Los Angeles This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or email, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have.

The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached. 19697933.3
Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
ELLIS F. RASKIN

ATTORNEY
DIRECT DIAL ( 415) 995- 5835
E-MAIL eraskin@hansonbridgett. com
June 26, 2023
Katherine Wisinski
Assistant City Attorney
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: California Public Records Act Request for Costco Development Project Records (MS 351-22, DR 22-002, CUP 22-001, MSP 22-001, and Proposed CEQA Exemption) Dear Ms. Wisinski:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920.000, et seq.), I hereby ask to obtain a copy of (or inspect) the following documents, which I understand are held by the Planning Division of the City of Brentwood (“ City”):

1. Application materials. All applications, including but not limited to Universal Applications, Conditional Use Permit Applications, and Design Review Applications, pertaining to the proposed Costco Warehouse and Fuel Facility on Lone Tree Plaza Drive (APNs 019-020- 073 & 019-020-055, referred to herein as the “Project;” Application Nos. MS 351-22, DR 22- 002, CUP 22-001, MSP 22-001).

2. Plans and entitlement documents. All project documents, including but not limited to project plans, conceptual plans, and tentative parcel maps, filed with the City pertaining to the Project.

3. Impact fee documents. All public records prepared by the City, including but not limited to reports or memorandums, pertaining to the traffic, circulation impacts, Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”), utilities, energy use, water use, storm drain use, or City impact fees associated with the Project.

4. Communications. All communications (including emails, texts, or other correspondences) sent by representatives or employees of the City pertaining to the traffic, circulation impacts, VMT , utilities, energy use, water use, storm drain use, or City impact fees associated with the Project.

5. Traffic studies. Any traffic, transportation, circulation or VMT studies prepared with respect to the Project.

6. CEQA documents. All documents related to the City’s determination that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA;” Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) under Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. This includes any internal memoranda, communications, or legal opinions discussing the proposed exemption; Katherine Wisinski
Assistant City Attorney
June 26, 2023

19697933.3
studies, assessments, or reports commissioned or conducted to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project; and all public comments regarding the City’s decision to exempt the Project from further CEQA review and the City’s responses to those comments. This request includes all public records that are listed in Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The response to this request should include, for example:

Public records related to the determination and analysis of whether the traffic, circulation, and vehicular trips to and from the proposed warehouse retail center, tire sales and installation, fuel facility, and other proposed uses at the Project site are consistent with the uses that were proposed for the Project site when the PA1 Specific Plan was first approved in 2018 . This includes any studies, assessments, or reports conducted to evaluate the environmental impacts of these specific uses.

Public records prepared in conjunction with the 2018 approval of the PA -1 Specific Plan that contain an analysis of potential aesthetic, air quality, GHG, noise, traffic, and other potential environmental impacts at APNs 019-020-073 & 019-020-055. This can include any correspondence, memoranda, reports, or other writings.

Any analysis or evaluations of the site -specific or use-specific environmental impacts associated with a large -scale retail, vehicle service, or gasoline service station at the Project site (or any other uses proposed by the Project).

Any records of public comments, objections, or concerns raised regarding the potential impacts associated with the proposed warehouse retail center, tire sales and installation, fuel facility, and other uses at the Project site, and any responses provided by the City or relevant agencies.

Any and all “public records,” as that term is defined by Government Code section 7920.530, subdivision ( a), includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics, which pertain to the information listed in the categories above.1 For the purposes of this request, references to the City include the Office of the City Manager, City 1 In addition, “ writings” is defined in Government Code section 7920.545 as “any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.” For purposes of this Public Records Act Request, the term "writing" shall include the foregoing materials and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, electronic data, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored; the term "document" or documents" shall mean any kind of written matter, however produced or reproduced, of any kind of description, whether sent, received or neither, including originals, copies and drafts and both sides thereof, and including, but not limited to: papers, books, letters, electronic mail, electronic data, photographs, objects, tangible things, correspondence, memoranda, notes, notations, work papers, minutes, reports and recordings of telephone or other conversations, manuals, reports, contracts, agreements, desk calendars, appointment books, computer printouts, data processing input and output, microfilms, all other records kept by electronic, photographic or mechanical means, and things similar to the foregoing however denominated.

Katherine Wisinski
Assistant City Attorney
June 26, 2023

19697933.3
Council, Planning Commission, all City departments, elected or appointed officials, staff, employees, contractors, consultants, and agents.

If you require clarification of this request or have any questions about the nature or scope of this request or whether particular records and information in the City’s possession are responsive to this request, I request your assistance to identify records and information that are responsive to this request pursuant to Government Code section 7922.600.

I respectfully request a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt, and a prompt reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record(s) in question.

If you determine that any or all of the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the California Public Records Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so, whether it is necessary to exercise your discretion to withhold the information. If you determine that some, but not all, of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact that portion, and make the remainder available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities upon which you rely, should you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.

If you decide that one of the emails, texts, or other correspondences sent, received, created, or otherwise generated by City personnel on their private devices is to be withheld on the basis that it is a personal communication, please submit an affidavit containing sufficient facts that a reviewing court can use to determine whether a given record is an agency record or a personal material, consistent with the California Supreme Court’s holding in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (Smith) (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608.

Once the requested material is available, please inform me of when and where the records can be made available, and I will arrange for their pick up by courier. Also, please notify me as to the reasonable copying costs, and I will promptly send payment. For any responsive public record kept in electronic format, we request that an electronic copy of the document be produced in that format, pursuant to Government Code section 7922.570.

If documents are voluminous, then please indicate in your response the approximate volume of documents responsive to this request, and the location, dates, and times upon which inspection will be permitted. If you can provide documents in response to one or more of the above requests sooner than for others, please so indicate, and I will arrange for their pick up as such documents become available.

If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to this request, please contact me. I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs exceeding $500 before you duplicate the records so that I may decide which records I want copied.

Katherine Wisinski
Assistant City Attorney
June 26, 2023

19697933.3
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at the telephone number above should you have any questions or need further clarification of this request.

Sincerely,
Ellis F. Raskin
Senior Counsel

EXHIBIT B
Growth Management Program Implementation Documents
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 i
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Overview of Measure J ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Core Requirements of the Growth Management Program for RTPCs ...................................... 5

1.3 Core Requirements of the Growth Management Program for Local Jurisdictions ................ 6 Adopt a Growth Management Element ............................................................................................. 6 Adopt a Development Mitigation Program ....................................................................................... 6 Participate in an Ongoing Cooperative, Multi Jurisdictional Planning Process ........................ 7 Address Housing Options .................................................................................................................... 7 Develop a Five Year Capital Improvement Program....................................................................... 8 Adopt a Transportation Systems Management Ordinance or Resolution .................................... 8 Adopt An Urban Limit Line ................................................................................................................ 8

1.4 Changes from Measure C ............................................................................................................... 8 Organization of this Guide ...................................................................................................................... 11 Chapters 2 and 3: RTOs and Action Plans ....................................................................................... 11 Chapter 4: Evaluating the Impacts of Proposed New Development ..................................... 11 Chapter 5: Compliance with the Urban Limit Line ................................................................ 11 Chapter 6: Decision Making and Conflict Resolution .................................................................... 11 Chapter 7: Tools and Procedures ...................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 8: Compliance ....................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 9: Compliance Checklist ...................................................................................................... 12 2 Regional Transportation Objectives ............................................................................................... 13

2.1 Roadway Routes of Regional Significance ........................................................................... 15

2.2 Active Mode Routes of Regional Significance .......................................................... 16

2.3 Regional Transit System ................................................................................................................ 16

2.4 Transportation Safety ..................................................................................................................... 18

2.5 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................ 21

2.6 Transportation Equity .................................................................................................................... 21 3 Action Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 23

3.1 Action Plan Components.......................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Action Plan Updates ....................................................................................................................... 28 Define Work Program ......................................................................................................................... 28 Review Status of Existing Action Plan and RTOs ........................................................................... 29 Additional information on each of these review components is provided in Appendix E. ..... 30 Data Collection and Update of Forecasts ......................................................................................... 30 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program ii Revised February 17, 2021
Define Preliminary Objectives ........................................................................................................... 31 Identify and Analyze Possible Actions, Measures & Programs .................................................... 34 Consult with Neighboring Subregions ............................................................................................. 38 Finalize Objectives and Actions ......................................................................................................... 39 Procedures ............................................................................................................................................ 39

3.3 Review, Adoption, and Revision of Updated Action Plans ...................................................... 39 4 Evaluating the Impacts of Proposed New Development and General Plan Amendments........................................................................................................................................ 42

4.1 Transportation Impact Analyses for Projects within an Adopted General Plan .......... 44

4.2 Consultation and Review of GPAs ............................................................................................... 47

4.3 Mitigation of Impacts Through the Measure J Development Mitigation Program ............... 59

4.4 Consultation Procedures ................................................................................................................ 60 5 Urban Limit Line ...........................................................................................................61 6 Decision- Making and Conflict Resolution ............................................................................... 65

6.1 RTPC Decision Process ................................................................................................................. 66

6.2 Conflict Resolution as Part of the General Plan Review Process........................... 67 7 Tools for Transportation Planning ................................................................................................. 69

7.1 Travel Demand Forecasting Model ............................................................................................... 69

7.2 Use of the Model in Developing Action Plans ................................................................... 70

7.3 Use of the Model in VMT Analysis............................................................................................. 71 8 Compliance and Compliance Reporting .................................................................................... 72 9 Compliance Checklist ..............................................................................................................73 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations .......................................................................... 77 Appendix B: Comparison of the Measure C and Measure J Growth Management Program ..... 81 Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line................................................... 88 Appendix C: Steps for Designating Additional Routes of Regional Significance ................ 91 Appendix D: List of Regional Routes .................................................................................................... 93 Appendix E: Action Plan Work Program .............................................................................................. 98 Appendix F – VMT Analysis Methodology for Land Use Projects in Contra Costa .................. 103

1. Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 106

2. Project Screening ............................................................................................................................ 110 Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 iii

3. Projects Requiring VMT Analysis ............................................................................................... 112 Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................................................................. 112 VMT Metrics and Significance Thresholds .................................................................................... 112

4. VMT Mitigation Strategies .......................................................................................................... 114 Method of Calculating Mitigation Reductions .............................................................................. 114 Required Levels of Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 115 Types of Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 115 VMT Reductions from TDM and Physical Design Measures ..................................................... 115

5. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, Cumulative Analysis and Findings of Overriding Consideration ................................................................................................................................. 116 Findings of Overriding Consideration ........................................................................................... 116 Cumulative Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 116 Further Description of VMT Reduction Strategies ....................................................................... 119 Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Measure C and Measure J GMP Requirements............................................... 8 Table 2. Examples of Adopted RTOs and Corresponding Actions ...................................................... 25 Table 3. Threshold for Notification and Review, in Net New Peak Hour Vehicle Trips .................. 44 Table 4. Examples of Good Faith Participation in the GPA Review Process ...................................... 56 Table 5. Responsibility for Transportation Planning ............................................................................. 69 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Transportation Planning Committee Boundaries and Routes of Regional Significance .................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2 Action Plan Update Process ........................................................................................................ 35 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program iv Revised February 17, 2021
This page intentionally left blank.

Revised February 17, 2021
Contra Costa Growth Management Program
Implementation Guide
The preparation of this report has been financed through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Act of 1991. Contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

Revised February 17, 2021
This page left blank intentionally.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 3
1 Introduction

1.1 OVERVIEW OF MEASURE J
Adopted in 2004, Contra Costa’ s Measure J Expenditure Plan extends funding for transportation projects and programs 25 years beyond the initial 20 year span provided for under Measure C (1988). The GMP under Measure J will continue in effect through 2034. This Guide sets the course for implementation of the GMP through that time.

The Measure J Expenditure Plan funds $2 billion in transportation projects and programs, covering regional roadways, local roadways, active transportation facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, transit, and other mobility programs.

Measure J changed the requirements for local compliance with the GMP. It dispensed with the previous standards for non regional routes and with performance standards for public facilities and services, but added a requirement for a voter approved Urban Limit Line.

This 2020 update also ensures that Measure J more appropriately balances the needs of congestion management with statewide goals as required by Senate Bill (SB) 743which became effective on July 1, 2020. 1 Both Measure C and Measure J focused on roadway capacity and congestion, particularly on roadway Routes of Regional Significance. Over time, however, transportation planners, decision makers and the public have become concerned with other aspects of the transportation system. The adoption of SB 743 shifted the focus of transportation planning from performance based analyses to transportation, land use, and planning decisions which encourage infill development, promote public health through active transportation, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, in 2020, the Authority reoriented the GMP to focus not only on regional roadways, but also on the transportation networks serving bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. Through several open forums, the Authority received feedback from local jurisdictions and the Regional Transportation Planning Committees ( RTPCs) that additional transportation priorities exist in Contra Costa county, including safety, climate change, and equity. In response, Measure J ultimately expands on the original importance of roadway routes to include active 1 SB 35 is a statute streamlining housing construction in California counties and cities that fail to build enough housing to meet state mandated housing construction requirements Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 4 Revised February 17, 2021
and public transportation in addition to priorities surrounding safety, climate change, and equity.

Measure J funds both capital projects and programs. Capital projects include the construction of major highway and arterial road projects, improvements to the BART system, enhancements to transit facilities, and pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities.

Programs include a variety of transit and paratransit services, support for commute alternatives, and regional transportation planning and growth management. Of the revenues from the sales tax increase approved by the Measure, 18 percent is allocated to Local Street Maintenance and Improvements. These funds are paid out annually to jurisdictions participating in the GMP established by Measure J, provided that the Authority has found the jurisdiction to be in compliance with the GMP. Compliance with the GMP is also required for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for 5 percent Transportation for Livable Communities ( TLC) funding.

The Authority assesses local compliance through a checklist that is distributed to the jurisdictions every two years. Local jurisdictions are required to complete the Checklist and submit it to the Authority for review. After review by the Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning Committee, and approval by the full Authority, 18 percent funds are paid out to the local jurisdiction.

Overall, the Measure J GMP focuses on four key objectives:

Assure that new residential, business, and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth.

Require cooperative transportation and land use planning among local jurisdictions.

Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of the transportation system, consistent with the General Plans oflocal jurisdictions.

Support infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfield areas.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 5
The implementation documents developed by the Authority together describe the roles, responsibilities, and procedures to be undertaken by local jurisdictions, the RTPCs, and the Authority under Measure J. All jurisdictions are required to participate in multi jurisdictional planning, to develop Action Plans that include Regional Transportation Objectives ( RTOs), and to adopt local and regional mitigation programs. This Guide focuses on how these provisions of the GMP are to be implemented.

The broadly stated policies outlined in the Measure J GMP emphasize establishment of a structure for sound land use and transportation planning. Successful implementation of these policies requires further, more detailed guidance, and significant elaboration on how each jurisdiction can participate. The guidance described here provides a basis for greater consistency of approach in local planning and establishes the step by step multijurisdictional planning process for the evaluation of the impacts of land use decisions on the transportation system.

This Guide should be used in conjunction with the other implementation documents for the GMP: the Model Growth Management Element and the Technical Procedures.

Appendix A includes a glossary of common terms and abbreviations used in this document.

1.2 C ORE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROWTH

M ANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR RTPCS
The Regional Transportation Planning Committees ( RTPCs) are organized geographically to cover four distinct sub areas, including both incorporated member jurisdictions and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa county. RTPC Policy Boards are composed of elected representatives, and sometimes local planning commissioners with Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) comprised of planning and engineering staff from the member jurisdictions within the boundary of each sub area. The RTPCs are responsible for the development of transportation plans, projects, and programs tailored to meet the needs of their region.

The RTPC’s member jurisdictions work collectively to identify transportation and planning concerns in their sub areas, with a focus on transportation priorities that cover six key topic areas, including: regional roadways, the regional active transportation network (i.e. bicycle and pedestrian facilities), transit services, safety, climate change, and equity. Once these concerns are identified, the RTPCs develop quantifiable Regional Transportation Objectives (RTOs) that address the identified Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 6 Revised February 17, 2021
concerns while supporting the Authority’ s overall vision and goals. The role of the RTPC is to incorporate the agreed upon RTOs into an Action Plan which is forwarded to the Authority for inclusion in the Countywide Transportation Plan CTP). The RTOs and Action Plans established by each RTPC, once incorporated into the CTP, provide a clear picture of the transportation and planning needs in each sub area, which allows the Authority to identify RTOs to implement transportation and planning improvements for the region, as well as analyzing the impacts of the Action Plans on the County as a whole.

1.3 C ORE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROWTH

M ANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
Measure J’ s GMP requires that local jurisdictions (cities, towns and the County) must also take a number of actions to remain in compliance with the GMP. Non compliance with components of the GMP may result in local jurisdictions becoming in eligible to receive both 18 percent Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds, and the 5 percent Transportation for Livable Communities ( TLC) funds. The seven main requirements for local jurisdictions are briefly summarized below.

ADOPT A GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
As part of its General Plan, each jurisdiction must adopt a Growth Management Element that outlines goals and policies for managing growth and requirements for achieving those goals. The Element must demonstrate how the jurisdiction will comply with the other requirements of the GMP.

ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PROGRAM
The philosophy of Measure J’ s requirements for development mitigation programs is that each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain in place, a program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth. The idea is already reflected in local practice, including traffic mitigation fees adopted by most jurisdictions. Other requirements for mitigation are commonly implemented through development agreements, regional fees, community facilities districts, local assessment districts, and conditions of project approval.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 7
The development mitigation programs to be adopted by localities include both a local and a regional component. The project level traffic impact analysis described in Chapter 4 of this Guide provides an opportunity to identify potential impacts and fund proposed mitigation measures through a fee program or other mitigation alternatives. The multijurisdictional planning process, development and implementation of Action Plans, and the related review of General Plan Amendments (GPAs), which are also described in this Guide, provide opportunities to establish mechanisms to fund regional or subregional transportation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast development.

PARTICIPATE IN AN ONGOING COOPERATIVE, MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL

PLANNING PROCESS
Each jurisdiction is required to participate in an ongoing cooperative, multi jurisdictional planning process with other applicable jurisdictions and agencies, the RTPCs, and the Authority, to create a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation system, and to manage the impacts of growth.

This requirement includes working through the RTPCs to develop Action Plans that identify transportation priorities in six key topic areas and establish Regional Transportation Objectives ( RTOs) as well as actions for achieving the RTOs to address each topic area. It also requires disclosure of the traffic impacts of proposed projects and General Plan Amendment (GPAs) through use of the Authority’s Countywide Model and application of a uniform set of traffic analysis and mitigation procedures that address both Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) and traffic capacity.

Finally, participation involves local input into the Authority’ s ongoing countywide planning process, and helping the Authority maintain its land use and projects database for use in the Countywide Model.

ADDRESS HOUSING OPTIONS
In its General Plan Housing Element progress report, each jurisdiction must demonstrate progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels, taking into account projected future needs and current project approvals and construction. The progress report should clearly show how the jurisdiction plans to meet projected needs and illustrate how the General Plan or zoning plans facilitate these ends. In addition, each jurisdiction must address how housing development will affect the transportation system and incorporate policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 8 Revised February 17, 2021
new developments.

DEVELOP A FIVE- YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Each jurisdiction’ s Capital Improvement Program ( CIP) must outline the projects needed to implement General Plan goals and policies over at least a five year period.

The program will indicate approved projects, project costs, and a financial plan for securing the necessary funding. The jurisdiction shall also forward the transportation component of its CIP to the Authority for incorporation into the Authority’s database of transportation projects.

ADOPT A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE OR

RESOLUTION
Each jurisdiction must adopt a local ordinance or resolution based on the Authority’s model Transportation Systems Management ordinance to promote carpools, vanpools, and park and ride lots.

ADOPT AN URBAN LIMIT LINE
Each jurisdiction must comply with a countywide or local voter approved Urban Limit Line (ULL) to be considered in compliance with Measure J’ s GMP.

1.4 C HANGES FROM MEASURE C
Through the approval of Measure J, the voters of Contra Costa made a number of important changes to the requirements and procedures of the GMP previously established by Measure C. Table 1 below compares the requirements of the two measures; a more detailed comparison can be found in Appendix B of this Guide.

Table 1. Comparison of Measure C and Measure J GMP
Requirements
Measure C Growth
Management Program 2
Measure J Growth Management
Program
Actions for Compliance with
Measure J
Adopt a Growth
Management Element
Adopt a Growth Management
Element
Update Growth Management
Element ( GME) to reflect new
requirements
2 A detailed comparison of the Measure C and Measure J Growth Management Programs is included in Appendix B of this guide.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 9
Measure C Growth
Management Program 2
Measure J Growth Management
Program
Actions for Compliance with
Measure J
Adopt Traffic Level Of
Service ( LOS) Standards for
non regional routes
Not included in Measure J None: LOS standards for non
regional routes may be eliminated
from GME, Regional Routes may
continue to use LOS as an RTO
Adopt Performance
Standards
Not included in Measure J None (Performance Standards
may be eliminated from GME)
Adopt a Development
Mitigation Program
Adopt a Development Mitigation
Program
Update Development Mitigation
Programs consistent with the
Model GME on both a local and
regional level
Participate in a Cooperative,
Multi Jurisdictional Planning
Process to Reduce
Cumulative Regional Traffic
Impacts of Development
Participate in an Ongoing
Cooperative, Multi Jurisdictional
Planning Process, including
development of Action Plans
Continue existing participation
efforts and update Action Plans
Address Housing Options
and Job Opportunities
Address Housing Options Demonstrate reasonable progress in implementation of the adopted
Housing Element, consider the
impacts of land use and
development policies on the
transportation system, and
incorporate policies that support
transit, bicycle and pedestrian
access in new development
Develop a Five Year Capital
Improvement Program
Develop a Five Year Capital
Improvement Program
Continue to prepare a five year
Capital Improvement Program
Adopt a TSM Ordinance or
Resolution or alternative
mitigation
Adopt a TSM Ordinance or
Resolution
Update TSM Ordinance to be
consistent with new policies
Not included in Measure C Adopt an Urban Limit Line Adopt a local, voter approved Urban Limit Line, or maintain the
countywide Urban Limit Line
Growth Management Element. Local jurisdictions are required to update their GME based upon the Model Growth Management Element created by the Authority. The GME is the jurisdiction’ s main platform for outlining goals and policies for managing growth and requirements for achieving those goals. Jurisdictions are encouraged to supplement their GMEs with any elements outside of the Model GME that may be helpful in achieving the objectives of the GMP as Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 10 Revised February 17, 2021
well as local General Plan goals and policies.

Level-of-Service ( LOS) Requirements. Local jurisdictions are no longer required to adopt LOS as the primary measure of
transportation impacts. A jurisdiction may decide to maintain existing LOS standards for non regional routes in its GME or eliminate them, relying instead on other ways of correlating the circulation element with the land use element of the General Plan. Regional Routes are addressed through the Action Plan development process under Multi Jurisdictional planning.

Performance Standards. Local jurisdictions are no longer required to adopt performance standards for public services ( fire, police, parks, sanitary, flood, and water) in their growth management elements. A jurisdiction may decide to maintain existing performance standards or eliminate them, as appropriate.

Development Mitigation Program. Local jurisdictions must continue and update their existing Development Mitigation Programs, which consist of two parts: a local program to mitigate development impacts on local streets, and a regional program establishing fees, exactions, assessments, or other measures to fund regional and subregional transportation projects.

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning. Each jurisdiction must continue to participate in an ongoing, multi jurisdictional planning process through the RTPCs, including updating and implementing Action Plans.

Housing Options. Each jurisdiction must demonstrate reasonable progress in achieving the objectives in its Housing Element. The jurisdiction must complete a report that illustrates this progress in various ways, as described in Appendix B. Additionally, jurisdictions must incorporate policies and standards to support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in new development.

Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Jurisdictions must continue to prepare five year capital improvement programs, including approved projects and an analysis of the costs of proposed projects. The program must outline a financial plan for providing Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 11
proposed improvements.

Urban Limit Line. Jurisdictions must have a voter approved ULL to be in compliance with the Measure J GMP. The ULL may conform to the countywide line, or a jurisdiction may adopt its own ULL to fulfill this requirement.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS GUIDE
This Guide has nine main chapters. The chapters following this introduction are as follows:

CHAPTERS 2 AND 3: RTOS AND ACTION PLANS
These Chapters address six key transportation priorities to be addressed in the Action Plans, namely regional roadways, the regional active transportation network, and transit, together with safety, climate change, and equity. Chapter 2 presents an overview of these transportation priorities. Chapter 3 presents the components of the Action Plans, the planning process, and the process for review, adoption, and revision of Action Plans. Chapter 3 also addresses the ongoing Action Plan update process to be undertaken by local jurisdictions.

CHAPTER 4 : EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED NEWDEVELOPMENT This Chapter addresses the procedures a jurisdiction should undergo when evaluating the impacts of new development. The Chapter includes discussion of procedures for significant short term development decisions, as well as longer term development policy, such as a GPA. Requirements for consultation with neighboring jurisdictions and affected RTPCs are also detailed in this Chapter.

CHAPTER 5 : COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
This Chapter outlines the Authority’s process for assessing compliance with the GMP requirement that each local jurisdiction adopt and continuously comply with a voter approved ULL.

CHAPTER 6: DECISION MAKING AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Chapter 6 summarizes the conflict resolution process established by the Authority and the rules for decision making by the RTPCs. This conflict resolution process also fulfills the statewide requirement for Congestion Management Agencies ( CMAs) to Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 12 Revised February 17, 2021
establish a process for resolving conflicts.

CHAPTER 7: TOOLS AND PROCEDURES
This Chapter of the Guide outlines the tools and procedures that will be used for transportation planning and Measure J updates. Efforts will involve review and modification of General Plan Growth Management Elements by local jurisdictions and updates to Action Plans by the RTPCs. The most important tools for this work will be the updated travel demand forecasting model developed by the Authority, as described in this Chapter, and in the Technical Procedures Update.

Continuing planning will include:

Compliance Monitoring and Reporting;
Preparation and circulation of traffic impact studies;
Preparation and review of General Plan Updates and amendments; Action plan monitoring and updates; and
Updates and amendments to the CTP.

CHAPTER 8: COMPLIANCE
A locality must comply with all parts of the GMP to receive Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and to qualify for grants under the Contra Costa TLC. This Chapter summarizes basic compliance requirements.

CHAPTER 9: COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
This Chapter frames the basic questions that will be included in the Measure J GMP Compliance Checklist, which is to be filled out by local jurisdictions and submitted to the Authority for review every two years. The detailed checklist questions will be developed separately and adopted by the Authority. The Authority will update the checklist every two years to reflect changing conditions.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 13
2 Regional Transportation Objectives
The population in Contra Costa is expected to continually increase over time.

Analysis and projections prepared by the Authority as part of its CTP indicate that such population growth will result in a continued increase in traffic and congestion on the regional transportation system. Future peak period demand is projected to exceed the capacity on many of the freeways and arterials in Contra Costa. In addition to resulting in a several fold increase in vehicle delay, increasing traffic and congestion is anticipated to exacerbate regional concerns such as safety, climate change, and inequity in the transportation system. Thus, there has been a renewed effort to engage local jurisdictions in a process which seeks to manage impacts to the regional transportation network from development, such that non transportation issues will also be remedied.

This bottom up process is conducted in cooperation with regional and statewide efforts that embrace similar objectives, which include improving the networks of regional roadways, active transportation, and public transit, while simultaneously addressing jurisdictional concerns regarding safety, and regional concerns regarding climate change and equity. While the Bay Area population and work force has grown by more than 30 percent over the past 25 years, total transit ridership, in terms of millions of riders annually, has remained flat. Moreover, current forecasts indicate that the use of alternative modes to the single occupant vehicle, such as walking, bicycling, carpooling, taking buses or using BART is expected to remain at roughly the same percentage of overall trips in the future as it is today.

The Authority has responded to such concerns through Measure J, which implements a multi jurisdictional approach to achieve objectives that support regional goals. Measure J requires local jurisdictions to work with their RTPCs to identify concerns and needs specific to their sub areas covering six key topic areas.

Three of these topic areas address “ Regional Facilities” ( roadways, active transportation facilities, and public transit) which need, or whose users could benefit from, improvements. The other three topic areas address programmatic transportation priorities with regard to safety, climate change, and equity. The RTPCs incorporate jurisdictions’ concerns and needs by establishing Regional Transportation Objectives (RTOs) to address each issue, and by developing actions for achievement of the RTOs.

Measure J emphasizes participation of local jurisdictions in determining appropriate Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 14 Revised February 17, 2021
programs to mitigate regional traffic impacts, as they are best able to identify and mitigate local traffic impacts. The nature of the six transportation priorities themselves, as well as the travel patterns of workers and residents, makes it appropriate to locate primary planning responsibility for the RTOs with the RTPCs.

Programs for RTOs require a 4 step process:

1. Identification of transportation priorities in each of the six topic areas:
regional roadways, regional active transportation network, transit, safety, climate change, and equity;

2. Development and/ or update of Action Plans by RTPCs to address each identified transportation priority and establish RTOs by:
a. Identifying the overall goal or objective that is trying to be achieved; b. Identifying a condition (or metric) that can be measured to indicate progress toward the goal or objective; and
c. Identifying supportive actions to assist in achievement of goals and objectives.

3. Circulation and review of proposed updated Action Plans by other jurisdictions and RTPCs; and

4. Ongoing Action Plan implementation and review.

Measure J, as implemented through this Guide, requires that jurisdictions, RTPCs, and the Authority identify transportation priorities in each of the six key topic areas, establish RTOs for them, and propose actions for achieving or making progress towards those objectives. For each of the six key topic areas:

1. RTPCs, in cooperation with local jurisdictions and the Authority, will develop quantifiable RTOs that are consistent with the Authority’ s overall vision and goals.

2. RTPCs, in cooperation with local jurisdictions and theAuthority, will study how to attain objectives for each transportation priority, and update the Action Plans, including new RTOs and plans for attaining them. Action Plans will take effect following review and approval by the Authority.

3. Progress in attaining RTOs will be monitored and reported by the Authority, based on a schedule to be included in each Action Plan.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 15

4. Regional traffic mitigation programs (fees or other mitigations) are to be used to help fund improvements and mitigation measures.

5. The updated Action Plans will be incorporated into the CTP.

This Chapter of the Guide addresses the content to be covered in each of the six key topic areas. Action Plan updates and procedures are discussed in Chapter 3.

The RTPCs may also identify new regional transportation facilities or non facility key topic areas for potential designation using the process outlined in Appendix C.

2.1 ROADWAY ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Contra Costa’ s network of freeways and arterials are a major focus of the growth management effort under the provisions of Measure J. Although many tangible benefits have accrued since the implementation of Measure C, congestion on many of these regional facilities has continued to increase. Obstacles to congestion mitigation continue to include the infeasibility of adding capacity, the “built out” nature of the transportation landscape, local resistance toregional improvements that could adversely impact quality of life, the influence of through traffic to and from other parts of the Bay Area, and limited State and federal funding for projects on the regional network.

In order to address these congestion issues, important regional roadway facilities, including all freeways and many of the major arterials, are designated as Roadway Routes of Regional Significance, as indicated on the map on the subsequent page.

Some of the routes on the map are dotted, indicating that they are to be designated through future action. Appendix D contains a comprehensive listing of all designated Roadway Routes of Regional Significance.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 16 Revised February 17, 2021
A designation as a Roadway Route of Regional Significance carries with it certain obligations that will be assigned to local jurisdictions and the RTPCs. This includes establishing RTOs which include certain programs and mitigation strategies, or actions, that apply only to those routes.

2.2 ACTIVE MODE ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Active Mode Routes of Regional Significance refer to facilities which support active modes of transportation, including bicycle facilities ( bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, and bicycle paths) and pedestrian facilities ( sidewalks and paths), and can support emerging modes such as micromobility. Sufficient bicycle and pedestrian facilities ensure non vehicle infrastructure connects and enhances the regional transportation network.

The Authority is actively working to improve the county’s Active Mode Routes of Regional Significance. Expanding active transportation modes is an important component of reaching the region’s transportation priorities related to congestion and climate change while also improving public health. By giving commuters multiple transportation options, the number of single occupant vehicle trips and roadway congestion can be reduced. Biking and walking is also critical in fulfilling first/last mile connections to/from public transit that often discourages the switch from single occupant vehicles to public transportation.

Like Roadway Routes of Regional Significance, designation as an Active Mode Route of Regional Significance entails certain obligations that will be assigned to local jurisdictions and the RTPCs. Such obligations can include developing strategies for improving efficiency, safety, connectivity, and comfort of travel, as identified in the 2017 CTP and the 2018 Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan.

2.3 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM
Public transit in Contra Costa county includes BART, bus service, Amtrak, ferries, and some shuttle service. The current pattern of commute trips in Contra Costa leans heavily to solo drivers, with about 70 percent of commuters having driven alone to work in 2013, a figure that has not changed significantly since. Transit represents only about 8 percent of Contra Costa commute trips. Improving public transit is a documented concern of county residents. The 2017 CTP identified two related goals:

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 17
1) expanding safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, and 2) maintaining the transit system.

Like Roadways of Regional Significance, designation as a Transit Route of Regional Significance entails certain obligations that will be assigned to the Authority, transit service providers, and the RTPCs. Such obligations can include improving efficiency, safety, connectivity, and comfort of travel, as identified in the 2017 CTP.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 18 Revised February 17, 2021

2.4 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Safety is an important transportation priority in Contra Costa county, both locally and regionally. Key components of transportation safety include roadway users obeying traffic laws and the use of vehicle technology, from existing driver assist technologies to future development of connected/autonomous vehicles. Safety is also influenced by roadway design, active transportation infrastructure, traffic controls, connectivity, education, and training. Increased mobility depends on a transportation system that is safe for all users.

Local jurisdictions will have the primary responsibility for identifying traffic safety concerns. The RTPCs and the Authority will aid the local jurisdictions in identifying key regional safety objectives related to the locally identified safety issues. The local jurisdictions, the RTPCs, and the Authority will then work collaboratively to establish RTOs to monitor the issues and propose actions for achieving those objectives related to safety of the Contra Costa transportation system. Such objectives could include supporting the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes and expanding safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single occupant vehicle as identified in the 2017 CTP.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 19
Figure 1 Regional Transportation Planning Committee Boundaries and Routes of Regional Significance Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 20 Revised February 17, 2021
This page left blank intentionally.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 21

2.5 C LIMATE C HANGE
The transportation sector is responsible for about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas GHG) emissions in California. The transportation system also is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, most notably rising tides, and more needs to be done to ensure the system is resilient to these changes. Increasing opportunities for active transportation, transit use, advanced vehicle technology ( electric cars and zero emissions vehicles), and improved vehicle connectivity can all help to reduce GHG emissions.

The Authority has an explicit performance target of meeting the Governor’s Executive Order B 16 12, which requires reduction in GHG emissions from transportation sources to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Achieving climate change goals entails certain obligations that will be assigned to local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and the RTPCs. The RTPCs and the Authority will identify key climate change issues, establish RTOs to monitor these issues, and propose actions for achieving those RTO, which could include increasing access to transit, walking, biking, and micromobility options; expanding electric vehicle infrastructure; and increasing carpooling, to name but a few examples. RTOs can also be identified through existing Climate Action Plans for General Plans.

2.6 TRANSPORTATION EQUITY
Over the past several years, it has become clear that we need to address equity in our transportation systems. This means working to ensure that transportation investments are made in historically underserved communities in Contra Costa County. The Authority is committed to the principle of fairness, meaning benefits and burdens that occur from transportation investments should be equally distributed to all residents in a sufficient scale to reverse historic disparities.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 22 Revised February 17, 2021
Increasing transportation equity entails certain obligations that will be assigned to local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and the RTPCs. the RTPCs and the Authority will identify key equity issues, establish RTOs to monitor the issues, and propose actions for achieving those objectives. Such objectives could include achieving similar travel times for low income and minority households compared to the county as a whole or proportional transportation project funding to communities of concern compared to the county as a whole. The 2017 CTP supports Plan Bay Area’ s equity targets for the RTP by seeking equitable transportation opportunities for all residents, including those living in Communities of Concern and for minority and low income residents.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 23
3 Action Plans
Measure J provides the basis for multijurisdictional planning, focusing on development of appropriate measures and programs to address regional traffic impacts and other key issues. The measure requires jurisdictions to participate in an ongoing cooperative multijurisdictional planning process to create a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation system and to manage the impacts of growth. Measure J also requires that each jurisdiction consider the impacts of its land use and development policies on the transportation system. These requirements are to be implemented, in part, through the development and implementation of Action Plans.

This Chapter discusses Action Plans in three parts:

1. A summary of the content of currently adopted Action Plans;

2. The planning process for updating Action Plans; and

3. The process for review, adoption and revision of the Plans.

Requirements for local compliance in relation to Action Plan implementation are listed in Chapter 8, Compliance and Compliance Reporting. 3 .1 ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS
Action Plans are required to include the components listed here. The RTPCs may choose to include additional components.

1. Long-range assumptions regarding future land use based on local general plans, consistent with regional forecasts. The Authority maintains and updates a Land Use Information System ( LUIS) that is consistent with the regional forecasts prepared by ABAG/ MTC and reflects local plans for future development. The RTPCs are to use the LUIS in the short and long range forecasts used in developing and updating the Action Plans.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 24 Revised February 17, 2021

2. Overarching goals that articulate the Authority’ s vision for the future.

These goals can be either qualitative or quantitative. They can also be corridor specific or apply to the entire subregion. For example, a goal could be to improve trunk line transit service along a specific corridor or to improve overall transit ridership within the entire subregion.

3. Regional Transportation Objectives (RTOs) that use quantifiable measures of effectiveness and include a target date for attaining the objective. RTOs should be consistent with the Authority’ s adopted goals and include quantifiable metrics that address each of the six key topic areas, such as travel time, miles of bike and pedestrian paths, vehicle miles traveled per day, transportation mode split, numbers of collisions, or access to transit. Table 2 on the following page gives specific examples.

Previously, RTPCs were encouraged to identify RTOs that agencies could use as “ thresholds of significance” in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for a proposed development project or GPA. However, with the advent of SB 743 ( which removed LOS as a topic under CEQA purview) and the creation of new key topic areas to address this change, the Authority does not anticipate that many of the metrics, goals, and actions in the Action Plans will be automatically treated as CEQA thresholds. Instead, the RTPCs and local jurisdictions will determine desired thresholds and track progress toward attaining the RTOs.

4. A set of actions to be implemented by each participating jurisdiction.

Actions may include commitments to: 1) fund a specific project or pro gram; 2) support one or more strategies; or 3) implement any number of measures, all of which work towards the achievement of the RTOs. The actions may be the same for each locality, or may vary. They may relate to capital improvements, fees, land use policy, TSM/ TDM, transit service, or other programs and projects. Some actions may support more than one RTO because of the breadth of their impact. This is particularly likely in relation to land use measures.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 25
Table 2. Examples of Adopted RTOs and Corresponding
Actions
Sample RTO Sample Actions
Maintain LOS E on Bailey
Road, and LOS D on all other
signalized suburban arterials
Pursue development and completion of arterial projects, such as the widening of the Bailey Road/ West Leland Road
intersection
Review and implement appropriate operational strategies originally recommended in the East County Commute
Corridor Traffic Management Plan
Coordinate with the California Highway Patrol to promote safer traffic operations, including facilitating enforcement Maintain a delay index of 3.0
or less on I-80 during weekday
morning and evening peak
hour
Work with Solano County, Vallejo Transit, Caltrans, and MTC to obtain funding in Solano County for HOV lanes between I 80/I 680 and I 80/I 505, Park & Ride lots, ITS projects, and increased express bus service to the Bay Area
Work with California Highway Patrol to encourage an increase in enforcement of HOV lane requirements for three person carpools
Identify full funding for the I 80 interchanges with San Pablo Dam Road, Central Avenue, and SR 4, including funding for long term operations and maintenance
Maintain a minimum average
speed of 30 miles per hour on
I-580
Complete I 580 Eastbound/ Westbound HOV Lane
Pursue fifth eastbound through lane on I 580 from Santa Rita Rd to Vasco Rd
Complete westbound I 580 auxiliary lane
Improve interjurisdictional
travel on the LafayetteMoraga Regional Trail
Monitor volumes of automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians at crossings Monitor average trail user delay at major road crossings
Monitor pedestrian or bicycle delay at major ( unsignalized) road crossings
Monitor pavement condition over the entire trail
Increase participation in the
Contra Costa TDM program
Develop TDM programs at k 12 schools and colleges to
encourage carpooling, transit ridership, walking, and bicycling Promote alternative work opportunities including employer pre tax benefit programs, compressed work week schedules, flex schedules, and work from home
Promote park and ride lot use to potential carpoolers,
vanpoolers, and transit riders, including shuttle services Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 26 Revised February 17, 2021
Table 2. Examples of Adopted RTOs and Corresponding
Actions
Sample RTO Sample Actions
Reduce frequency of
pedestrian or bicyclist injuries
along Class I and IV bike
facilities
Complete the sidewalk network
Coordinate cross jurisdiction procedures/ practices for traffic management during lane or road closure
Examine adaptive signal timing
Extend and connect existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities Install speed warning signs
Increase pedestrian safety devices
Transportation for seniors
and people with disabilities
Complete the sidewalk network
Increase pedestrian safety devices
Improve and expand existing services
Support the use,
enhancement, and expansion
of low emissions technologies
Support innovative approaches for the deployment of low emission technologies
Support the construction of infrastructure needed for the expansion of low emission technologies such as vehicle
charging stations
Identify pedestrian infrastructure directly adjacent to high injury locations for improvement
Pursue State funding for Communities of Concern to fund transit infrastructure projects
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 27

5. Requirements for consultation with neighboring jurisdictions. When establishing RTOs and the metrics to track their progress, RTPCs and their member jurisdictions shall establish desired thresholds to ensure each metric is measurable. A consultation with neighboring jurisdictions is required in cases where a jurisdiction establishes an RTO for a shared facility or regional route with another jurisdiction, or in cases where an action could have an impact on a neighboring jurisdiction. Such consultation will serve to establish a common threshold to track progress of RTOs on a shared key transportation facility. All thresholds are subject to modification by the Authority during review of the Action Plans.

6. Procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local GPAs that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans.

Because the Action Plans will be based on land use assumptions reflecting local General Plans, General Plan Amendments ( GPAs) may affect implementation of Action Plans. This Guide includes the Authority’ s adopted process for notification and review of the impact of proposed GPAs. ( See Chapter 4 for a more detailed description of the process.) Within the framework of adopted Authority policy, the Action Plans may outline in further detail how that process will be implemented for GPAs within the Action Plan area.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 28 Revised February 17, 2021

7. Schedule for the RTPCs and the Authority to review progress in attaining RTOs. The Authority shall periodically review the progress made by the RTPCs, generally on a two to four year review cycle. Each Action Plan shall include a review schedule to ensure the ongoing tracking of the RTOs.

8. Schedule and process for revision of Action Plans as needed. Each Action Plan will represent each RTPC’ s best efforts to develop projects and programs that will result in progress towards meeting objectives. Because of the difficulty of anticipating program effectiveness, the Action Plans should be reviewed periodically and revised as appropriate.
3 .2 ACTION PLAN UPDATES
The existing Action Plans focus primarily on capacity and performance on Roadway Routes of Regional Significance, with some additional objectives for active transportation modes. This focus has historically been beneficial in making transportation and land use decisions which improve the quality of roadways, however it neglected transportation priorities regarding active transportation modes and non infrastructure related issues. Therefore, this version of the GMP Implementation Guide has been reoriented to focus not only on Roadway Routes of Regional Significance, but also to cover the other identified transportation priorities, namely active transportation, transit, safety, climate change, and equity.

Updated Action Plans to address these changes will be developed by the RTPCs in cooperation with local jurisdictions. The Action Plan updates will include both corridor level analysis of roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and public transit routes, as well as additional transportation measures related to safety, climate change, and equity. The Action Plan updates are to include the existing conditions regarding each key topic area and the projected changes that would occur through implementation of the updated Action Plan. The Action Plan updates should include an evaluation of whether the previously adopted RTOs are being met or if the RTPCs are making progress towards each RTO. Local jurisdictions would continue to comply with the GMP and Action Plans in exchange for receiving return to source funds and having access to other Authority programs. The update will follow the general guidelines and steps outlined below and illustrated in Figure 2.

DEFINE WORK PROGRAM
As a first step, the RTPC should develop a work program that includes the following specific tasks:

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 29
Data collection
Assess status of Action Plan, and identify issues and potential changes
Identify new or refined RTOs and actions
Establish methodology for measuring new RTOs
Assess proposed changes
Assess procedures for review and mitigation
Prepare draft Action Plan Update
Adopt final Action Plan Update
A model work program for an Action Plan Update is shown in Appendix E.

REVIEW STATUS OF EXISTING ACTION PLAN AND RTOS
The updating of Action Plans includes reviewing the adopted content in each Action Plan and the level of attainment achieved for each RTO since adoption. Upon completion of the Action Plan and RTO review, each RTPC will produce a memorandum which provides an update on implementation of the vision and goals in the Action Plan and the status of each RTO and action. Components of Action Plan review include the following:

Review Action Plan contents:
o List of regional routes
o List of transportation facilities
o Status of regional and route Actions
o Status of each RTO attainment
o Review implementation of Actions
Review local General Plans
Review Countywide Transportation Plan
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 30 Revised February 17, 2021
Identify barriers to implementation of the Action Plan
Identify potential refinements or changes to each Action Plan policy and RTO

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EACH OF THESE REVIEW COMPONENTS IS PROVIDED IN APPENDIX E. DATA COLLECTION AND UPDATE OF FORECASTS An important component of the Action Plan Update process is the collection of existing data and the update of forecasting models. This data includes:

Existing and future land use
Existing and forecasted demographics
Existing and planned transportation system in the subregion Existing and future demand on the transportation system Existing safety conditions and planned improvements to address safety issues
Existing and forecasted greenhouse gas emissions
Existing communities of concern as defined by MTC.

Percentage of total planned transportation project dollars benefitting identified Communities of Concern
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 31
The review of the transportation system is informed by the Countywide Model and can be done simultaneously while reviewing the Countywide Model against the Action Plans.

Additional information on data to be collected is provided in Appendix E.

DEFINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIVES
Quantifiable RTOs are a required component of Action Plans. Objectives can be stated using various metrics to determine effectiveness, such as miles of trails constructed, average auto occupancy, number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions, transit patronage, reduction of GHG emissions, and accessibility improvements.

Each objective must have a quantifiable metric with both a threshold to measure success and a target date for attainment. Identifying a reliable source of data for the measurement should also be done at the outset.

Until recently, a proposed project’ s effects on capacity or LOS has been the key metric in evaluations of projects in Contra Costa County under CEQA. With the advent of SB 743, capacity and LOS on roadways are no longer topics under CEQA purview, and some of the new key topic areas are not topics that are conventionally evaluated under CEQA. Thus, the Authority does not anticipate that many of the metrics, goals, and actions in the Action Plans will be automatically treated as CEQA thresholds.

Instead, the RTPCs will determine a desired metric with a quantifiable threshold to track progress toward attaining the RTOs. An example RTO is: “increase the share of biking and walking trips.” An example metric for this RTO could be frequency of travel on a specific active transportation route and the quantifiable threshold could be increasing bicycle and pedestrian activity by 10 percent each year. Specific actions to achieve this objective could include completing a sidewalk and bike lane connecting to nearby bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, incentives for commuters switching to active transportation modes, or switching to metered parking in commercial or mixed use areas. The RTPCs will be responsible for tracking the metrics and the chosen thresholds to ensure effectiveness and overall compliance with the GMP and Action Plans. Progress will then be evaluated by the Authority during review cycles which happen every two to four years.

Ideally, RTOs would address transportation priorities in a manner that achieves an improvement for each priority topic. In some cases, however, particularly with Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 32 Revised February 17, 2021
physical priorities regarding roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit, objectives may seek to maintain current service levels and/or conditions (a non degradation standard such as a policy to maintain a bus route frequency of 15 minute intervals during peak commute hours). In the worst case, where projections now indicate significant deterioration related to a transportation priority, a RTPC might choose to adopt an objective to limit the rate of degradation ( slowing the release of GHG emissions which contribute to climate change).

During the development of primary objectives, RTPCs that share designated roadway, active mode, or transit Routes of Regional Significance, should meet to coordinate their planning efforts. The updated Action Plans for different portions of the same Regional Route should have the same RTOs and methods for quantification.

An RTPC may identify segments of Regional Routes or geographic subareas within the subregion that are subject to a specific RTO. A geographically specific RTO may be used to address the following conditions:

1. Accommodation of TOD: Areas where Transit Oriented Development TOD) exists or is planned may need special consideration with regard to RTOs that are oriented towards reducing VMT. These TOD areas may be identified in the Action Plan as being subject to alternative RTOs that differ from a corridor level RTO.

2. Accommodation of Infill Development: One of the objectives of the GMP is to support infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brown field areas. Measure J established the CC TLC program to strengthen existing communities through infill development. However, infill development may have localized impacts. RTOs may be used to encourage effective use of the CC TLC program, and support the GMP ULL requirement.

3. Adopted or Proposed Traffic Management Programs: Traffic Management Programs ( TMPs) may involve metering that controls downstream traffic levels and encourages temporal, spatial, or modal diversion. Alternative RTOs may be identified in areas where TMPs intended to improve overall system performance are proposed or have been established. Such RTOs could include, for example, prioritizing HOV or bus only lanes.

4. Conflict(s) with Regional, Statewide, or Federal programs: Examplesof these types of programs include congestion pricing, high occupancy/ toll Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 33
HOT) lanes, toll collection, and freeway ramp metering. In the case where an RTO is adversely affected by such programs, the RTPC may specify a different RTO.

5. Specific Area Conditions: Some RTOs might be appropriate in only specific parts of a subregion, for example in Communities of Concern, low income communities, areas with high transit reliance or low transit service, or communities with particularly high VMT.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 34 Revised February 17, 2021

IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE POSSIBLE ACTIONS, MEASURES & PROGRAMS Evaluation of candidate actions, measures, and programs will be based on the metrics and thresholds approved in each Action Plan. When applicable, travel demand forecasts will be prepared using the Authority’ s Countywide Model.

Since actions are to be implemented by the local jurisdictions, each locality should review and be in agreement with proposed actions that the RTPCs develop. The actions, programs, and measures will be included in each updated Action Plan, with responsibilities assigned to the acting party. In some cases, one action will be suitable for implementation by several or all jurisdictions, and shall be acceptable to all. In others, actions may be unique to a single jurisdiction. As part of the Action Plan update process, specific actions to improve conditions on the roadway, active mode, and transit Routes of Regional Significance will be considered for adoption, as will actions to address safety, climate change, and equity. The assignment of actions should be limited to the involved parties who have representation on the RTPC.

Revised — XX xx, 2020
Implementation Guide
Figure 2 Action Plan Update Process
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 36 Revised February 17, 2021
Examples of actions to be considered and/or analyzed in the Action Plan for feasibility and effectiveness in attaining RTOs include:

Land Use Policy

1. Modifications to allowable densities or set minimum densities for newly developing areas or infill areas where redevelopment is anticipated.

2. Changes to location of planned land uses ( new or redeveloped) to reduce impacts on Regional Routes.

3. Conditions for development approvals on progress in attaining RTOs.

4. Establishing standards and incentives for TOD that will improve transit ridership.

Capital Projects

1. Construction of new roads, transit facilities, electric vehicle infrastructure, or pedestrian, bicycle, ortrail facilities.

2. Arterial, freeway, transit, bicycle, or trail facility improvements.

3. HOV/ HOT lane construction or facilities for “ open road” tolling or con gestion zone pricing.

4. Adding turn lanes.

5. Traffic calming features ( e.g. curb bulbs, raised intersections, traffic circles/ mini roundabouts, median barriers, semi diverters or diagonal diverters).

Operational and Safety Improvements

1. Traffic signal coordination.

2. Traffic Management Programs.

3. Integrated Corridor Management projects that deploy intelligent transportation system technologies such as adaptive ramp metering and signal timing, variable speed control, transit ( and active transportation mode) pre emption, and improved incident detection.

4. Revisions to transit routes and schedules.

5. Augmentation of bus service.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 37

6. Accommodation of HOVs/HOTs and EVs.

7. Traffic calming measures.

8. Bicycle and pedestrian safety devices such as crosswalk markings on all four quadrants of new or rehabilitated intersections.

9. Progress towards Vision Zero.

Trip Reduction Programs

1. Expanded TDM/ TSM requirements within a corridor.

2. Focused ridesharing or car sharing campaigns.

3. Include a bike facility on all regional roadways.

4. Include secure bike parking, with a portion dedicated for cargo bicycles, in multi family housing projects.

5. Parking maximums and charges ( including incentivizing EV infrastructure).

6. Casual carpooling.

Institutional and Intergovernmental Programs

1. Coordinated efforts to attract State and federal funding for projects in the county.

2. Communication and cooperation with jurisdictions in adjacent counties.

3. Regional measures implemented through the Bay Area Partnership.

Climate Change Programs

1. Coordinated efforts to reduce dependence on vehicles.

2. Awarding incentives for purchase of EVs or electric bicycles.

3. Encourage company commute programs that reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles.

4. Installation of EV infrastructure in residential and commercial locations.

5. Include electric bike charging infrastructure in all new multi family developments.

Equity Programs

1. Augmentation of existing programs and policies (including those with a Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 38 Revised February 17, 2021
transit and land use focus) to integrate equity components.

2. Examination of funding distribution to ensure equitable division of local and regional transportation planning resources.

3. Pursuit of State and federal funding to finance capital projects, operational improvements, trip reduction programs, and institutional programs for low income and minority households.

4. Incorporation of equity component into project prioritization and selection criteria.

Following evaluation of new action policies, the RTOs will be finalized. When fully implemented, the actions, measures, and programs should result in achievement of the objectives, i.e., it should be reasonable to expect that if actions are implemented, the objectives will be achieved. A jurisdiction, however, may still be in compliance with the GMP even if the objectives are not met.

CONSULT WITH NEIGHBORING SUBREGIONS
The updating of Action Plans requires consultation with neighboring subregions which would be impacted by proposed modifications or additions to an Action Plan.

When establishing a new RTO, metric, and threshold, an RTPC must involve neighboring subregions when that RTO is for a shared facility or a shared regional route, or in cases where an action could have an impact on a neighboring subregion.

Such consultation would require that an RTPC notify a subregion if an Action Plan Update proposes an RTO for such a shared facility. In the case where a subregion has, or plans to establish, an RTO for the same facility or route, a common threshold must be established to ensure the sufficient tracking of progress in attaining the RTO.

Similar consultation must occur when an RTPC is proposing a modification to an existing RTO or threshold that concerns a route or facility that extends into a neighboring subregion. Consultation and consensus must occur for an Action Plan Update to be approved. In cases where conflict or disagreement arises, the conflict resolution process outlined in Chapter 6 is triggered by the Authority.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 39

FINALIZE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
Once consultation is complete, the RTPCs can finalize the RTOs and actions they will incorporate into the Action Plan. All RTOs must be quantifiable and all actions must prove to lead to attainment, or progress towards attainment, of the RTOs.

PROCEDURES
In addition to identifying RTOs, the updated Action Plans shall refer to the procedures outlined in this Guide, and specify any refinements to them, including:

Requirements for the review of impacts of local GPAs.

A schedule for review by the RTPC and the Authority of progress in attaining objectives. Generally, a two to four year review cycle is envisioned.

See items 6 and 7 in Section 3.1 above for discussion of these procedures.

3.3 REVIEW, ADOPTION, AND REVISION OF UPDATED

ACTION PLANS
The Action Plan update process relies on planning by the RTPCs consistent with Measure J, which notes that jurisdictions will “participate in the Authority’s ongoing countywide comprehensive transportation planning process….” Because Action Plans must work together to serve all transportation needs in the county, the Action Plan update process involves all jurisdictions in the county in the review process through the RTPCs. The overall process for the review, adoption, and revision of Action Plans is described below.
a. Proposed updated Action Plan is circulated to all other RTPCs.

Some circulation of proposed policies will have occurred during development of the Action Plan updates to establish common objectives for the six key topics. However, formal circulation of a proposed Action Plan update will occur after full agreement on the Plans is reached by the originating RTPC.
b. Each RTPC is asked to comment on proposals, clearly identifying those proposals which it opposes and seeks to have changed by the originating RTPC.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 40 Revised February 17, 2021
c. Because their responses will influence the approval process, RTPCs are asked to clearly differentiate between policies that are supported, those that are not supported but not strongly opposed, and those that are strongly opposed. The originating RTPC modifies its proposed objectives and action policies as appropriate following receipt of comments by other committees, and submits its proposal with comments from other committees to the Authority.

The RTPC may choose not to respond to comments received, but to allow the Authority, through its conflict resolution process, to determine what policies should prevail. Direct communications between RTPCs, through joint meetings or other forums, will be helpful in preparing revisions. d. The Authority acts on proposed objectives, actions, and procedures.

Where consensus has been reached among members of the RTPC and no other Committee has expressed objections to any of the policies, the Authority will accept the objectives and action policies as proposed. Where another committee or committees opposes some portion of the updated Action Plan, the Authority will determine which objectives and action policies are to be included as conditions of compliance with the GMP. In addition, the Action Plan procedures for consultation and review of EIRs and GPAs are reviewed for consistency with Authority policies. e. Local implementation of actions adopted by the Authority and the RTPCs become conditions of local compliance with the GMP. (See Chapter 8 for greater detail.) Compliance is tied only to local implementation of actionpolicies, and not to achievement of RTOs.

Local jurisdictions will report on implementation of the set of actions identified in the adopted Action Plan through the biennial GMP checklist.

One locality’ s compliance with the GMP cannot be judged based upon the unwillingness of another locality to participate in the process. f. A periodic review will be initiated by the RTPC and submitted to the Authority. It will be based on the Authority’ s RTO monitoring on the designated Regional Routes, and on issues regarding safety, climate change, and equity.

Consistent with the review schedule in the updated Action Plan, the RTPC and the Authority will periodically review progress in attaining objectives. If Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 41
satisfactory progress is observed by the RTPC and the Authority, implementation of the updated Action Plan will continue. If progress has not been satisfactory, a revision of the Action Plan may be necessary. The revision process will require circulation and submittal of the proposed Action Plan as discussed in Section 3.2.
g. Revision of updated Action Plans may also be required to respond to GPAs that would allow more development than anticipated by regional projections for population and job growth. This is because such unanticipated development could result in cumulative impacts that would adversely affect efforts to achieve and maintain RTOs or conflict with implementation of adopted actions.

As outlined in Chapter 4, the Authority has an adopted GPA review process that requires consultation between the responsible agency proposing the GPA and the affected RTPC. This consultation process could result in proposed revisions to the adopted Action Plan. RTPCs should avoid watering down RTOs during the revision process. Revisions may increase local commitments to actions needed as a result of GPAs or otherwise modify the approach to be taken to meeting objectives. Action Plan revisions that are made in response to a local jurisdiction’s GPA should be based upon a consensus reached between the jurisdiction proposing the GPA, and the affected RTPC.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 42 Revised February 17, 2021
4 Evaluating the Impacts of Proposed
New Development and General Plan
Amendments
When a local jurisdiction approves or denies a proposed development project within its adopted General Plan, the jurisdiction is making a short range policy decision.

Longer range policy decisions are made when the local jurisdiction amends its General Plan to change land use policies that may affect the local and regional transportation system in the longer term. State law also requires Congestion Management Programs ( CMPs) to include programs to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems.

Analysis of the impacts of GPAs on the transportation priorities and the local and regional transportation system has been integrated into the process for the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of the Action Plans. Each Action Plan is based upon long range assumptions regarding future land use, consistent with local general plans, as reflected in the Authority’ s LUIS. Because the Action Plans are based on land use assumptions reflecting local general plans, GPAs may affect the effectiveness of Action Plan policies or the RTPC’s ability to attain its RTOs.

Previously, Measure J required that local jurisdictions work with the RTPCs to apply the Authority’ s travel demand model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of GPAs and developments exceeding specified CEQA thresholds for their effects on the local and regional transportation system. However, the updated GMP removes the requirement to evaluate major projects and GPAs through the environmental review process. Instead, it now requires that the impact of major projects and GPAs on the six transportation priorities be analyzed in order for local jurisdictions to remain in compliance with the GMP. Such analysis now occurs during project review and is triggered when a project is proposed on or near a designated regional route or facility, or if the project could potentially interfere with an active transportation mode RTO or threshold. CEQA analysis may occur if applicable to the proposed GPA.

Some projects and GPAs may not involve development that would result in an impact to any of the transportation priorities or to the performance of the RTOs in an adopted Action Plan. However, where a development or GPA would likely cause an impact, the analysis of the project or GPA with regard to RTOs need only show that Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 43
the project or GPA is generally consistent with the adopted thresholds used to evaluate the RTOs. Analysis of a development’ s or GPA’ s consistency with the Action Plans will require a detailed review of the proposed development or GPA to determine whether it would interfere with attainment of the adopted RTOs. When applicable, transportation impact analyses shall be used to identify project related measures to mitigate the impacts on the local and regional transportation system. As outlined in Table 3, Authority policy defines “ major development projects and GPAs” as ones that would generate more than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips.

Some of the RTPCs have chosen to specify a lower trip threshold. A traffic analysis must be completed and subject to public review prior to action on any proposed major development project or GPA. Table 3 outlines the minimum number of net new peak hour vehicle trips for major development projects and GPAs above which the Sponsoring Jurisdiction must notify RTPCs, prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis, and undertake the Authority’ s process for reviewing GPAs. An RTPC may set a more stringent threshold for triggering a Transportation Impact Analysis through its Action Plan. Consultation among local jurisdictions shall be triggered by whichever threshold is lower. Furthermore, consultation is not limited to jurisdictions within the RTPC or the County, but should occur wherever project impacts are expected to occur.

This Chapter addresses how local jurisdictions should consult with one another in the evaluation of the impacts of new development, both within its adopted General Plan and in the context of a GPA. This procedure is intended to be consistent with the land use impact analysis program required by the CMP to minimize time and costs imposed on local jurisdictions and provide for coordinated review of the impacts of new development on the local and regional transportation system.

Similarly, it is intended to support other regional and State transportation initiatives.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 44 Revised February 17, 2021
Table 3. Threshold for Notification and Review, in Net New Peak Hour Vehicle Trips
Notification 1
Traffic Study
Preparation 2
Authority GPA Review
Procedure 3
The Project is Consistent with the
Adopted General Plan: 100 100 —
The Project Involves a GPA: 100 100 500
1 Applies to any project for which an environmental document ( either a Negative Declaration or an EIR/ EIS) is being prepared. 2 Included in the Authority’ s adopted Technical Procedures and Implementation Guide. The traffic analysis is to be prepared in accordance with the Authority’ s Technical Procedures, and consistent with standard traffic engineering practice as applicable under the CEQA Guidelines. 3 Requires that the lead agency undertake the GPA review process shown in Exhibit 4 1.

4.1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSES FOR P ROJECTS

WITHIN AN ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN
The Authority’ s Technical Procedures describe the Authority’ s transportation impact analysis requirements in detail. Fundamentally, these analyses include three major components:

An evaluation of the traffic congestion impacts, following traditional Level of Service or delay based methodologies. Although traffic congestion impact analyses are no longer required under CEQA, the Authority continues to require them for roadway routes of regional significance as part of the Growth Management Program and Action Plan processes, provided that the analyses and the implementation of their results do not conflict with goals to reduce VMT.

An evaluation of project or GPA vehicle miles traveled ( VMT).

An evaluation of project or GPA impacts on regional active mode and transit routes of significance.

This Chapter explains the overall requirements for such analyses.

Note that a project or GPA Transportation Impact Assessment is not required to include an evaluation of impacts on attainment of RTOs regarding safety, climate change and equity. Instead, the Authority expects that progress toward attainment of RTOs for these three factors will be evaluated during periodic monitoring of the Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 45
RTOs. However, RTPCs may use their Action Plans to set requirements for analysis of these factors in project and GPA Traffic Impact Analysis if they desire.

A key consideration is that the study area should be independent of jurisdictional boundaries. That is, the locations to be studied, and the selection of other transportation facilities that may be affected by the project and therefore included for analysis, are selected based upon RTPC threshold criteria rather than based upon local jurisdictional limits.

Traffic Congestion Impacts
The required transportation impact report must fully document the approach, methodology, and assumptions of the traffic analysis. It should clearly explain the reasons for any adjustments to traffic generating characteristics, assumptions for assigning and distributing traffic, and assessment of impacts and mitigations.

Recommended mitigation measures should be clearly stated and should indicate the relative share of the mitigation costs assigned to the project. The analysis should consider impacts on regional roadway routes, freeways and any ramp intersections, as well as identified regional active mode routes and transit routes. The analysis must not end when traffic gets on the freeway if the traffic generated by the project would significantly add to freeway ramp or mainline volumes, or affect interchange operations. The Authority’s Countywide Model and LOS methodology are used to conduct the analysis.

In general, the analysis must evaluate baseline conditions that include existing conditions plus any development that has already been approved. The project is then added in to determine its project impacts based upon existing plus approved conditions. Finally, a cumulative condition is included to address all development that is expected to occur within the adopted General Plan. Land use assumptions for each scenario should apply the latest figures in the Authority’ s LUIS, which are based upon land use projections from ABAG, with some modifications based upon local review.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 46 Revised February 17, 2021
The transportation impact analysis should identify project related impacts on the local and regional transportation system. Where an impact has been found during the transportation impact analysis or during project review, the local jurisdiction can suggest modifications to the project to mitigate an impact. These modifications shall ensure that proposed projects do not conflict with local adopted plans or with the RTOs and their thresholds identified in the Action Plans.

VMT Impacts
When assessing land use and development projects, each Contra Costa jurisdiction is required to implement consistent VMT analysis and mitigation procedures, as well as continued capacity and operational analysis and mitigation, in order to continue to receive Return to Source funds. The Authority’s adopted VMT analysis and mitigation approach includes the following specific features:

Specific metrics to quantify VMT from land use and development projects based on the land use type.

Screening criteria which allow a jurisdiction to exempt a project that lacks substantial evidence that the project characteristics might lead to a significant amount of VMT.

Minimum criteria that will apply to analysis and mitigation of VMT impacts from projects that are not exempted from analysis.

Jurisdictions will also be able to apply more stringent VMT screening, significance and mitigation criteria if they desire.

A set of tools to assist local jurisdictions in mitigating VMT. If adoption and implementation of all feasible mitigation measures will fail to lessen impacts to the less than significant levels, a jurisdiction may adopt a Finding of Overriding Consideration under CEQA.

Collaboration with other jurisdictions to identify and mitigate capacity and operational impacts on Routes of Regional Significance.

Jurisdictions will be considered to be in compliance with the VMT analysis portion of the GMP so long as they follow these established procedures, regardless of whether these procedures result in exemption of a project from VMT analysis, a finding that a project would have no significant VMT impact, mitigation of a project to achieve less than significant levels of impact, or findings of significant unavoidable impacts Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 47
accompanied by findings of overriding consideration. Local jurisdictions may choose to apply methods and thresholds that are more stringent than those required by the Authority, and would still be considered to be in compliance with the GMP. The lead agencies have the ultimate responsibility for determining the most appropriate way to comply with CEQA when conducting environmental review of their projects.

Appendix F describes the VMT analysis methodology.

Impacts to Regionally- Significant Active Mode and Transit Routes The Measure J GMP requires RTPCs analyze the impacts that GPAs and other proposed developments may have on active mode routes and on transit routes.

Evaluating impacts to these types of routes requires different methodologies than conventional LOS methods. The RTPCs are encouraged to explore RTOs and evaluation methods that address identified concerns in their subregions. For example, the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan uses the Level of Traffic Stress LTS) methodology to measure how stressful a street is for people bicycling on it, and to identify a countywide network of bike facilities that can accommodate cyclists of all ages and abilities. The LTS method could be used to evaluate the impact of a GPA or other proposed development on streets that are identified as part of that countywide network.

In cases where a transportation impact analysis may not be appropriate for evaluating project related impacts on the active mode transportation system, an analysis of a development’ s or GPA’ s consistency with the applicable Action Plan shall be conducted. Such review will require a detailed look at the components of the proposed development or GPA and whether such activity would interfere with the implementation of RTOs adopted in the subject Action Plan. 4.2 Consultation and Review of GPAs
The jurisdiction considering the GPA (the Sponsoring Jurisdiction) should notify all affected local jurisdictions and applicable RTPCs as early as possible of potential impacts with respect to adopted RTOs, actions, or thresholds. Affected jurisdictions may voice concerns to the Sponsoring Jurisdiction by commenting on the project application. The Sponsoring Jurisdiction is responsible for adequately addressing the project’s impacts on the regional route system by using the thresholds established to track the RTOs. If the GPA points toward revisions to the adopted Action Plan, the affected RTPC can work with the local jurisdictions to revise the Action Plan as necessary and appropriate. Ultimately, the proposed revisions to the Action Plan, if approved by the RTPC, will be incorporated into the CTP. During the project review Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 48 Revised February 17, 2021
process, either the Sponsoring or the Affected Jurisdiction may initiate cooperative resolution discussions, with the goal of reaching an agreement regarding impacts and project modifications that reduce impacts on shared components of the transportation system. Upon request, the Authority will procure and pay for professional facilitation services to help the parties develop written principles of agreement to be memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU).

Exhibit 4 1 provides a detailed description of each step that is required. Following the close of cooperative resolution discussions, if the Affected Jurisdiction remains unsatisfied with the outcome of those discussions, it may file a “ Letter of Concern,” detailing the basis for its concerns, and the proposed mitigations. Prior to approving the GPA, the Sponsoring Jurisdiction may provide a written response to the Affected Jurisdiction’s “ Letter of Concern.” This information, along with any further written exchanges among the involved parties, is taken under consideration when the Authority evaluates a local jurisdiction’s compliance with the GMP through the Biennial Compliance Checklist.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 49
Exhibit 4-1
GPA Review Process
Detailed Description 3
1 Project Review. Could the project result in an
impact to one of the six transportation priorities’
RTOs or thresholds or to a shared component of
the transportation system?
NO: Project is exempt from the GPA Review
Process, although it is still subject to notification
requirements in the applicable Action Plan.

YES: Sponsoring Jurisdiction shall move to the
next step of the GPA Review Process.
2 Notify Affected Parties. The Sponsoring
Jurisdiction shall notify potentially affected
jurisdictions and RTPCs in accordance with the
notification procedure as set forth in this Guide
and the applicable Action Plan.

The notification shall be issued as early as
possible, but no later than the deadlines
established in these procedures.
3 Plural vs. singular use of the terms “ Jurisdiction”, “ RTPC” and “ Action Plan”.

Throughout the discussion, the Sponsoring and the Affected Jurisdiction are referred to in the singular, as though only one “ upstream” jurisdiction could initiate a GPA, and only one downstream” jurisdiction could be affected. In practice, there may be more than one Sponsoring Jurisdiction and, clearly, more than one affected jurisdiction. In either case, the plural — “jurisdictions” — would apply. Similarly, if more than one RTPC and, consequently, more than one Action Plan were involved, the plural — “ RTPCs” and “ Action Plans” — would apply.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 50 Revised February 17, 2021
Exhibit 4-1
GPA Review Process
Detailed Description 4
3 Traffic Impact Analysis. The Sponsoring
Jurisdiction conducts a traffic impact analysis for
the motorized transportation priorities review
using the thresholds established for the
applicable RTOs in the adopted Action Plan(s).

The traffic impact analysis shall be conducted in a
manner consistent with the Authority’ s adopted
Technical Procedures.

The Sponsoring Jurisdiction may raise the
performance level of an RTO established in the
adopted Action Plan if it believes that the target
RTO is not stringent enough to serve as a
meaningful threshold. The Sponsoring
Jurisdiction shall provide the traffic impact
analysis, complete with all necessary supporting
technical information, as requested by the
Affected Jurisdiction to provide an informed
response.
4 Prepare Comment Letter. An Affected
Jurisdiction may submit comments to the
Sponsoring Jurisdiction expressing its concerns
and issues regarding the potential impacts of the
proposed GPA on Regional Routes.

The Affected Jurisdiction shall submit its
comments as early as possible. To the greatest
extent possible, the comment letter should
indicate issues, what modifications are sought
and/or acceptable for the project, as well as any
changes in scope desired in the project, and the
reasons why such changes are deemed to be
appropriate.
5 Initiate Cooperative Resolution Discussions. At
the request of either the Sponsoring or Affected
Jurisdiction, the Authority shall facilitate
cooperative discussions structured to offer an
opportunity for conflict resolution. The objective
of the discussions is to create principles of
agreement that will serve as a framework for
monitoring, review, and mitigation of potential
impacts as the GPA develops over time. The goal
for these discussions is to reach, through
cooperative planning, an agreement regarding
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 51
Exhibit 4-1
GPA Review Process
Detailed Description 4
impacts on the six transportation priorities and
the proposed modifications.

The affected RTPC may monitor and/or
participate in the cooperative resolution
discussions. Furthermore, the Sponsoring and
Affected Jurisdictions shall confer with their
respective RTPCs to seek concurrence with any
proposed Action Plan revisions. The principles of
agreement shall be memorialized in a written
agreement, such as a Memorandum of
Understanding ( MOU), between the Sponsoring
and Affected Jurisdictions. The Authority shall be
responsible for procuring and paying for
professional facilitation services.

Have the involved jurisdictions entered into
cooperative resolution discussions?
YES: Sponsoring and Affected Jurisdictions
move to Step 6 of the GPA review process.

NO: Any jurisdiction that declines to participate
in cooperative resolution discussions shall be
subject to a compliance review, as specified
through the Checklist review procedure, and to
a finding of noncompliance by the Authority
Step 16).
6 Develop Principles of Agreement. Have the
involved parties agreed to a set of principles,
specified actions, timing and responsibilities for
monitoring impacts on the six transportation
priorities and memorialized them in a writing?
YES: Sponsoring and Affected Jurisdictions
have adopted Principles of Agreement and, if
necessary, asked the RTPC torevise the affected
Action Plan to reflect the actions in the
agreement. ( All involved parties move to Step
14)
NO: Through their respective RTPCs, both the
Sponsoring and Affected Jurisdictions report on
progress to date on the development of
principles of agreement. If Principles of
Agreement have not been adopted in time for
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 52 Revised February 17, 2021
Exhibit 4-1
GPA Review Process
Detailed Description 4
Authority review of the GMP Biennial
Compliance Checklist of one or more involved
jurisdictions, then Step 16 comes into play
Note: If the Sponsoring and Affected
Jurisdictions cannot come to consensus or
agreement, the RTPC may still amend its Action
Plan for the purposes of providing mitigation.
7 Response to Comments. If the Affected
Jurisdiction comments on the traffic impact
analysis, the Sponsoring Jurisdiction shall
a. Consider requests for changes in the scope of
the project;
b. Address the comments directly to the
Affected Jurisdiction;
c. Incorporate Principles of Agreement into the
comments provided to the Affected
Jurisdiction ( if applicable); and
Provide that response, along with the final
environmental documents and all affiliated
supporting documents, directly to the Affected
Jurisdiction.
8 Notice of Intent to File a Letter of Concern. If
the Affected Jurisdiction remains unsatisfied with
the response of the Sponsoring Jurisdiction, it
must notify the Sponsoring Jurisdiction with a
Notice of Intent to File a Letter of Concern”
outlining a summary of its remaining issues prior
to or at the scheduled public meeting when the
Sponsoring Jurisdiction considers approval of the
environmental document and/or GPA. The
Affected Jurisdiction must also submit a copy of
this letter to the Authority, and subsequently
document the basis for its concerns per Step 10.
9 Final Cooperative Resolution Discussions. The
Sponsoring and Affected Jurisdictions enter into
final discussions to address the issues raised in the
Notice of Intent to file a Letter of Concern”.

Note: the Authority shall continue to facilitate
these discussions.)
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 53
Exhibit 4-1
GPA Review Process
Detailed Description 4
10 File Letter of Concern. The Affected Jurisdiction
prepares a “ Letter of Concern” for review and
approval by its Council or Board. The letter should
provide the detailed basis for its concerns, as well
as proposed changes to the project,
transportation system enhancements and/or
management plans to help offset the impacts,
and/or other mitigations. The Affected
Jurisdiction’ s Council or Board must approve the
Letter of Concern” and transmit it to the
Sponsoring Jurisdiction, and also submit a copy of
this letter to the Authority.
11 Respond to Letter of Concern. The Sponsoring
Jurisdiction may provide a written response letter
to the Affected Jurisdiction, with copies of the
documentation to the RTPC and Authority.
12 GPA Approval. Has the Sponsoring Jurisdiction
approved the proposed GPA?
YES: Sponsoring Jurisdiction shall move to step
13 of the GPA Review Process.

NO: GPA Review Process is concluded, sus
pended or cooperative resolution discussions
continue ( return to Step 5).

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 54 Revised February 17, 2021
Exhibit 4-1
GPA Review Process
Detailed Description 4
13 Affected Jurisdiction Responds. Has the
Affected Jurisdiction that submitted a Letter of
Concern concluded that the Sponsoring
Jurisdiction has adequately responded to the
concerns and issues outlined in its Letter of
Concern
YES: Affected Jurisdiction informs the Authority
in writing with a copy to the Sponsoring
Jurisdiction, and all involved parties move to
Step 14 of the GPA review process.

NO: Affected Jurisdiction informs the
Sponsoring Jurisdiction in writing, with a copy to
the Authority, that its actions on the GPA do not
adequately respond to the concerns and issues
of the Affected Jurisdiction. Proceed to Step 16.
14 RTPC Revises Action Plan. The affected RTPC,
working with the Sponsoring and Affected
jurisdictions, revises the Action Plan as necessary
and appropriate to incorporate projects,
programs, systems management investments
and processes, mitigations or other actions to
address the anticipated impacts and proposed
mitigations and monitoring as set forth in either
the Principles of Agreement from Step 6 or the
Sponsoring Jurisdiction’ s response to comments
ifthe outcome of Step 13 was “ yes”).
15 Incorporate Action Plan Revisions into the CTP.

The Authority considers the proposed revisions to
the Action Plan ( if such revisions were approved
by the RTPC) and incorporates the revisions into
the CTP, as appropriate.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 55
Exhibit 4-1
GPA Review Process
Detailed Description 4
16 CCTA Evaluates Compliance with the GMP. If all
of the above steps have been followed, and the
GPA remains the subject of dispute, the Authority
may find one or both of the parties out of
compliance with the GMP. As part of the
evaluation of the GMP Biennial Compliance
Checklist review, the Authority will determine
good faith participation in the GPA review process
as described in Table 4. If Principles of Agreement
are adopted, future compliance would be
assessed based on ongoing adherence of the
Sponsoring and Affected Jurisdictions to the
Principles of Agreement.

END OF PROCESS
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 56 Revised February 17, 2021
Table 4. Examples of Good Faith Participation in the GPA Review Process
For the Sponsoring Jurisdiction, did ittake the following actions:

1. Analysis: Were the Countywide Model and Authority Technical Procedures used to evaluate impacts on the six Action Plan transportation priorities?

2. Evaluation: Were impacts to and the six Action Plan transportation priorities identified and appropriate and feasible project modifications defined?

3. Notification: Were all Affected Jurisdictions properly notified?

4. Meet and Confer: Did the Sponsoring Jurisdiction meet and confer with the Affected Jurisdiction, RTPC, and others who expressed interest in and/ or concerns about the proposed GPA?

5. Responsiveness to concerns/ comments: Did the Sponsoring Jurisdiction agree to evaluate specific concerns and impacts? Was the Sponsoring Jurisdiction responsive and did it attempt to resolve and work out issues and concerns? Did the Sponsoring Jurisdiction propose to and/ or agree to participate in continued discussions? And if so, has the Sponsoring Jurisdiction taken action to implement the identified mitigation measures? For the Affected Jurisdiction, did ittake a sufficient number of the following actions:

1. Accept Improvements: Agree to accept improvements to the transportation system which are not in fundamental conflict with the jurisdiction’ s socio economic character.

2. Accept active transportation mode improvements, and/or other “ non physical” improvements to enhance the transportation system.

3. Accept additional transit service.

4. Support federal, state or regional funding for improvements that serve the proposed development.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 57
For all involved parties, have they, for example:

1. Committed to monitor RTOs; and

2. Agreed on thresholds for each RTO;
NOTE: If the Authority finds a party to be noncompliant with the GMP, the Authority may set deadlines and conditions for achieving compliance.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 58 Revised February 17, 2021
Exhibit 4-2
GPA Review Process
Summary Description of GPA Review Process
Responsible Party
Steps Action
Sponsor
Jurisdic
tion
Affected
Jurisdic
tion RTPC CCTA
1 Project Review
2 Notify Affected Parties
3 Traffic Impact Analysis
4 Prepare Comment Letter
5 Initiate Cooperative
Resolution Discussion
6 Develop Principles of
Agreement
7 Respond to Comments
8 Notice of Intent to File a Letter
of Concern
9 Final Cooperative Resolution
Discussion
10 File Letter of Concern
11 Respond to Letter of Concern
12 GPA Approval
13 Affected Jurisdiction Responds
14 RTPC Revises Action Plan
15 Incorporate Action Plan
Revisions into the CTP
16 CCTA Evaluates Compliance
with the GMP
Participation is Optional
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 59
4 .3 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS THROUGH THE MEASURE J

DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PROGRAM
Measure J requires that each jurisdiction adopt and maintain a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth pays its share of the costs associated with that growth. The program consists of both a local and a regional component.

The local program is intended to mitigate impacts on local streets and other non regional facilities. The regional program is to fund regional and subregional transportation projects, consistent with the countywide CTP. The key GMP requirement for the local program is that the revenue received through the 18% return to source funds and 5% Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds do not replace private developer funding that has been or would have otherwise been committed to mitigate project impacts.

The jurisdiction’s local development mitigation program should ensure that revenue provided from Measure J does not replace private developer funding that should be committed to a project. Therefore, impacts that are identified in traffic impact analyses should be incorporated into the local jurisdiction’ s mitigation program, and identified in the jurisdiction’ s five year CIP, specifying the funding arrangements for the mitigations.

The regional development mitigation program establishes fees, exactions, assessments, or other mitigation measures to fund regional or subregional transportation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast development. The regional mitigation programs that have been adopted within each subarea address the process for setting fees and other mitigations for new development. Consistent with the regional mitigation program, the traffic impact analysis should clearly indicate recommended mitigation measures and the relative share of the mitigation costs that are to be assigned to the project.

Regular review of Subregional Transportation Mitigation Programs ( STMPs) is required to ensure that these programs are mitigating the impacts of new development on the regional transportation system. Occasional re evaluation of these programs is necessary as proposed projects are constructed, development plans are implemented, and new mitigation projects are proposed.

STMPs with a uniform fee program should review project lists and fee structures every four to six years.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 60 Revised February 17, 2021
STMPs using other mitigation techniques should decide on an appropriate review schedule based on program components. Regular reviews are important to evaluate program effectiveness and to consider possible improvements.

The Countywide Model may be used to assess changes in a number of factors other than traffic volumes and LOS. These factors could include VMT, vehicle hours traveled, public transit hours travelled, and use of active transportation modes, among others. This information may be applied to establish a “ nexus” between the impacts of new development and the costs of mitigating those impacts. Such nexus can be determined through a select link analysis, by analyzing how much the new residents and employees from a development are going to use a particular transportation facility.

4.4 CONSULTATION PROCEDURES
Local jurisdictions will need to review their procedures to ensure that proposed development complies with the thresholds established in the Action Plans, where applicable, and that the notification procedure ensures that all jurisdictions are apprised of proposed development plans.

As outlined in Exhibit 4 1, when considering a development proposal that meets the threshold for invoking the GPA review process, a Sponsoring Jurisdiction must, at a minimum, use the established thresholds in the adopted Action Plans in the transportation impact analysis.

When a proposed project is suspected to impact one of the six transportation priorities or an adopted RTO, notification of RTPC chairs or designated staff is required. The Sponsoring Jurisdiction is responsible for ongoing notification to all interested parties as the proposed project continues through the development review process. Furthermore, as noted above, consultation with the affected jurisdictions and RTPC( s) is required for GPAs that would exceed the thresholds specified in Table 3.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 61
5 Urban Limit Line
When approved by the voters in 2004, Measure J added a new requirement to the GMP, namely, that each jurisdiction adopts and complies with a voter approved ULL. The procedures for establishing a jurisdiction’ s ULL are outlined in the Measure J Expenditure Plan in Appendix B, “ Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line” ( the Principles).

To ensure that local jurisdictions are aware of the ULL requirement, and receive early notification regarding any potential compliance issues, the Authority has adopted the following process:

1. Process Communications. To communicate to local jurisdictions the details of the Authority’ s ULL requirements and, when requested, advise them when actions are being contemplated that could place the jurisdiction at risk of non compliance with the Measure J GMP ULL requirement, the Authority will:

A. Issue an Annual ULL Policy Advisory Letter. All local jurisdictions will be advised annually in writing of the requirements for a local jurisdiction to be found in compliance with the ULL requirement of the Measure J GMP. Local jurisdictions must acknowledge having read and understood the letter through the GMP Compliance Checklist.

B. Prepare an Evaluation Letter. At any time, a local jurisdiction may ask the Authority to evaluate a proposed local action to determine whether that action may conflict with the ULL provisions of the GMP. Similarly, a third party may request that the Authority evaluate a local jurisdiction’s proposed action to determine whether that action may conflict with the ULL provisions of the GMP. In response, the Authority would ask that local jurisdiction if the jurisdiction would like the Authority to analyze the proposed action to determine whether any ULL compliance issues are evident. In either scenario, if the local jurisdiction requests the referenced ULL related evaluation, the Authority will provide the requested evaluation. The Authority will base its evaluation on the consistency of the proposed actionwith the criteria in Chapter 2. The Authority will document the analysis of the proposed action and convey its findings to the local jurisdiction in an Evaluation Letter.” The Evaluation Letter may include
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 62 Revised February 17, 2021
recommendations that could ensure the jurisdiction’ s compliance with the ULL requirements of Measure J.

C. Issue Final Notice of Concern. If, after receiving an Evaluation Letter, the jurisdiction subsequently approves the proposal without conforming it to the voter approved ULL, then the Authority will send a ” Final Notice of Concern,” advising the jurisdiction that, subject to a detailed review of the proposed development project based on the Measure J ULL and the Authority’ s criteria, the jurisdiction is likely to be found out of compliance with the GMP, until it has a voter approved ULL that includes the proposal or project area.

2. Criteria for Assessing Compliance. Based on the Principles, the criteria for determining whether or not a proposal conforms to the ULL requirement of Measure J are as follows:

A. The proposed development lies within the physical boundary of the voter approved ULL;
B. The proposed development involves a non sequential, non contiguous adjustment to the ULL that does not exceed 30 acres in size as explicitly permitted under the voter approved ULL;
C. The proposed development is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property as provided in the voter approved ULL, or D. The proposed development is necessary to comply with state or federal law as provided in the voter approved ULL;
E. The proposed development is explicitly listed as an exception to the physical ULL boundary in the jurisdiction’ s voter approved ULL, or the proposal is found and determined to be consistent with the definition of non urban uses in the voter approved ULL. For example, rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law as provided in the Contra Costa County 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance. Such determination shall be made by the local jurisdiction’s elected governing body after holding a properly noticed public hearing and making findings based on substantial evidence in Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 63
the record; if the governing body’ s decision is legally challenged, the Authority’ s finding of non compliance shall be held in abeyance subject to expiration of all applicable appeals periods or exhaustion of all applicable appeals or court challenges;
F. The proposed development ( a) does not involve an extension or expansion of urban services ( such as water or sewer) across the physical ULL boundary, unless such extension or expansion is to serve solely allowed non urban uses consistent with criteria E above or (b) is in connection with a development proposal as set forth in criteria C through E above.

Proposed developments that do not conform to the above criteria will be further evaluated by the Authority for possible GMP compliance issues.

3. Explanation of Modifications to ULL, or Development for Areas Outside of the ULL. For modifications to the voter approved ULL, or for a major subdivision or GPA in areas outside the ULL, a findings of consistency with the provisions of that ULL shall be made by the local jurisdiction’ s elected governing body after holding a properly noticed public hearing, and the findings shall be publicly provided by the jurisdiction to explain its degree of consistency with the GMP (including its consistency with the jurisdiction’ s ULL and General Plan) and included in the applicable Measure J Compliance Checklist, so that the Authority may determine compliance with the GMP. 4

4. Acceptable Discretionary Actions. For areas beyond the physical boundary of the applicable ULL, the following do not constitute a violation of the ULL provisions, as the actions are discretionary and do not commit a local jurisdiction to development beyond a local voter approved ULL:

A. Planning studies that result in neither administratively approved zoning changes nor GPAs nor specific approvals; or
4 A “major subdivision” is any subdivision requiring that both a tentative and final map be completed pursuant to Section 66426 of the California Subdivision Map Act (Govt. Code Section 66310, et seq.)
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 64 Revised February 17, 2021
B. Requests for changes to a jurisdiction’ s sphere of influence for purposes of considering future voter approved changes to the applicable ULL and subsequent annexation requests.

5. Timing of a Finding of Non-Compliance. The Authority may find a jurisdiction out of compliance with the ULL requirements of Measure J based on its review of the jurisdiction’ s biennial GMP Compliance Check list submittal and the above criteria.

Jurisdictions must meet both the requirements listed above and the other requirements listed in Chapter 8 to be considered in compliance with the GMP. If it has not fulfilled all of the requirements, a jurisdiction may present evidence that the requirements of Measure J have been met in some other way. In such a case, the Authority will decide whether the jurisdiction will be considered in compliance, based on the explanations submitted with the Checklist.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 65
6 Decision-Making and Conflict
Resolution
The Authority’s GMP envisions a high level of cooperation and coordination among local jurisdictions and between localities and the Authority. To help achieve consensus among the involved parties, the Authority has adopted a conflict resolution process as outlined in this Chapter. This process is based on three principles:

1. Resolution of conflicts and decision making on a consensus basis at the regional level is encouraged.

2. Where RTPCs are unable to resolve disputes, the Authority will make a determination based on statements by the parties involved. When determining compliance with the requirements of the GMP, the Authority will look for evidence of good faith effort by localities, including evaluation of alternative proposals, to address the problems at issue.

3. The conflict resolution process may be used at any point during implementation of the GMP. The Authority will make determinations of compliance for the purpose of allocating Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds. It cannot preempt local land use decisions or require cities to accept unwanted construction projects. Compliance will not require any city, town, or the County to accept programs that create a fundamental conflict with the community’ s character.

The conflict resolution process may be used in two types of disputes:

Category 1: Compliance Disputes: These disputes relate directly to compliance with the requirements of the GMP. The most significant characteristic of a Category 1 dispute is that the Authority is the final arbiter, since it has an obligation under the GMP to determine compliance.

Category 1 disputes may arise if one jurisdiction calls into question another jurisdiction’ s compliance with the GMP. Category 1 disputes may also arise if, after having been found out of compliance, a jurisdiction wishes to have further discussions with the Authority and possibly involve other juris dictions or RTPCs.

Category 2: Other Program Disputes: Disputes that are not directly related Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 66 Revised February 17, 2021
to compliance, but are impediments to effective implementation of the GMP, are Category 2 disputes. Use of the conflict resolution process for such disputes may be initiated voluntarily by the parties involved or in response to initiation by the Authority. Participation in the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the part of all parties. Settlements will be made by the parties directly involved. Though the Authority has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations. Use of the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes will not affect determination of the local jurisdiction’ s compliance with GMP. Occasionally, however, Category 2 disputes may eventually lead to a dispute that relates directly to compliance, that is, to a Category 1 dispute. Category 2 disputes also include issues that may arise in the preparation of Deficiency Plans under the CMP.

The three most common types of conflict resolution assistance are facilitation, mediation, and arbitration. The Authority’s conflict resolution process is limited to facilitation.

6.1 RTPC DECISION P ROCESS
Policies decided upon at the regional level will develop consistent programs across city boundaries and will also assign responsibility for specific implementation actions to individual localities. To serve effectively as the link between local jurisdictions and the RTPCs, members must be confident that Action Plan objectives are locally acceptable and that specified actions can be successfully implemented. To ensure that local jurisdictions would implement proposed actions, RTPC members are encouraged to regularly report back to their Councils or Boards on RTPC development of, and updates to, the Action Plans.

Because of the importance of support for the Action Plans by all members of the RTPCs, decisions should be made on a consensus basis. Ideally, this means that Action Plans will not be finalized and circulated for review and Authority action unless all members of the RTPC support, or at a minimum, accept the proposed Action Plans. However, in cases where the RTPC cannot reach consensus, the Category 2” conflict resolution process offers an alternative. Depending on the nature of the conflict within the RTPC, the conflict resolution process may result in a facilitated decision which is only achievable when all parties are in consensus.

In the course of developing and implementing Action Plans, local jurisdictions may Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 67
participate in the conflict resolution process, although such participation is voluntary unless initiated by the Authority.

6.2 CONFLICT RESOLUTION AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN

REVIEW PROCESS
The General Plan review process provides the opportunity for local jurisdictions and RTPCs to comment on proposed GPAs. In cases where no objections to proposals are received, or where the Sponsoring Jurisdiction revises its proposals in response to comments received, the proposed GPA may be adopted without entering into conflict resolution. In cases where objections are not accepted by the Sponsoring Jurisdiction, the conflict resolution process may be used in the form of Cooperative Resolution Discussions, as outlined in Chapter 4. Again, the process and outcome will vary in response to the particular situation.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 68 Revised February 17, 2021
This page left blank intentionally
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 69
7 Tools for Transportation Planning
This Chapter describes the tools and procedures that can be applied in the analysis of proposed new developments, General Plans, preparation of Action Plans, the CTP, and ongoing planning and evaluation efforts. It provides an overview of the transportation planning process described in the previous Chapters of this Guide.

More detailed technical background and instructions for use by technical staff and consultants are provided in the Technical Procedures.

Each section below describes the tools and procedures for a specific part of the implementation process relating to transportation planning. Responsibility for some tasks is assigned to local jurisdictions, others to the RTPCs, and still others to the Authority. These responsibilities are summarized in Table 5 below.

7.1 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL
Transportation analysis relies to a large extent on output obtained from the Authority’ s travel demand forecasting model (referred to as “ the Countywide Model”). The Countywide Model provides the best indication of the traffic and transit impacts of proposed General Plan policies. The Countywide Model provides a multi modal forecast of future transportation demands on the highway and transit elements of the system.

Table 5. Responsibility for Transportation Planning
Countywide Model development CCTA
Action Plan preparation RTPC
CEQA Clearance of Proposed Action Plans CCTA
Adoption of Action Plans into the CTP CCTA
Traffic Impact Analysis Local
Analysis of GPAs Local
Review of GPAs to evaluate Consistency with Action Plans Local/ RTPC Submittal of Compliance Checklist Local
Compliance evaluation based on Checklist review CCTA
Action Plan Updates RTPC
The Countywide Model projects future peak hour, peak period, and daily travel volumes based on anticipated land uses, the capacity of available streets and Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 70 Revised February 17, 2021
highways, the time and cost of transit, parking costs at the traveler’s destination, and changes in demographics. The Countywide Model is multi modal in nature: it can predict automobile traffic on the street and highway network as well as the choice of travel mode, including transit and ridesharing.

Each jurisdiction is required to review and provide input to the LUIS, which is updated every other year in coordination with the Association of Bay Area Governments’ release of new demographic forecasts. The LUIS contains the number of dwelling units and jobs for each of the Travel Analysis Zones ( TAZs) contained in the Countywide Model. The Countywide Model uses other zone specific data as well, such as income, transit accessibility, and types of employment to estimate future travel demand.

Complete documentation of the Countywide Model is found in the Technical Procedures, and the Model Documentation published by the Authority.

7.2 USE OF THE MODEL IN DEVELOPING ACTION PLANS
The Action Plans include RTOs which are quantifiable objectives that include a target date for attaining the objective. To establish an RTO, observed data should be collected and analyzed to determine the existing condition, and the Countywide Model should be applied (when applicable) to assess whether the objective will be met in the future, or if progress towards achieving the goal of the RTO is possible.

The Countywide Model is the primary tool for establishing and testing the modal RTOs and can be used to develop estimates of through traffic, future local traffic demand, travel times, average auto occupancies and transit ridership, and trends in active transportation. However, some types of policy actions are difficult to evaluate using the Countywide Model. For example, the traffic impacts of adding a right turn lane at an individual intersection cannot be adequately evaluated by the Countywide Model and post processing methods are more appropriate to evaluate this type of improvement. On the other hand, evaluation of the impacts of adding a through lane to an existing arterial street can be effectively evaluated using the Countywide Model.

The influence of TOD on travel demand and transit utilization is best evaluated using post processing techniques. The consultant community has developed a significant body of work on how to apply these techniques. Though not specifically addressed in detail in the Technical Procedures, the RTPCs may account for the Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 71
influences of TOD through post processing of the Countywide Model results. The approach and methodology for assessing TOD should be fully documented in a technical appendix to the Action Plan.

7.3 USE OF THE MODEL IN VMT ANALYSIS
As described in Chapter 4, each Contra Costa jurisdiction is required to analyze and mitigate any potential VMT impacts to continue to receive Return to Source funds.

The Countywide Model is the primary tool for calculating the forecasted VMT for a project. When a GPA or a project is proposed, the Countywide Model should be applied to assess the impact the project would have on the baseline VMT.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 72 Revised February 17, 2021
8 Compliance and Compliance Reporting
Compliance with all parts of the GMP will be evaluated by the Authority every other year, based on a Compliance Reporting Checklist submitted by each jurisdiction. The full checklist for Measure J will be developed through a separate but parallel process involving the local jurisdictions, the TCC, and the Authority’s CAC. Requirements for compliance with the provisions of the GMP relating specifically to the six Action Plan transportation priorities are listed below.

1. Participation in updating and adoption of Action Plans. Action Plans will be developed through the work of the RTPCs.

2. Implementation of actions designed to attain RTOs consistent with updated Action Plans. Action Plans will specify actions to be taken by each jurisdiction. All localities will agree to the actions before the updated Action Plans are finalized and adopted. After adoption, cities and the County will have an obligation to implement specified actions consistent with the time frame of the updated Action Plan.

3. Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with Action Plan policies. Some Action Plan policies may require implementation on an ongoing basis through the imposition of conditions on development approvals. These might relate to payment of mitigation fees, implementation of TSM/TDM measures, or phasing of development relative to infrastructure improvements.

4. Review of proposed GPAs over the threshold size specified and use of the RTO thresholds as described in Chapter 4.

5. Participation in the program of subregional traffic mitigation fees, assessments, or other mitigations developed established by the RTPC.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 73
9 Compliance Checklist
The Measure J GMP Compliance Checklist will include the following basic questions.

The detailed Checklist, and attachments that require a response to “ essay questions,” will be developed separately and adopted by the Authority.

1. ACTION PLANS
a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the applicable Action Plan for all of the six key topic areas? b. Has the jurisdiction implemented the following procedures as outlined in the applicable Action Plan?
i. Ensuring each adopted RTO has a quantifiable threshold, ii. Analysis of the impacts of proposed GPAs and
recommendation of changes to Action Plans, and
iii. Conditioning the approval of projects consistent with Action Plan policies?
c. Has the jurisdiction followed procedures for Action Plan Updates as called for in Chapter 3?
d. Has the jurisdiction followed the procedures for GPA review as called for in Chapter 4?
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 74 Revised February 17, 2021

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM
a. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a local development mitigation program to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the impact mitigation costs associated with that development?
b. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a regional transportation mitigation program, including regional traffic mitigation fees, assessments, or other mitigation as appropriate?

3. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
a. Has the jurisdiction demonstrated reasonable progress inproviding housing opportunities for all income levels by:
i. Comparing the number of housing units approved,
constructed, or occupied within the jurisdiction over the preceding five years with the number of units needed on average each year to meet the housing objectives established in the jurisdiction’ s Housing Element, or
ii. Illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption of land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development, or
iii. Illustrating how a jurisdiction’s General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate the improvement and development of sufficient housing to meet those objectives?
b. Has the jurisdiction assessed the impacts that its land use and development policies will have on local, regional, and countywide transportation systems, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided?
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 75
c. Has the jurisdiction incorporated policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in new development?
d. Has the jurisdiction incorporated policies and standards into its development approval process that support improved safety, climate change mitigation, and equity initiatives?

4. PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE, MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING a. Over the past year, has the jurisdiction’ s Council/ Board members regularly participated in meetings of the appropriate RTPC, and have the jurisdiction’s local representatives on the RTPCs regularly reported on the activities of their RTPC to the jurisdiction’ s council or board? (Note: Each RTPC should have a policy which defines what constitutes regular attendance of Council/Board members at RTPC meetings.)
b. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the Countywide Model, data on land use and traffic patterns?

5. FIVE- YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Does the jurisdiction have an adopted five year CIP that estimates project costs and includes a plan that outlines general mechanisms for financing transportation?

6. ADOPTION OF AN URBAN LIMIT LINE
Has the jurisdiction adopted and continuously complied with an applicable voter approved ULL as a part of its General Plan? (Additional reporting requirements will be included in the Authority’ s Biennial Growth Management Program Compliance Checklist)
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 76 Revised February 17, 2021

7. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Has the jurisdiction adopted a transportation systems management ordinance or resolution that incorporates required policies consistent with the updated model ordinance prepared by the Authority for use by local agencies?

8. ADOPTION OF THE MEASURE J GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Has the jurisdiction attached the adopted Final Measure J Growth Management Element to the local jurisdiction’s General Plan, or listed the date of ordinance or resolution adoption and its number?

9. POSTING OF SIGNS
Has the jurisdiction posted signs meeting Authority specifications for all projects exceeding $ 250,000 that are funded, in whole or in part, with Measure J funds?

10. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
Has the jurisdiction met the Maintenance of Effort requirements of Measure J as stated in the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance?

11. SUBMITTAL OF LSM REPORTING FORM AND AUDIT REPORTING FORM Has the jurisdiction submitted its last 2 fiscal years of summary and detailed LSM expenditures?

12. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure J have been satisfied in a way not indicated on this checklist, has an explanation been attached below?
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 77
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and
Abbreviations
CAC Citizens Advisory Committee
CBD. Central business district.

CCTA. Contra Costa Transportation Authority, also “ Authority.” CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act.

CIP. Capital Improvement Program.

CMP. Congestion Management Program
CTP. The Authority’s Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.

DEIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

GME. Growth Management Element.

GPA. General Plan amendment.

Goal. Statement describing in general terms a condition or quality desired by the jurisdiction. Goals may be used as the policy basis for standards and objectives.

HOV Lane. High occupancy vehicle lane, reserved for buses, vanpools, and carpools.

HOT Lane. High Occupancy/ Toll lane: HOT lanes provide free or reduced cost access to qualifying HOVs, but also provide access to other paying vehicles not meeting passenger occupancy requirements. These highway lanes are limited access and are normally barrier separated.

LOS. Traffic Level of Service.

NNPHVT. Net new peak hour vehicle trips.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 78 Revised February 17, 2021
Non-regional Routes. Streets and roads that are not designated as Regional Routes.

Objective. Statement representing a level or quality of performance that the jurisdiction seeks to attain through its programs and policies.

Planning Area. Land area identified within a jurisdiction’s General Plan for which the jurisdiction has designated land uses.

Plan Holding Capacity. Maximum possible development within a stated planning period given existing regulations and policies in the local General Plan and implementing ordinances.

Probable Plan Buildout. Amount of development that can be reasonably expected given General Plan land use policies. In some cities, Probable Plan Buildout will be less than Plan Holding Capacity.

Route of Regional Significance. Roadways, active transportation mode, and transit routes designated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, consistent with procedures described in the Implementation Guide: Traffic Level of Service Standards and Programs for Routes of Regional Significance. These roads are subject to objectives and programs in adopted Action Plans. Also referred to as “ Regional Routes.”
RTO. Regional Transportation Objective.

RTPC. RTPC: The four RTPCs in Contra Costa County are: TRANSPAC (Central County), TRANSPLAN ( East County), WCCTAC ( West County) and SWAT Southwest County). The SWAT Committee covers the Lamorinda Project Management Committee ( LPMC) and the Tri Valley Transportation Committee TVTC). TVTC includes the Alameda County jurisdictions of the Tri Valley. Also referred to as “ RTPCs.”
Special District. An agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of government or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. Does not include State, City, County governments or school districts.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 79
Sphere of Influence. The probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency or government as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO).

Standard. Statement representing a commitment by the jurisdiction to attain a specified level or quality of performance through its programs and policies.

Standard Inflator. A multiplier that when applied to the present year cost of an item will inflate that cost to some future year taking into account a projected lev el of inflation.

STIP. State Transportation Improvement Program.

STMP. Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program
Traffic Analysis Zone. Geographic area delineated for the purpose of organizing land use or travel data to be used in computer modeling of traffic patterns. Also referred to as “ TAZs.”
Trip assignment. Predicting of travel routes: Traffic between specified origins and destinations is assigned to a specific travel route.

Trip distribution. Projection of destinations for trips originating in a TAZ.

Trip generation. The number of trips associated with a specific type and density of land use, usually estimated based on number of dwelling units, gross square feet of commercial space, or other appropriate independent variable.

TSM/ TDM. Transportation Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management: Programs to increase the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce demand for road capacity during the peak hour and otherwise affect travel behavior to minimize the need for capacity increasing capital projects.

ULL. Urban Limit Line: A voter approved boundary for urban growth required for GMP compliance.

VHD. Vehicle Hours of Delay: A measure of delay that indicates the number of hours the traffic stream is delayed, measured in vehicle hours.

VHT. Vehicle Hours of Travel: The total number of hours of vehicle travel on the designated set of roadways.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 80 Revised February 17, 2021
VMT. Vehicle Miles Traveled: The amount of vehicle travel on a designated set of roadways, multiplied by the total mileage of those roadways.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 81
Appendix B: Comparison of the Measure C
and Measure J Growth Management
Program
The following table compares the text from Measure C and Measure J that outline their respective Growth Management Programs.

Existing Measure C GMP New Measure J GMP
Introduction
Consistent with and in furtherance of its role
as the county’ s designated Congestion
Management Program Agency, while serving
such role, the overall goal of the Growth
Management Program is to achieve a
cooperative process for Growth Management
on a countywide basis, while maintaining
local authority over land use decisions and
the establishment of performance standards.

The Growth Management and Congestion
Management Programs functions shall, to the
extent possible, be harmonized. To the
extent they conflict, Congestion
Management Program activities shall take
precedence over Growth Management
Program activities.

The transportation retail transaction and use
tax is intended to alleviate existing major
regional transportation problems. Growth
management is needed to assure that future
residential, business and commercial growth
pays for the facilities required to meet the
demands resulting from that growth.

It is the intent of the Transportation Authority
to create a process that results in the
maintenance of the quality of life in Contra
Costa.

Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of the Growth Management
Program is to preserve and enhance the
quality of life and promote a healthy, strong
economy to benefit the people and areas of
Contra Costa through a cooperative, multi
jurisdictional process for managing growth,
while maintaining local authority over land
use decisions. [ FOOTNOTE: The Authority shall,
to the extent possible, attempt to harmonize
the Growth Management and Congestion
Management Programs. To the extent they
conflict, Congestion Management Program
activities shall take precedence over Growth
Management Program activities.]
The objectives of the Growth Management
Program are to:

Assure that new residential, business and
commercial growth pays for the facilities
required to meet the demands resulting from
that growth.

Require cooperative transportation and land
use planning among Contra Costa County,
cities, towns, and transportation agencies.

Support land use patterns within Contra Costa
that make more efficient use of the
transportation system, consistent with the
General Plans of local jurisdictions.

Support infill and redevelopment in existing
urban and brownfield areas.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 82 Revised February 17, 2021
Existing Measure C GMP New Measure J GMP
Adopt a Growth Management Element
Each jurisdiction is to develop a Growth
Management Element of its General Plan to
be applied in the development review
process. The element must include sections 2
and 3 below, and jurisdictions must comply
with sections 4 8 below. The Authority and
the RTPCs shall jointly prepare a model
element and administrative procedures to
guide the local jurisdictions. Local
jurisdictions shall develop their Growth
Management Element within one year after
receipt of the Authority’ s model element.

Adopt a Growth Management Element
Each jurisdiction must adopt a Growth
Management Element as part of its General
Plan that outlines the jurisdiction’ s goals and
policies for managing growth and
requirements for achieving those goals. The
Growth Management Element must show how
the jurisdiction will comply with sections 2–7
below. The Authority shall refine its model
Growth Management Element and
administrative procedures in consultation with
the RTPCs to reflect the revised Growth
Management Program.

Each jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate
other standards and procedures into its Growth
Management Element to support the
objectives and required components of this
Growth Management Program.

Adopt Traffic LOS Standards keyed to types
of land use:

Rural: LOS low C
Semi- Rural: LOS high C
Suburban: LOS low D
Urban: LOS high D
Central Business District: LOS low E
Based on the categories established above,
each jurisdiction shall determine how the
Traffic Service standards are to be applied to
their General Plan land use and circulation
elements, and the land areas to be defined as
Rural, Semi Rural, Suburban, Urban, and
Central Business District ( as suggested in the
Guidelines in Appendix A). Each jurisdiction
shall comply with the adopted standards.

Jurisdictions may adopt more stringent
standards without penalty.

LOS would be measured by Circular 212 or
the method described in the most commonly
used version of the Highway Capacity
Manual. Any issues with respect to the
application of the Highway Capacity Manual
or measurement of level of service shall be
referred to the Authority’ s Technical
not included in Measure J]
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 83
Existing Measure C GMP New Measure J GMP
Coordinating Committee for review and
recommendation to the Authority. In the
event that an intersection( s) exceeds the
applicable Traffic Service standard, the
Authority shall, jointly with local jurisdictions,
establish appropriate mitigation measures or
determine that a given intersection is subject
to a finding of special circumstances.

Any intersection that presently exceeds the
Traffic Service standard and which will be
brought into compliance in the most current
Five Year Capital Improvement Program ( see
section 7) shall be considered to be in
compliance with the applicable standard.

The Authority, jointly, with affected local
jurisdictions, shall determine and periodically
review the application of Traffic Service
Standards on routes of regional significance.

The review will take into account traffic
originating outside of the county or
jurisdiction, and environmental and financial
considerations. Local jurisdictions, through
the forum provided by the Authority, shall
jointly determine the appropriate measures
and programs for mitigation of regional
traffic impacts. ( See Section 7)
Capital projects necessary to meet and/ or
maintain the Traffic Service standards are to
be included in the required Five Year Capital
Improvement Program. ( see Section 8)
Adopt Performance Standards, maintained
through capital projects, for the following
items, based on local criteria:
a. fire
b. police
c. parks
d. sanitary facilities
e. water
f. flood control
Jurisdictions may have already adopted
performance standards for some or all of
these items.

Performance standards shall be adopted for
inclusion in each local jurisdiction’ s General
Plan. Each jurisdiction shall comply with the
not included in Measure J]
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 84 Revised February 17, 2021
Existing Measure C GMP New Measure J GMP
adopted standards. The Performance
Standards should take into account fiscal
constraints, and how the standards are to be
applied in each jurisdiction’ s development
review process. To ensure the continued
applicability of these standards, each juris
diction may annually review and modify their
adopted standards, in consultation with
special districts where appropriate, and
provide an opportunity for public comment.

Capital projects, exclusive of operating
budgets, to achieve and/ or maintain
Performance Standards are to be included in
the required Five Year Capital Improvement
Program. ( see Section 8)
Adopt a Development Mitigation Program
to ensure that new growth is paying its share
of the costs associated with that growth.

Local jurisdictions, for the most part, already
impose fees for a variety of purposes
including site specific traffic improvements.

Only a few jurisdictions impose fees for
regional traffic mitigation.

To meet the requirements of this Section,
each jurisdiction shall:
1) Ensure that revenue provided from this
measure shall not be used to replace private
developer funding which has been or will be
committed for any project.
2) Adopt a development mitigation program
to ensure that development is paying its
share of the costs associated with that
development.

In addition, the Authority shall:
1) Develop a program of regional traffic
mitigation fees, assessments or other
mitigations, as appropriate, to fund
regional and subregional transportation
projects, as determined in the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan of the
Authority.
2) Consider such issues as jobs/ housing
balance, carpool and vanpool programs and
proximity to transit service in the
establishment of the regional traffic
Adopt a Development Mitigation Program
Each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain in
place, a development mitigation program to
ensure that new growth is paying its share of
the costs associated with that growth. This
program shall consist of both a local program
to mitigate impacts on local streets and other
facilities and a regional program to fund
regional and subregional transportation
projects, consistent with the Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan.

The jurisdiction’ s local development
mitigation program shall ensure that revenue
provided from this measure shall not be used
to replace private developer funding that has
or would have been committed to any
project.

The regional development mitigation
program shall establish fees, exactions,
assessments or other mitigation measures to
fund regional or subregional transportation
improvements needed to mitigate the
impacts of planned or forecast development.

Regional mitigation programs may adjust
such fees, exactions, assessments or other
mitigation measures when developments are
within walking distance of frequent transit
service or are part of a mixed use
development of sufficient density and with
necessary facilities to support greater levels
of walking and bicycling. Each RTPC shall
develop the regional development mitigation
program for its region, taking account of
planned and forecast growth and the
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 85
Existing Measure C GMP New Measure J GMP
mitigation program.
3) The development mitigation program will
be implemented with the participation and
concurrence of local jurisdictions in
determining the most feasible methods of
mitigating regional traffic impacts. Existing
regional traffic impact fees shall be taken
into account by the Authority.

Regional Transportation Service Objectives
and actions to achieve them established in
the Action Plans. RTPCs may use existing
regional mitigation programs, if consistent
with this section, to comply with the Growth
Management Program.

Participate in a Cooperative, MultiJurisdictional Planning Process to Reduce Cumulative Regional Traffic Impacts of
Development.

The Authority shall establish a forum for
jurisdictions to cooperate in easing
cumulative traffic impacts. This will be
accomplished through the RTPCs, and be
supported by an ongoing countywide
comprehensive transportation planning
process in which all jurisdictions shall
participate.

As part of this process, a uniform database on
traffic impacts will be created, based on the
countywide transportation computer model.

Use of the countywide transportation
computer model provides an opportunity to
test General Plan( s) transportation and land
use alternatives, and to assist cities and the
county in determining the impact of major
development projects proposed for GPAs.

This would provide a quantitative basis for
inter jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate
cumulative regional traffic impacts. Input for
the model shall include each jurisdiction’ s
Five Year Capital Improvement Program of
transportation projects ( see Chapter 8) and
the projects of federal, state and regional
agencies such as Caltrans, transit operators,
the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, etc. In addition, the computer
model database will include each local
jurisdiction’ s anticipated land use
development projects expected to be
constructed within the next five years.

Participate in an Ongoing Cooperative,
Multi- Jurisdictional Planning Process
Each jurisdiction shall participate in an
ongoing process with other jurisdictions and
agencies, the RTPCs, and the Authority to
create a balanced, safe and efficient
transportation system and to manage the
impacts of growth. Jurisdictions shall work
with the RTPCs to:

A. Identify Routes of Regional Significance,
and establish Regional Transportation Service
Objectives for those routes and actions for
achieving those objectives.

B. Apply the Authority’ s travel demand model
and technical procedures to the analysis of GPAs
GPAs) and developments exceeding specified
thresholds for their effect on the regional
transportation system, including on Action Plan
objectives.

C. Create the development mitigation
programs outlined in section 3 above.

D. Help develop other plans, programs and
studies to address other transportation and
growth management issues.

In consultation with the RTPCs, each
jurisdiction shall use the travel demand model
to evaluate changes to local General Plans
and the impacts of major development
projects for their effects on the local and
regional transportation system and the ability
to achieve the RTOs established in the Action
Plans.

Jurisdictions shall also participate in the
Authority’ s ongoing countywide
comprehensive transportation planning
process. As part of this process, the Authority
shall support countywide and subregional
planning efforts, including the Action Plans,
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 86 Revised February 17, 2021
Existing Measure C GMP New Measure J GMP
and shall maintain a travel demand model.

Jurisdictions shall help maintain the
Authority’ s travel demand modeling system
by providing information on proposed
improvements to the transportation system
and planned and approved development
within the jurisdiction.

Address Housing Options and Job
Opportunities
As part of its Five Year Capital Improvement
Program and pursuant to the state mandated
housing element of its General Plan, each
jurisdiction shall develop an implementation
program that creates housing opportunities
for all income levels.

Each jurisdiction shall also address land use
information as it relates to transportation
demand as well as a discussion of each
jurisdiction’ s efforts to address housing
options and job opportunities on a city,
subregional and countywide basis.

Address Housing Options
Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate
reasonable progress in providing housing
opportunities for all income levels as part of a
report on the implementation of the actions
outlined in its adopted Housing Element. The
report will demonstrate progress by (1)
comparing the number of housing units
approved, constructed or occupied within the
jurisdiction over the preceding five years with
the number of units needed on average each
year to meet the housing objectives
established in the jurisdiction’ s Housing
Element; or (2) illustrating how the
jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet
the existing and projected housing needs
through the adoption of land use plans and
regulatory systems which provide
opportunities for, and do not unduly
constrain, housing development; or (3)
illustrating how a jurisdiction’ s General Plan
and zoning regulations facilitate the
improvement and development of sufficient
housing to meet those objectives.

In addition, each jurisdiction shall consider
the impacts that its land use and
development policies have on the local,
regional and countywide transportation
system, including the level of transportation
capacity that can reasonably be provided, and
shall incorporate policies and standards into
its development approval process that
support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access
in new developments.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 87
Existing Measure C GMP New Measure J GMP
Develop a Five Year Capital Improvement
Program to meet and/ or maintain Traffic
Service and Performance Standards ( defined
in Sections 2 and 3).

Each jurisdiction shall determine the capital
projects needed to meet and/ or maintain
both its adopted Traffic Service and
Performance Standards. Capital financial
programming will be based on development
to be constructed during (at a minimum) the
following five year period. The Capital
Improvement Program shall include approved
projects and an analysis of the costs of the
proposed projects as well as a financial plan
for providing the improvements.

Develop a Five- Year Capital Improvement
Program
Each jurisdiction shall prepare and maintain a
capital improvement program that outlines
the capital projects needed to implement the
goals and policies of the jurisdiction’ s General
Plan for at least the following five year
period. The Capital Improvement Program
shall include approved projects and an
analysis of the costs of the proposed projects
as well as a financial plan for providing the
improvements. The jurisdiction shall forward
the transportation component of its capital
improvement program to the Authority for
incorporation into the Authority’ s database of
transportation projects.

Adopt a TSM Ordinance or alternative
mitigation.

To promote carpools, vanpools and park and
ride lots, the Transportation Authority will
draft and adopt a Model Transportation
Systems Management Ordinance for use by
local jurisdictions in developing local
ordinances for adoption and implementation.

Upon approval of the Authority, cities with a
small employment base may adopt
alternative mitigation measures in lieu of
adopting a TSM Ordinance.

Adopt a TSM Ordinance or Resolution
To promote carpools, vanpools and park and
ride lots, each jurisdiction shall adopt a local
ordinance or resolution that conforms to the
model Transportation Systems Management
Ordinance that the Transportation Authority
has drafted and adopted. Upon approval of
the Authority, cities with a small employment
base may adopt alternative mitigation
measures in lieu of a TSM ordinance or
resolution.
not included in Measure C] Adopt an Urban Limit Line
Each jurisdiction must continuously comply
with either a new “ Countywide mutually
agreed upon voter approved ULL” or the
local jurisdiction’ s voter approved ULL”
before that jurisdiction would be eligible to
receive the 18% return to source funds or the
5% TLC funds. In the absence of a new local
voter approved ULL, submittal of an
annexation request to LAFCO outside the
countywide voter approved ULL will
constitute non compliance with the Measure
C Growth Management Plan.

The new ULL will be developed and
maintained consistent with the “Principles of
Agreement” in Attachment A, incorporated
herein by reference.

Measure J also includes Attachment A to the Growth Management Program which Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 88 Revised February 17, 2021
sets out the principles for jurisdictions to establish an Urban Limit Line. This attachment is reproduced below.

PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHING THE URBAN LIMIT LINE An applicable ULL shall be defined as an urban limit line, urban growth boundary, or other equivalent physical boundary judged by the Authority to clearly identify the physical limits of the local jurisdiction’ s area, including future urban development.

Initial Action
The Board of Supervisors shall have, with the concurrence of each affected city, adjusted the existing County ULL on or before September 30, 2004, or as expeditiously as possible given the requirements of CEQA, to make the existing County ULL coterminous with city boundaries where it previously intruded inside those incorporated boundaries.

Establishing a Mutually Agreed- Upon Countywide Urban
Limit Line (“ MAC- ULL”)
The process to develop a MAC ULL shall have begun by July 1, 2004 with meetings in each sub region between one elected representative of each city and the county. The subregional meeting( s) will be followed by meetings between all of the cities and the County, each being represented by one elected representative. The discussion will include both the suggested ULL as well as criteria for establishing the line and future modifications to the ULL.

1. On or before December 31, 2004, the County and the cities will cooperate in the development of a new MAC ULL and criteria for future modifications.

To be considered a final proposal, the plan must be approved by 4 members of the Board of Supervisors and ¾ of the cities representing ¾ of the incorporated population.

2. The County will be the lead agency in connection with any required environmental review and clearance on the proposed MAC ULL

3. After completion of the environmental review process, the proposal shall be submitted to the voters for ratification by November 2006. The MAC ULL will include provisions for periodic review ( 5 years) as well as provisions for minor (less than 30 acres) nonconsecutive adjustments.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 89

4. If there is a MAC ULL, and a Town or City disagrees with that MAC ULL, it may develop and submit a “ LV ULL” ( see 8.b, below), orrely upon an existing voter approved ULL.

Alternatives If There Is No Voter Approved MAC-ULL or If a Local Jurisdiction Chooses Not to Concur with a Voter-Approved MAC-ULL

1. If no MAC ULL is established by March 31, 2009, only local jurisdictions with one of the following applicable voter approved ULLs will be eligible to receive the 18% return to source funds or the 5% TLC funds.

A. County ULL. A ULL placed on the ballot by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, adopted at a countywide election and in effect through the applicable GMP compliance period, as its boundaries apply to the local jurisdiction, if:
i. That ULL was approved by a majority of the local jurisdiction’ s voters, either through a separate ballot measure or as part of the countywide election at which the measure was approved;
ii. The legislative body of the City or Town has accepted and approved, for purposes of compliance with the Measure J GMP, the County ULL boundaries for urban development as its
applicable, voter approved ULL;
iii. Revisions to a City or Town’ s adopted County ULL boundary requires fulfillment of provisions ( 8.a.i) and (8.a.ii) above in their entirety; and
iv. A City of Town may adopt conditions for revising its adopted County ULL boundary by action of the City or Town’ s legislative body, provided that the conditions limit the revisions of the physical boundary to adjustments of 30 or fewer acres, and/or to address issues of unconstitutional takings, or conformance to state and federal law. Such conditions may be adopted at the time of adoption of the County ULL, or subsequently through amendment to the City or Town’s Growth Management Element to its General Plan.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 90 Revised February 17, 2021
B. Local Voter ULL (LV-ULL). A local ULL or equivalent measure placed on the local jurisdiction ballot, approved by the jurisdiction’ s voters, and recognized by action of the local jurisdiction’ s legislative body as its applicable, voter approved ULL. A jurisdiction may revise or establish a new LV ULL at any time using the procedure defined in this paragraph.

C. Adjustments of 30 Acres or Less. A local jurisdiction can undertake adjustments of 30 acres or less to its adopted ULL, consistent with these Principles, without voter approval.

However, any adjustment greater than 30 acres requires voter approval and completion of the full County ULL or LV ULL procedure as outlined above.

Conditions of Compliance
Submittal of an annexation request by a local jurisdiction to LAFCO outside of an applicable voter approved ULL will constitute non compliance with the new Measure J Growth Management Plan. For each jurisdiction, an applicable ULL shall be in place through each Measure J Growth Management Program compliance period in order for the local jurisdiction to be eligible to receive the 18% return to source and the TLC funds for that period.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 91
Appendix C: Steps for Designating
Additional Routes of Regional Significance
New Routes of Regional Significance in each sub area of Contra Costa may be identified as time progresses, and may include roadways, active transportation infrastructure ( bikeways and/ or pedestrian facilities), or components of the regional transit system. An RTPC, with concurrence of the Authority, may designate additional facilities as Routes of Regional Significance if they are determined to meet one or more of the following criteria:

A. Connects two or more “regions” of the County.

B. Crosses county boundaries.

C. Carries a significant amount of through traffic, where the threshold for a “ significant amount” might be specified by the RTPC).

D. Provides access to a regional highway or transit facility ( e.g., a BART station or freeway interchange).

The process for designating additional Routes of Regional Significance is as follows:

1. Proposed additional Routes are circulated to the other RTPCs for their comments, and then returned to the originating RTPC. The RTPCs are asked to respond to each item on the list, clearly identifying any proposals that are opposed by the full RTPC.

2. As appropriate, the originating RTPC may modify its proposal.

3. Each jurisdiction approves the proposal prepared by its RTPC.

4. The RTPC submits its proposal and comments from the other RTPCs to the Authority. The RTPC may submit any supplementary data or explanation that is appropriate.

5. The Authority updates its list of Routes of Regional Significance based on submittals. Facilities on proposed lists that are supported by all of the RTPCs will be included in the updated list.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 92 Revised February 17, 2021
This process is summarized in the figure below.

Unlike the Congestion Management Program, where designation of a CMP route is irrevocable, the Authority allows RTPCs to recommend reversing a prior designation. An RTPC may, subject to Authority approval, propose that the Authority rescind a previous Regional Route designation by following the same process as outlined above. Rescission of a designated route may be justified if new, parallel facilities have been constructed that significantly change the responses to the questions posed in Step 1 above. The final decision on whether to reverse a prior designation rests with the Authority.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 93
Appendix D: List of Regional Routes
The list of designated regional routes is current as of November 2020.

WEST COUNTY ( WCCTAC)
Appian Way San Pablo Avenue to San Pablo Dam Road
Carlson Boulevard San Pablo Avenue to 23rd Street
Central Avenue San Pablo Avenue to Interstate 580
Cummings Skyway San Pablo Ave/ Road 20 to State Route 4 Interstate 80 Alameda County line to the Solano County line Interstate 580 Interstate 80 to the Marin County line
Richmond Parkway I 80 to Interstate 580 (including Garrard Boulevard portion)
San Pablo Avenue Alameda County line to Interstate 80/Pomona Street in Crockett
San Pablo Dam Road From San Pablo Avenue to the boundary with the Lamorinda region
State Route 4 Interstate 80 to Cummings Skyway
23rd Street San Pablo Avenue to Interstate 580

CENTRAL COUNTY ( TRANSPAC)
Interstate 680
Solano Co. to Tri Valley/ TRANSPAC boundary ( I
80/Cordelia interchange) south through Solano
County, entering TRANSPAC’ s region, crossing the
Benicia Martinez Bridge & extends south through the
SR 4 and SR 242 interchanges
State Route 242 State Route 4 west of Port Chicago Highway to Interstate 680, just south of Willow Pass Road
State Route 4 (west of State Route 242)
East Contra Costa and San Joaquin County to
Interstate 80 in West Contra Costa through Central
Contra Costa
Alhambra Avenue
Alhambra Avenue ( southern downtown Martinez,
under State Route 4, to Taylor Blvd [ north], where its name changes to Pleasant Hill Road)
Bailey Road Clayton Road in Concord to Willow Pass Road in Pittsburg
Clayton Road
Marsh Creek Road east of Clayton to State Route 242
in Concord ( between Ygnacio Valley Road/ Kirker Pass
Road and Treat Boulevard)
Contra Costa Boulevard
Begins at 2nd Ave in Pleasant Hill as an extension of
Pacheco Blvd and runs through Pleasant Hill to
become North Main Street at Oak Park in Walnut
Creek
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 94 Revised February 17, 2021
Geary Road North Main Street at Interstate 680 to Pleasant Hill Road to the west
North Main Street
Oak Park to San Luis Road. Runs parallel to Interstate
680 and provides access to the interstate at both
Treat Boulevard/ Geary Road and San Luis Road
Pacheco Boulevard Marina Vista to Center Avenue
Pleasant Hill Road (central portion) Pine Street ( downtown Martinez) to 2nd Street Pleasanton)
Taylor Boulevard + western portion of
Willow Pass Road ( 5)
Within TRANSPAC’ s region, connects Geary Road and
Taylor Boulevard into Lafayette and through SWAT’ s
region to State Route 24
Treat Boulevard Clayton Road ( in Concord) to Interstate 680 and the Pleasant Hill Bart Station
Ygnacio Valley Road/ Kirker Pass Road Interstate 680 (in Walnut Creek) to Clayton Road Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 95

EAST COUNTY ( TRANSPLAN)
Auto Center Drive (formerly Somersville
Road)
Between State Route 4 and Pittsburg Antioch
Highway
Bailey Road Willow Pass Road into Central County
Balfour Road Between Deer Valley Road and Brentwood Boulevard Brentwood Boulevard/ Main Street Between State Route 160 and Byron Highway Buchanan Road
Between Somersville Road and Railroad Avenue
Buchanan Road will no longer be designated as a
Route of Regional Significance once the James
Donlon Boulevard extension is constructed).

Byron Highway
State Route 4 to the County line (The designation of
Byron Highway as a Regional Route will also be
extended northward from Brentwood Boulevard to
Bethel Island Road, once the roadway is upgraded
and an extension is constructed from Delta Road to
Cypress Road.)
Camino Diablo Road Between Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road Cypress Road/ Bethel Island Road
Cypress Road from Sellers Avenue to Bethel Island
Road, and Bethel Island Road between Cypress Road
and the bridge to Bethel Island
Deer Valley Road Hillcrest Avenue to Marsh Creek Road
East 10th Street/ Harbor Street ( in
Pittsburg)
Connects Railroad Avenue and Willow Pass Road
with the Pittsburg Antioch Highway
East 18th Street A Street to the State Route 160 interchange Fairview Avenue Lone Tree Way to Balfour Road
Hillcrest Avenue State Route 4 to Lone Tree Way
James Donlon Boulevard ( including the
future extension, formerly known as
Buchanan Road Bypass)
Lone Tree Way to Kirker Pass Road
Laurel Road
State Route 4 and Main Street in Oakley. The
extensions of Laurel Road eastward to Sellers Avenue
in Oakley, and westward to Hillcrest Avenue in
Antioch, will be included in the network once the
route is constructed.

Leland Road ( both West and East)/ Delta
Fair Boulevard
Between San Marco Boulevard and Somersville
Road. Once the westward extension of West Leland
Road is constructed, it will also be a designated
regional route within East County
Lone Tree Way/ A Street East 18th Street to Brentwood Boulevard Marsh Creek Road Deer Valley Road to State Route 4
Oak Street/ Walnut Boulevard Downtown Brentwood to Vasco Road Ninth Street/ Tenth Street ( in Antioch) Tenth Street is the major roadway Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 96 Revised February 17, 2021
Pittsburg Antioch Highway Harbor Street in Pittsburg to West 10th Street in Antioch
Railroad Avenue/ Kirker Pass Road East 10th Street to Kirker Pass, where it connects with Central County
Sand Creek Road/ Dallas Ranch Road Lone Tree Way to Brentwood Boulevard Sellers Avenue
This short segment of road between the proposed
end of Laurel Road and Cypress Road would connect
Oakley and Bethel Island
Somersville Road James Donlon Boulevard to State Route 4 Standard Oil Avenue (future route)
This road is proposed as a new north south
connection between James Donlon Boulevard and
Delta Fair Boulevard
State Route 160 State Route 4 to the Sacramento County line State Route 4 Willow Pass Grade to the San Joaquin County line State Route 239 (also known as TriLink)
This roadway is designated as a Future Study
Corridor. The Streets and Highways Code identified
this roadway as a legislatively adopted but
unconstructed state highway connecting Interstate
580 west of Tracy to State Route 4 near Brentwood.

Wilbur Avenue A Street to State Route 160
Willow Pass Road West 10th Street in Pittsburg to State Route 4 Vasco Road Walnut Boulevard to the County Line

LAMORINDA
State Route 24 Alameda Co. ( Caldecott Tunnel) on the west end to Interstate 680 on the east end.

Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) Service to and from the Orinda and Lafayette stations.

San Pablo Dam Road/ Camino Pablo Moraga Way just south of State Route 24 to Inspiration Trail on the north.

Pleasant Hill Road
State Route 24 interchange on the south to Taylor
Boulevard on the north.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 97

TRI - VALLEY ( CONTRA COSTA PORTION)
Interstate 580
Interstate 680
State Route 84
Alcosta Boulevard
Bernal Avenue
Bollinger Canyon Road
Camino Tassajara
Crow Canyon Road
Danville Boulevard
Dougherty Road
Dublin Boulevard
Fallon Road
First Street/ Railroad Avenue
Hopyard Road
Iron Horse Trail
Jack London Boulevard
San Ramon Road
San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Santa Rita Road
Stanley Boulevard
Stoneridge Drive
Sunol Boulevard
Sycamore Valley Road
Tassajara Road
Vasco Road
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 98 Revised February 17, 2021
Appendix E: Action Plan Work Program
The overall approach to updating the Action Plans includes the following specific tasks.

Data Collection
The Action Plan Updates will start with a focused data effort to obtain the information needed to assist in reviewing the existing Action Plan and form the foundation for the Action Plan Update. This information will include:

Planned and forecasted land use.
o Proposed residential, commercial, and industrial development. o Transit oriented development proposals.
o Infill development proposals.
o Land use intensity, density.

Demographic forecasts.
o Population growth.
o Employment growth.
o Trends of school age, adult, and retiree populations. o Trends related to equity (i.e. ethnicity, income, language spoken at home, and other environmental justice issues).

The existing and planned transportation system within the subregion.
o Transit network and operations.
o Roadways.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 99
o Active transportation modes.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 100 Revised February 17, 2021
Existing demands on the system and on designated roadway, active transportation mode, and transit Regional Routes.

Future travel demand forecasts based upon the Countywide Model and other sources.

Existing and projected greenhouse gas emissions.

Identification of any potential multi-modal safety issues. o Existing motor vehicle related fatality and injury rates. o Existing bicycle and pedestrian fatality and injury rates. o Existing collision rates for vehicles, bicycles, scooters, and pedestrians.

Identification of equity issues.
o Identification of Communities of Concern as defined by MTC. o Vehicle travel time for low income and minority households, as compared to the typical resident in the county as a whole. o Mode shares for low income and minority households and communities of concern, as compared to the typical resident in the county as a whole.
o Equity of funding distribution based on the percentage of funding expected to benefit minority and low income households.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 101
Assess Status of Action Plan, and Identify Issues and Potential Changes The next step is to review the current Action Plan and identify potential areas for refinement or change. The overarching vision, goals, and policies that drive the current Action Plan will be reviewed in the context of local General Plans and the Countywide Transportation Plan to determine if they remain relevant today.

Goals and visions which have already been achieved will be candidates for up dating while those that have yet to be achieved will be reviewed for feasibility and applicability. This review will include:

Reviewing Routes of Regional Significance. The list of Routes of Regional Significance will be reviewed to determine whether or not they still meet the designation criteria. Other potential routes will be reviewed for inclusion in the list based on criteria in the Guide.

Review status of regional and route Actions. Existing Actions within the Action Plan will be reviewed to determine how they relate to the vision, goals, and policies of the existing Action Plan. Actions which have been completed, or are found to be no longer useful, will be identified as candidates for refinement and discussed with the TAC.

Evaluate status of existing RTOs. Existing RTOs will be reviewed to determine their current status and potential for their achievement in the future. The relationship between existing RTOs, Actions, and the vision, goals, and policies of the Action Plan will be reviewed for potential refinement.

Review implementation of Actions. Requirements for consultation on environ mental documents, procedures for review of the impacts of amendments to local General Plans and the schedule for periodic updates will be reviewed and needed changes identified.

Identify New or Refined RTOs and Actions
Potential new and/or refined RTOs and actions to implement them or revisions to the existing Action Plan will be identified. The TAC would then review these and suggest modifications as appropriate. This task would result in:

New or refined RTOs; and
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 102 Revised February 17, 2021
Metrics and quantifiable thresholds for each RTO.

Assess Proposed Changes
The next task will be to evaluate the proposed changes to the RSOs and Actions and determine their relative effectiveness and feasibility. The analysis will be multi disciplinary and primarily qualitative in nature. Modeling would not necessarily be conducted as part of the analysis in this task unless specific quantitative testing of RSOs and actions is warranted. The Authority’ s consultant for RSO/ CMP monitoring would conduct additional monitoring to establish baseline conditions against which to measure the new RSOs. Modeling of the combined Action Plans would be conducted as part of the environmental assessment for the CTP.

Prepare Draft Action Plan Update
A Draft Action Plan Update will be prepared for review by the Authority and all RTPCs. This draft will include an assessment of the proposed changes initially identified and determined to be viable and refinements and additions to the previous Action Plan. The initial draft would be reviewed by the TAC and then revised based on comments received. The Draft would be formally released by the RTPC for review and incorporation into the Authority’s CTP, and for analysis in the Authority’s CTP EIR. If the RTPC receives significant comments on its Draft Action Plan, it may be necessary for the RTPC to release a Second Draft Action Plan that reflects the incorporation of those comments as appropriate.

Prepare Proposal for Adoption Action Plan Update
The Proposal for Adoption Action Plan incorporates all comments received. It reflects the consensus of the RTPC to have its Final Action Plan adopted by the Authority into the Final EIR and CTP.

Adopt Final Action Plan Update
After the Authority has certified the Final EIR for the CTP, the RTPC may adopt its Final Action Plan Update.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 103
Appendix F – VMT Analysis Methodology
for Land Use Projects in Contra Costa
This memorandum describes CCTA’ s recommended methodology for compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill 743 ( SB 743) regarding analysis of vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) for land use projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This guidance is intended to assist lead agencies in their CEQA VMT analysis consistent with new requirements of the CCTA Growth Management Program (GMP). The lead agency5 will determine which projects are subject to CEQA and will oversee the VMT analysis. Figure 1 illustrates the CCTA CEQA VMT analysis process described in Sections 3, 4, and 5.

Compliance with the requirements of this document is mandatory as part of fulfillment of local jurisdictions’ requirements under the CCTA GMP. Jurisdictions will be considered to be in compliance so long as they follow the procedures outlined here, regardless of whether these procedures result in exemption of a project from VMT analysis, a finding that a project would have no significant VMT impact, mitigation of a project to achieve less than significant levels of impact, or findings of significant unavoidable impacts accompanied by findings of overriding consideration.

Local jurisdictions may choose to apply methods and thresholds that are more stringent than those outlined in this document, and would still be considered to be in compliance with CCTA GMP requirements. Lead agencies have the ultimate responsibility for determining the most appropriate way to comply with CEQA when conducting environmental review of their projects; nothing in this memorandum should be construed as legal advice nor should it take the place of consultation with the lead agency’s CEQA experts.
5 As explained in the definitions, Lead agency refers to the 19 incorporated jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, the County of Contra Costa, or any other agency overseeing and certifying a CEQA document.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 104 Revised February 17, 2021
Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 105
The methodology and thresholds contained in this memorandum, including the Target VMT Reduction of 85% of baseline levels (which is the same as 15% below baseline levels), are based largely on guidance from the Governor’ s Office of Planning and Research ( OPR) entitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA ( also referred to as the Technical Advisory), dated December 2018.

CCTA staff may amend this methodology, including the Target VMT Reduction, if there is new guidance from OPR or other relevant agencies and/or if new substantial evidence indicates that a reduction of more than 15% of existing baseline is needed in order to achieve the State’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Analysts implementing this methodology for individual project assessments should clearly document the assumptions, procedures, and methods used to reach conclusions about the VMT analysis.

The methods outlined in this memorandum primarily rely on the CCTA travel demand forecasting model (referred to in this document as the “CCTA Model” and sometimes also referred to as “ The Countywide Model”) to generate estimates of trip length and VMT for different land use types in different locations. Simple single use projects may not require a new application of the CCTA model and may only need to refer to maps and tables of model outputs available from CCTA. Most projects will require the application of the model to represent the proposed a project’ s land use and location characteristics and to prepare a robust analysis of a project’ s effect on VMT.

The guidance contained in this memorandum is intended to apply to the VMT evaluation of land use projects. Evaluating the VMT effects of land use plans should be directed by each lead agency, following the same concepts and principles outlined in this memorandum.

The evaluation of VMT impacts is also required as part of the CEQA review of transportation projects, which is not addressed in this memorandum. Each lead agency should develop methods and thresholds to apply to the environmental review of transportation projects for which that agency is responsible. The OPR Technical Advisory contains guidance (see pages 19 25 of the OPR Technical Advisory) on conducting environmental analysis of transportation projects, including a list of project types that are considered to be unlikely to lead to substantial or measurable increases in VMT. Another source of guidance for lead agencies will come from Caltrans, which is in the process of developing guidance to address the evaluation of VMT impacts of projects on the State Highway System (see Draft Transportation Analysis Framework: Induced Travel Analysis, dated March 2020, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 106 Revised February 17, 2021
and Draft Transportation Impacts Analysis under CEQA for Projects on the State Highway System, dated March 2020).

1. DEFINITIONS
Analyst refers to the person conducting the VMT impact analysis, usually a lead agency staff person or a transportation or CEQA consultant.

Baseline year. The base year of the CCTA model that is used to represent existing conditions. Note that the model is not updated every year, so there may be a discrepancy between the base year of the model and the current year. CCTA may provide VMT metrics that are interpolated between different model years in order to match the current year more closely. In all cases, CEQA requires using the best data that is currently available.

CCTA Model. CCTA maintains a travel demand model for use in producing forecasts of future transportation system usage. The model is a four step, trip based model that encompasses the entire nine county Bay Area region, with additional zonal and network detail within Contra Costa County. CCTA maintains a detailed database of land use and demographic data that is used in the model, based on census tract level forecasts prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG). Analysts should refer to Chapter 5 of the CCTA Technical Procedures for a complete description of the model and how to acquire and apply it. Analysts may also contact CCTA for additional guidance. A new script has recently been developed for the CCTA Model in order to extract the VMT metrics described in this document. In addition, adjustments have recently been made to account for the portion of trip length that occurs outside of the nine county Bay Area region that is covered by the CCTA model. These adjustments were needed to comply with the OPR guidance to account for the full lengths of all trips and not truncate trips at the model boundary. Similar adjustments should continue to be applied whenever the CCTA model is updated or when other alternative methods are used to produce VMT estimates, to ensure that the full length of each trip is captured.

CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act. This statute requires identification of any significant environmental impacts due to certain state or local actions including approval of new development or infrastructure projects. The process of identifying these impacts is typically referred to as the environmental review process.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 107
Employment Generating Uses/ Projects. Office, industrial, logistics or other land uses where most of the activity at the site is related to employment functions. 6 Home- based VMT. VMT for trips that begin or end at a residence.

Home-work VMT. VMT associated with commute trips between a residence and an employment generating use, also referred to as home based work trips.

Horizon year. The planning horizon year used for cumulative analysis. Currently, the horizon year of the CCTA model is 2040.

Lead Agency. The 19 incorporated Contra Costa jurisdictions in Contra Cost County, the County of Contra Costa, or another government agency responsible for preparing and certifying a given CEQA document.

Level of Service ( LOS). A metric that assigns a letter grade to transportation network performance. The most common application of LOS in jurisdictions has been to measure the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers along a roadway segment or at an intersection during the most congested time of day and to assign a rating that ranges from LOS A (fewer than 10 seconds of delay) to LOS F more than 80 seconds of delay). Per the requirements of SB 743, LOS and other measures of vehicle delay are no longer to be used in determining significant impacts under CEQA.

Local-Serving Uses/Projects. Land uses that are expected to draw users from a local area, typically no more than a 2 to 3 mile radius. The definition of local serving uses may vary by jurisdiction. These uses may generally include local serving public facilities such as a branch library, a police or fire station, neighborhood based schools, and local serving retail businesses such as grocery stores, coffee shops or dry cleaners.

Low VMT Areas. Jurisdictions and unincorporated portions of the subregions that have existing VMT that is 85% or less of the countywide average (for home based VMT) or of the Bay Area region wide average (for work based VMT). A list of these jurisdictions and areas is available on the CCTA website. The Analyst should 6 Analysis of non employee trips (such as those made by trucks) is not required for Employment Based Uses since it is assumed that these trips are either 1) incidental compared to employee trips and/or 2) constitute trips to and from way points along a trip from a product’ s ultimate origin to its ultimate destination.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 108 Revised February 17, 2021
confirm that these maps are up to date and represent the latest available information.

Mixed Use Projects/Uses: Projects that consist of a mix of uses otherwise described in this document.

Other Uses/Other Projects: Uses and projects which do not qualify as Residential, Employment Generating, Local Serving, or Regional Serving (all of which are defined in this document).

Physical Design Measures. VMT reduction strategies that involve changes to the built environment. Examples include changes to the density or mixture of land uses, or the installation of new pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

Regional- Serving Uses/ Projects. Land uses that are expected to draw users from a region that is larger than that for “local serving uses,” meaning a radius that is typically up to 3 miles. The definition of regional serving uses may vary by jurisdiction. These uses may generally include regional serving public facilities such as a regional library or museum, private schools and colleges, hospitals, movie theaters and other entertainment, and regional retailers such as furniture stores, shopping malls and big box retailers.

Residential Uses/Projects: Uses and projects consisting solely of residential units such as single family and multi family units.

Target VMT Reduction. The level of VMT reduction defined by the lead agency as being necessary to avoid a significant VMT impact. Consistent with OPR recommendations, the target reduction in this document is being set at 15% below the existing VMT (equivalent to 85% of existing VMT).

Total VMT. All of the VMT from all types of vehicles and for all trip purposes.

Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). A geographic polygon somewhat similar to a Census block group that is used in a travel model to represent an area of relatively homogenous travel behavior.

Transit Priority Area (TPA). An area of close proximity to a significant transit mode, defined as a one half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. Public Resources Code, § 21064. 3 defines major transit stop as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 109
bus routes with a frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Public Resources Code, § 21155 defines a ‘high quality transit corridor’ as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. Locations of the Transit Priority Areas ( TPAs) in Contra Costa County can be found in maps available on the CCTA website. 7 The Analyst should confirm these maps are up to date and represent the latest available information.

Transportation Demand Management ( TDM). Strategies that are intended to reduce vehicular travel through programs and projects that maximizes traveler choices through information, encouragement and incentives geared toward modifying travel behavior and choices.

Truck Trips. Trips made by heavy vehicles. Per the OPR recommendations and their interpretation of Public Resources Code, §15064. 3, VMT analysis for transportation impact purposes can focus solely on automobile travel and can exclude truck trips.

Truck trips are included in the analysis of other environmental topic areas, such as air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas.

Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT). A metric that captures the total amount of vehicular travel through measuring the number of vehicle trips generated and the length or distance of those trips. For transportation impact analysis purposes, VMT is usually measured on a typical weekday, and can be expressed in several ways, such as total VMT, total VMT per service population (residents plus employees), home based VMT per resident, and home based work VMT per employee.

VMT Reduction Strategies: Strategies intended to reduce VMT, including TDM and physical design measures.

VMT Study Area. A geographic area over which the project’ s effect on total VMT will be evaluated. The study area should be defined such that it captures the reasonably foreseeable VMT changes associated with the project, but not so large that the effects of the project get swamped by broader economic and land use changes. In many instances, a city boundary would be a reasonable study area; in cases where a project is located at the edge of a city or in an unincorporated area, or 7 https:// ccta1. maps. arcgis. com/ apps/ webappviewer/ index.html?id=4135020bb272458f824152fe db78a088
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 110 Revised February 17, 2021
if the project is very large such that it is likely to affect travel patterns in neighboring cities, then a subregion of the County or even the entire County might be a more appropriate study area.

2. P ROJECT SCREENING
There are five screening criteria that lead agencies can apply to screen projects out of conducting project level VMT analysis. Even if a project satisfies one or more of the screening criteria, lead agencies may still require a VMT analysis if there is evidence that the project has characteristics that might lead to a significant amount of VMT.

2.1: CEQA Exemption. Any project that is exempt from CEQA is not required to conduct a VMT analysis.

2.2: Small Projects. Small projects can be presumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact. Small projects are defined as having 10,000 square feet or less of non residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. 8

2.3: Local-Serving Uses. Projects that consist of Local Serving Uses can generally be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary, since these types of projects will primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographic area that will lead to short distance trips and trips that are linked to other destinations.

2.4: Projects Located in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). Projects located within a TPA can be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This exemption would not apply if the project:
8 This threshold ties directly to the OPR Technical Advisory which notes that CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Using statewide average data from the California Statewide Household Travel Survey (CHTS), the amount of daily VMT associated with 10,000 square feet of non residential space is 836 VMT. Also using statewide average CHTS data, this level of VMT is associated with 20 housing units.

Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 20 housing units or 10,000 square feet of non residential space could be considered not to lead to a significant impact.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 111

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than required by the lead agency ( if the agency allows but does not require the project to supply a certain amount of parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC)); or

4. Results in a net reduction in multi family housing units.

2.5: Projects Located in Low VMT Areas. Residential and employment generating projects located within a low VMT generating area can be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

A low VMT area is defined as follows:

For housing projects: Cities and unincorporated portions within CCTA’s five subregions9that have existing home based VMT per capita that is 85% or less of the existing County wide average.

For employment generating projects: Cities and unincorporated portions of CCTA’s five subregions that have existing home work VMT per worker that is 85% or less of the existing regional average.

There is no definition of a low VMT area for Regional Serving and Other Projects, since these projects always require a VMT Analysis as described in Section 3 of this memo (unless they are screened out under Criteria 2.1 through 2.4).

Mixed use projects may qualify for the use of this screening criterion if they include only housing, employment generating uses and local serving uses, and can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident and/or per worker that is 9 The five CCTA subregions include SWAT Lamorinda ( Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda), SWAT Tri Valley (Danville, San Ramon, and the Tri Valley area of Alameda County (note that Alameda County jurisdictions are not subject to the CCTA GMP requirements and thus are not subject to the VMT methods outlined in this document)), TRANSPAC ( Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek), TRANSPLAN ( Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg), and WCCTAC ( El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo).

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 112 Revised February 17, 2021
similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.

3. P ROJECTS REQUIRING VMT ANALYSIS
A project not excluded from VMT analysis through the screening process described above shall be subject to a VMT analysis to determine if it has a significant VMT impact.

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The following scenarios should be addressed in the VMT analysis:

Baseline conditions: The most current version of the baseline CCTA model should be used to determine the baseline VMT for the TAZ in which the project is to occur. This information is available from the VMT screening maps on the CCTA website.

Baseline plus project: If the project is a simple, single use project that is very similar to other developments that already exist in that TAZ, then the analyst may conclude that the project generated home based VMT per capita or the home work VMT per worker will be the same as the existing VMT per capita or per worker in that TAZ; in that instance, a separate Baseline plus project model run would not be required. However, if the project contains one or more uses, or a mix of uses, the does not exist in the TAZ, then a model run is required. In this case, the proposed land use(s) should be added to the baseline condition for the relevant TAZ, or a separate TAZ should be created in the CCTA model to contain the project land uses. A full baseline model run should then be performed. The analyst should review the model output to confirm reasonableness of the results and to check production and attraction balancing to ensure that the project’ s effect is being captured.

VMT METRICS AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The output from each model run will include total VMT per service population, home based VMT per capita, and home work VMT per worker, which should be analyzed as described below. In addition, to calculate the total study area VMT, the analyst would define a VMT study area and the VMT occurring on all network links inside that study area should be summed.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 113
The following describes the specific VMT metrics and significance thresholds that should be used in evaluating different project types: 10 Residential Projects should use the home based VMT per capita metric to evaluate their project generated VMT. The project generated home based VMT per resident constitutes a significant impact if it is higher than 85% of the home based VMT per resident in the subject municipality or unincorporated CCTA subregion ( for areas outside of municipalities) or 85% of the existing County wide average home based VMT per resident, whichever is less stringent.

Employment- Generating Projects should use the home work VMT per worker metric for their project generated VMT estimates. The project generated home work VMT per worker constitutes a significant impact if it is higher than 85% of the home work VMT per worker in the subject municipality or unincorporated CCTA subregion ( for areas outside of municipalities) or 85% of the existing Bay Area region wide average home work VMT per worker, whichever is less stringent.

Regional- Serving Projects should use the metric of total study area VMT and should define a VMT study area over which to evaluate that metric. The project generated VMT constitutes a significant impact if the baseline project generated total VMT per service population is higher than 85% of the existing countywide average total VMT per service population.

Other Uses and Projects need to be analyzed using a methodology developed by the lead agency specifically for the project, prepared and documented based on available data and taking into account the specific methodologies and thresholds identified in this document.
10 The metrics of “ home based VMT per capita” and “ home work VMT per worker” are taken from the production attraction trip matrices in the CCTA model, which is a stage of the modeling process in which trips are still categorized by purpose. This stage of the modeling process does not yet include truck trips so these VMT metrics do not include the VMT associated with trucks. This is consistent with the guidance from the OPR Technical Advisory, in which it interprets the Section 15064.3 language referring to automobile VMT as being focused on light duty passenger vehicles. The “ total VMT per service population” metric is taken from the final origin destination trip matrices in the CCTA model and therefore it does include the VMT associated with trucks. Per the OPR guidance it is acceptable to include truck VMT when needed for modeling convenience, as long as the Analyst ensures there is an apples to apples comparison by using the same vehicle types in each step of the analysis process.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 114 Revised February 17, 2021
Mixed Use Projects may be analyzed using a combination of techniques described above, as follows:

Mixed use projects that contain a combination of housing, employment generating and regional serving uses may choose to evaluate each use separately using the metrics and significance thresholds described above for those uses.

Mixed use projects that include a local serving component may ignore that component for analysis purposes, and analyze only the remaining uses. Note that it may be more beneficial to the project to conduct a full analysis that takes account of on site local serving uses, since this analysis can take credit for reductions in trips resulting from the on site mix.

In all cases, the analyst should consider whether that approach will effectively capture the likely interactions between the different uses. Other analytical options that would capture interactions between different uses are to analyze the project by conducting a full run of the CCTA model, or to use a sketch planning tool designed to estimate the trip generation effects of a mixed use project.

4. VMT M ITIGATION STRATEGIES
If the conclusion is that the project would have the potential to cause a significant VMT impact per one or more of the significance thresholds defined above, then mitigation is required. CEQA requires that all feasible measures be implemented to reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels.

METHOD OF CALCULATING MITIGATION REDUCTIONS
The analyst, working with the lead agency and applicant, shall specify a series of mitigation measures, each of which shall have a specific percent level of VMT reduction assigned to it. Reduction levels may be taken from Appendix 1 (described further below) or from other defensible sources. In each case, the analyst shall explain the basis for the reduction applied, and shall also consider any interactions among the mitigation measures that make them cumulatively less effective than they are by themselves.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 115
Each reduction shall be applied to the overall VMT associated with the project, until the total VMT is reduced to a less than significant level or all feasible mitigation reductions have been applied.

REQUIRED LEVELS OF MITIGATION
In order to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the proposed mitigation measures must reduce VMT to the relevant threshold as defined in Section 3 above.

TYPES OF MITIGATION
To mitigate VMT impacts, the following actions could be taken:

Modify the project’s characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project. This might involve changing the density or mixture of land uses on the project site, or changing the project’ s location to one that is more accessible by transit or other travel modes. The effectiveness of such changes should be modeled using the analysis techniques described in Part 3, above.

Implement transportation demand management (TDM) or physical design measures to reduce VMT generated by the project. A description of such options is included below.

Participate in a CCTA approved VMT impact fee program and/or VMT mitigation exchange/ banking program. CCTA will be
developing such a program in Contra Costa County in the near future.

VMT REDUCTIONS FROM TDM AND PHYSICAL DESIGN MEASURES
TDM and physical design measures that could potentially be applicable in Contra Costa County are summarized in Appendix 1. It should be noted that the understanding of the availability, applicability, and effectiveness of VMT mitigation measures is continuing to evolve and the evaluation of TDM measures should be updated periodically. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of VMT reduction measures should recognize that many TDM strategies are dependent on things that are likely to change over time, such as the level of priority a building tenant places on achieving trip reductions, or the frequency of nearby transit services. As such, actual real time VMT reduction cannot be reliably predicted and ongoing monitoring should be considered to ensure that mitigation expectations are being met.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 116 Revised February 17, 2021
The effectiveness of each strategy shown in Appendix 1 will vary depending on the context in which it is implemented and the types of trips to which it applies. It is the analyst’ s responsibility to review the available research and suggest a level of VMT reduction that is reasonable to apply to the project being studied, taking into account the project’s specific characteristics and the context in which it would be constructed.

It should also be noted that the incremental benefit of each VMT reduction strategy will diminish as strategies are combined together. Therefore, the analyst should carefully document how the interaction between TDM strategies is accounted for.

The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ( CAPCOA) report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures provides guidance on how to account for combinations of strategies.

5. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS,

C UMULATIVE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING

C ONSIDERATION

FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
If the lead agency includes all feasible measures described in Section 4 above and those measures are not sufficient to fully mitigate the impact, then the VMT impact will be classified as significant and unavoidable. The lead agency may still approve the project, as allowed by CEQA, by making a finding of overriding consideration.

Before making such a finding and approving the project, the lead agency must also conduct a cumulative VMT analysis for the project, as described below.11

CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Projects that are unable to mitigate their project specific VMT impacts to less than significant levels require a Cumulative VMT analysis.

The cumulative analysis of a project involves understanding the project’s effect on overall VMT within its study area. This analysis is needed to address circumstances where an individual project might affect travel patterns from other developments in the broader area; this might happen for a variety of reasons, such as that the project offers different housing, employment or other opportunities than would otherwise 11 As per OPR’ s guidance, cumulative VMT analysis is not necessary for projects that are found to have a less than significant impact on VMT at the project level.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 117
exist in the area and that causes other users to change their travel decisions, or because the drivers and transit users generated by the project take up available system capacity and cause other users to change their travel routes or modes.

The project’s effect on VMT should be measured by defining a VMT study area and calculating the total VMT occurring on all network links inside that study area, in both the cumulative without project and cumulative with project scenarios. To allow for a reasonable comparison between those two scenarios, the total study area VMT should be normalized in some fashion to reflect that there are different numbers of people within the study area ( i.e., because the project has added people to the study area as compared to the without project scenario). If the project adds residents to the study area, then it would be reasonable to present the VMT results as total study area VMT divided by number of study area residents. If the project adds employees to the study area, then it would be reasonable to use total study area VMT divided by number of study area employees. The exact method for normalizing the VMT number is not critical; what is essential is that the same method be used for both the cumulative without project and the cumulative with project scenarios, to allow for an apples to apples comparison between the two scenarios.

Specific steps in the process are defined below:

Model Runs. The Cumulative VMT analysis will be based on two CCTA Model runs:

Cumulative without project: The most current version of the horizon year of the CCTA model. If development similar to that found in the proposed project is already foreseen in the subject TAZ in the cumulative without project” model, this development should be subtracted from the “ cumulative without project” scenario before this model run is conducted.

Cumulative plus project: Unless development similar to that found in the proposed project is already foreseen in the subject TAZ in the cumulative without project” model, the proposed land use(s) should be added to the “ cumulative without project” condition for the TAZ, or a separate TAZ should be created to contain the proposed land use(s). The Analyst should also consider whether it would be advisable to offset the addition of these proposed land uses by lessening projected increases in development in other TAZs, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 118 Revised February 17, 2021
particularly if the proposed project is substantial in size such that it might change the distribution of future developments. This recognizes that individual land use projects will generally not change the regionwide totals for population and employment growth, but will influence localized land use and VMT impacts.

Cumulative Threshold. Cumulative VMT impacts should be considered significant if there is a net increase in the total study area VMT normalized to the number of people within the study area, when comparing cumulative no project to cumulative plus project conditions.

Additional Significant Impact and Findings of Overriding Consideration. If the Cumulative VMT Analysis finds a significant impact, this impact shall be considered to be significant and unavoidable, and must therefore be called out in the project’s EIR and subject to the Finding of Overriding Consideration described earlier in this section.

Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 119
Appendix 1. Summary of Potential VMT Reduction Strategies Strategy Types of Trips
Affected
Range of Potential
VMT Reduction for
Affected Trips
Project- Scale Strategies
1 Increase land use diversity through greater
mix of uses on site All 0% 12%
2 Implement ride sharing program
Primarily commute
trips 2.5% 8.3%
3 Subsidize or discount transit passes
Primarily commute
trips 0.1% 16%
4 Incentivize telework and alternative
schedules Commute trips 0.2% 4.5%
5 Price and manage parking All 2% 30%
Community- Scale Strategies
6 Improve the pedestrian network All 0.5% 5.7%
7 Implement traffic calming and low stress
bicycle facilities All 0% 1.7%
8 Increase transit service frequency All 0.3% 6.3%
9 Implement neighborhood or community
wide car sharing programs
All 0.3% 1.6%
10 Coordinate school pools School 7% 15%
Source: Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, CAPCOA, 2010, supplemented with new research review by Fehr & Peers, 2019.

FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF VMT REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Project-Scale Strategies

1. Increase land use diversity – This strategy focuses on inclusion of mixed uses within projects or in consideration of the surrounding area to minimize vehicle travel in terms of both the number of trips and the length of those trips.

2. Implement ride sharing program – This strategy focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling by project site/building tenants, which depends on the ultimate building tenants; this should be a factor in considering the potential VMT reduction.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 120 Revised February 17, 2021

3. Subsidize or discount transit passes – This strategy reduces the need to own a vehicle or reduces the number of vehicles owned by a household by incentivizing individuals to use transit for their daily commute. This strategy depends on the ultimate building tenants and may require monitoring. This strategy also relies on local transit providers continuing to provide similar or better service throughout the County, in terms of frequency and speed.

4. Incentivize telework and alternative schedules – This strategy relies on effective internet access and speeds to individual project sites/ buildings to provide the opportunity for telecommuting. The effectiveness of the strategy depends on the ultimate building tenants and the nature of work done by tenants’ employees ( can the work be done remotely in the first place?); two factors that should be considered for potential VMT reduction. Effectiveness may also be limited in more rural areas of the County with limited broadband internet access.

5. Price and manage parking – Parking management strategies focus on the management of parking to influence vehicle travel. Free and ubiquitous parking supply tends to increase vehicle use while reducing parking supply and pricing spaces can help reduce vehicle travel. A reduction in parking supply can also be used to incentivize infill development and higher density development by reducing the cost of building parking spaces. This strategy may be less effective in suburban settings such as Contra Costa County but will depend on the specific project site and the surrounding parking supply.

Community Scale Strategies

1. Improve the pedestrian network – This strategy focuses on creating a pedestrian network within the project and connecting to nearby destinations.

Projects in Contra Costa County tend to be small so the emphasis of this strategy would likely be the construction of network improvements that connect the project site directly to nearby destinations. Alternatively, implementation could occur through an impact fee program ( discussed in more detail below) or benefit/ assessment district targeted to various areas in the County designated for improvements through local or regional plans.

Implementation of this strategy may require regional or local agency coordination and may not be applicable for all individual land use development projects.

2. Implement traffic calming measures and low stress bicycle facilities – This strategy combines the CAPCOA research focused on traffic calming with new research on providing a low stress bicycle network. Traffic calming Implementation Guide
Revised February 17, 2021 121
creates networks with low vehicle speeds and volumes that are more conducive to walking and bicycling. Building a low stress bicycle network produces a similar outcome. One potential change in this strategy over time is that e bikes (and e scooters) could extend the effective range of travel on the bicycle network, which could enhance the effectiveness of this strategy.

Implementation options are similar to strategy 2 above. Implementation of this strategy may require regional or local agency coordination and may not be applicable for all individual land use development projects.

3. Increase transit service frequency – This strategy focuses on improving transit service convenience and travel time competitiveness with driving.

Given land use density in Contra Costa County, this strategy may be limited to traditional commuter transit where trips can be pooled at the start and end locations or require new forms of demand responsive transit service. The demand responsive service could be provided as subsidized trips by contracting to private TNCs or taxi companies. Alternatively, a public transit operator could provide the subsidized service but would need to improve on traditional cost effectiveness by relying on TNC ride hailing technology, using smaller vehicles sized to demand, and flexible driver employment terms where drivers are paid by trip versus by hour. Implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation and/ or substantial changes to current transit practices, and therefore would not likely be applicable to individual development projects.

4. Implement neighborhood or community wide car sharing programs – This strategy reduces the need to own a vehicle or reduces the number of vehicles owned by a household by making it convenient to access a shared vehicle for those trips where vehicle use is essential. Note that implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation and coordination.

5. Coordinate SchoolPools – This strategy helps families share in the responsibilities of getting kids to school and back via carpooling, walking, biking, or riding the school bus together. Effectiveness of this program depends on the extent to which resident schoolchildren are already walking, biking, and riding the school bus to school.

From: Chris Hatcher
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Yes to allow Costco in Brentwood
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:22:32 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please do not allow Seeno to control our area. More houses will only bring more cars and problems into this area.

We need more retail in order to keep this area from becoming a bedroom community.

Thank you,
Chris Hatcher
Sent from my iPad
From: David Burkhalter
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Seeno’s Objection to Costco
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 5:09:05 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I would like to object to Seeno’s view on the Costco project. The Costco project should move forward. It is a benefit to the city and residents of Brentwood and the surrounding area. Please do not entertain Seeno’s objection.

Regards,
David Burkhalter
From: John Reeves
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco in Brentwood
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:44:39 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi,
This is John Reeves and I have been an homeowner in Brentwood for more than 20 years. Costco will be a fantastic addition to our growing community and will vastly improve our city revenue, we do not need Seeno buildings instead, does he think that the additional housing will come without increased traffic. Let us line our pockets before his and look after OUR welfare in this highly competitive environment.

Best regards,
John Reeves