1 1. Convene Regular Meeting / Pledge of Allegiance / Self-Introductions Chair Obringer called the meeting to order at 9:04 A.M.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the public.
3. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Minutes
• Minutes of the February 13, 2025, TRANSPAC Board meeting. b. CCTA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT REGARDING CCTA ACTIONS / DISCUSSION ITEMS . c. Items Approved by the CCTA for Circulation to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and Related Items of Interest.
d. RTPC MEETING SUMMARY LETTERS.
e. CCTA Meeting Updates and Countywide Information Links. f. Correspondence and Communication.
g. TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS ATTENDED BY STAFF.
h. TRANSPAC COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – CCTA TCC APPOINTMENT FOR THE TERM APRIL 1, 2025 – MARCH 31, 2027. Action Recommendation: Appoint Matt Redmond (Walnut Creek), Aaron Elias (Concord), and Jason Chen (Clayton) as primary representatives and Ryan McClain (Pleasant Hill) as the alternate representative to the TCC for the term April 1, 2025 - March 31, 2027. i. Innovate 680 Technical Advisory Committee Appointments. Action Recommendation: Appoint Matt Redmond (Walnut Creek) and Srinivas Muktevi (Martinez) as primary members, and Ann TRANSPAC Committee Meeting Summary Minutes
MEETING DATE: March 13, 2025
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carlyn Obringer (Chair), Concord; Ken Carlson (Vice Chair), Contra Costa County; Kevin Wilk, Walnut Creek;
Richard Enea, Clayton; Greg Young, Martinez;
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Molly Clopp, Walnut Creek STAFF PRESENT: Ruby Horta, County Connection; Matt Todd, TRANSPAC; Tiffany Gephart, TRANSPAC
GUESTS/PRESENTERS: Cara De Jong, 511 Conta Costa; Nate Conable, Fehr & Peers; Matt Kelly, CCTA
MINUTES PREPARED BY: Tiffany Gephart
2 James (Pleasant Hill), Briana Byrne (Walnut Creek), and Trevor McGuire (Martinez) as alternate members to the Innovate 680 TAC.
j. Draft Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Safety Action Plan For Local Agencies. Action Recommendation: Approve the Draft CCTSAP for adoption into the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation safety Policy and Implementation Guide.
On a motion by Commissioner Wilk seconded by Commissioner Carlson to approve the consent agenda by unanimous vote of the members present (Obringer, Wilk, Enea, Carlson, Young).
End Consent Agenda
4. TRANSPAC SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TRACKING.
A copy of the presentation is included in the agenda materials available at transpac.us.
Matt Todd discussed the TRANSPAC region’s Action Plan, a requirement under the CCTA’s growth management program. This plan is a component of the subregions compliance with the Measure J GMP requirements as it includes the Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP).
The STMP generates funds for mitigating traffic impacts from new developments. The focus is on regional routes of significance and net new peak-hour interregional vehicle trips. Cumulative traffic impacts are assessed using a regional traffic model.
Currently, TRANSPAC operates under the 2017 Action Plan while awaiting approval of the updated 2023 version. A major shift in recent years has been the transition from CEQA’s level-of-service analysis to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based approach under SB 743. Based on the TRANSPAC Action plan, traffic LOS analysis is still used for evaluating regional impacts. Staff noted that jurisdictions have the right to request traffic studies from neighboring regions when developments may affect our TRANSPAC routes.
This process ensures that impact of growth on the routes of significance is managed effectively.
Commissioner Obringer raised a comment about the Faria project in Pittsburg highlighting its potential impact on surrounding cities, including Concord, Clayton, and possibly Walnut Creek, due to increased traffic on major roads. She inquired about the process for assessing traffic impact and at what stage it occurs.
Mr. Todd responded that the review process is triggered by environmental documents, which provide the basis for traffic assessments.
Mr. Todd noted that TRANSPAC's mitigation approach differs from other county subregions, which typically impose a standard fee per housing unit or commercial square foot to fund future projects. The TRANSPAC model evaluates traffic impacts on a project-by-project basis. The trigger for requiring a traffic study is the release of environmental documentation, which helps determine necessary mitigations. He cited the Oakhurst development as an example, where a traffic study identified downstream impacts in Concord and Walnut Creek, leading to intersection improvement agreements.
Mr. Todd further explained that STMP relies on the regional traffic model for LOS analysis, with the model including assumptions about projected developments and land use changes over a 20-25-year period. The
3 model is maintained by CCTA. It was also noted that projects with a mitigated negative declaration can still be required to conduct a level-of-service traffic analysis if impacts warrant further evaluation.
In response to Carlyn Obringer’s inquiry about whether the tracking system includes only approved projects, Mr. Todd clarified that the goal is to capture projects as early as possible—ideally at the notice of preparation stage or when environmental documents are released for public comment. This early engagement allows for requests for traffic studies and impact assessments before project approvals.
He explained that TRANSPAC is implementing a tracking system, modeled after TRANSPLAN’s approach, to maintain a register of new environmental documents. The list will be continuously updated by TAC members to ensure that relevant projects are monitored and assessed for regional transportation impacts.
Commissioner Wilk expressed appreciation that future planning was being considered proactively. Ms.
Clopp highlighted the benefit of having planning commissioners involved in the process, as they could help identify potential projects early and serve as a quality control measure for TAC members.
Commissioner Obringer inquired about the process for maintaining and updating the project tracking system. She suggested a quarterly review by the committee, allowing for updates based on local knowledge of housing projects, fair housing initiatives, and other relevant developments.
Mr. Todd responded that the tracking system was intended to be a standing agenda item. His initial vision was to include it as a consent calendar item, with the option to pull projects off for discussion when necessary. He noted that the current list included a project in Discovery Bay, which, while geographically distant, was significant due to its scale. In a recent meeting, the TAC discussed which projects should be tracked and that projects from outside TRANSPAC should be included on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Enea emphasized that the Discovery Bay project noted on the handout would have a significant impact on Clayton, as residents would likely use Marsh Creek Road and Clayton Road to access Concord and Walnut Creek, avoiding the already congested Highway 4.
Commissioner Carlson asked about the criteria for designating a road as one of regional significance, noting that Clayton Road was not included in in the current Action Plan.
Mr. Todd noted that there is a new Draft Action Plan (2023 Update) which includes a more comprehensive set of roads than previous iterations. Matt Kelly provided further historical context, explaining that the original criteria for regional significance included roads carrying over 20,000 vehicles per day, those leading to major destinations like colleges or shopping centers, and those connecting to major transit stations. However, jurisdictions had some discretion in whether to designate a road as regional, as this designation impacted development reviews and traffic impact analyses.
Mr. Kelly further explained that while the 2017 plan maintained the original designation criteria, the 2023 update expanded its focus beyond roadways to include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit considerations.
This update also resulted in modifications such as the addition of Marsh Creek Road between Central and East County.
Mr. Kelly added that the 2023 Action Plan would be formally adopted in late 2025 or early 2026 following the adoption of the Countywide Transportation Plan.
4 6. COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
This item was moved up the in agenda (from item 6 to item 5).
A copy of the presentation is included in the agenda packet available at transpac.us.
Matt Kelly, Principal Transportation Planner with CCTA, introduced the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP), that will guide transportation planning in Contra Costa County for the next 25 years. The plan is built upon five regional action plans and has evolved beyond simply moving vehicles to include broader transportation and community development goals.
A new element of the CTP is a blueprint, which will provide a framework for selecting projects and policies.
Additionally, a business plan is being developed to address how CCTA may need to adapt to future needs.
Mr. Kelly noted that feedback from various regional meetings is being gathered before the blueprint is finalized and presented to the board in May.
Nate Conable, project manager from consultant firm Fehr & Peers, then discussed the "Livable Streets Proposal," a key concept in the blueprint. This proposal shifts the focus from vehicle movement alone to creating safer, more attractive streets that support economic development and housing goals. CCTA is expanding its role in guiding street design and working with local jurisdictions on implementation.
The CTP process is in the blueprint phase, defining policies and vision before identifying specific projects and funding strategies. The goal is to present a draft CTP by fall 2025 and finalize it by spring 2026.
The CTP includes four guiding principles for the business plan: Safe Travel, Growing Sustainably, Livable & Connected Neighborhoods, and Access for All—which ensures equity and community involvement in transportation decisions. A key initiative is the Livable Streets Proposal, aiming to balance vehicle movement with economic development and quality of life. The goal is to align transportation planning with land use, support multimodal options, and prioritize safe, vibrant streets. Safety is now a top priority in transportation planning, emphasizing lower speeds to reduce fatal accidents. Additionally, state and regional policies push for reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), reinforcing the need for livable streets over car-focused expansion.
CCTA’s research highlights the economic benefits of well-designed streets, as higher livability often correlates with higher land values. The proposal classifies streets into four categories based on movement and land-use intensity: Connector Streets, Core Streets, Activity Streets, Place Streets. A key focus is on livable streets, which seek to balance transportation movement with surrounding land use. The policy aims to reduce speeds for safety, cut down on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and emissions, and align transportation with land development goals. This framework ensures that investments are aligned with regional development goals and contribute to long-term economic growth. Ultimately, the aim is to build a more connected, sustainable, and livable transportation system for all. Mr. Conable further detailed the street types.
Ms. Clopp asked whether a street maintained the same designation throughout its length or if it could change in different areas. Mr. Conable explained that designations vary depending on whether a street passes through a place of regional significance. He provided an example, noting that a street like Ygnacio Valley Road might change designation along its route to better reflect the surrounding area's needs. He
5 emphasized that streets should not be uniformly designed but should adapt to their context—prioritizing movement in some areas while balancing it with placemaking in others.
Ms. Clopp then raised a question regarding Contra Costa Boulevard, wondering whether street designations should reflect current conditions or aspirational goals. Mr. Conable responded that designations should be forward-looking, aiming to align with long-term community planning and development priorities. He noted that existing regional and local land use plans were used as a foundation but would be refined over time.
Commissioner Wilk then expressed that while the distinctions between connector and neighborhood streets were clear, he found the difference between core and place streets less intuitive. He suggested that those unfamiliar with the full presentation might also find the terminology challenging. Mr. Conable acknowledged the feedback, explaining that core streets serve both movement and placemaking functions, often located on routes of regional significance with higher traffic volumes. In contrast, place streets prioritize local businesses and pedestrian activity over transportation efficiency. Commissioner Wilk provided examples from Walnut Creek, attempting to distinguish core and place streets based on traffic flow and surrounding development. Ms. Clopp agreed that the terminology could be clarified, stating that while there was a clear distinction, the wording needed refinement to improve comprehension.
Commissioner Enea also found the terminology unclear, suggesting that places of significance seemed to align with business districts and questioning why they were not labeled as such. Mr. Conable explained that the designation was intended to encompass not only business districts but also areas planned for future housing and mixed-use development. He acknowledged the need for clearer terminology while noting that calling them “business districts” might not accurately capture all intended uses.
Commissioner Enea inquired whether the framework included proposals for closing streets to create pedestrian malls. Mr. Conable clarified that such decisions would be left to local jurisdictions. He stated that while the framework encourages pedestrian and bicycle-friendly designs for place streets, it does not mandate full street closures.
During a discussion on street designations, Commissioner Wilk inquired whether a list of street designations was available. In response, Mr. Conable offered to revisit the relevant section of the presentation, asking whether Commissioner Wilk was looking for specific street types or a mapping of them.
Commissioner Carlson highlighted the importance of incorporating broader design goals into street planning, including connectivity and alternative modes of transportation. He referenced the Contra Costa Crescent as an example of an area where intended design improvements had fallen short, particularly in bicycle and pedestrian accessibility. He emphasized that, as planning moves forward, it is crucial to integrate these elements more effectively to align with long-term transportation and urban design objectives.
Mr. Conable explained that in addition to defining street typologies, the framework outlined specific design expectations to help jurisdictions align investments with the intended function of each street. Mr.
Conable proceeded to detail examples of design strategies for different street types. Mr. Conable concluded by noting that many existing streets do not currently align with their designated typology.
6 However, as roadways undergo maintenance or redevelopment, there will be opportunities to gradually implement these design principles, ensuring that street infrastructure evolves to support broader community and transportation goals.
Commissioner Enea raised concerns about the proposed traffic design elements highlighting a neighborhood in Clayton referenced in the presentation. He questioned whether funding for repaving projects would be withheld if a city did not comply with certain design recommendations. Mr. Conable responded by clarifying that the exact process for turning the proposal into policy had not yet been determined. Ultimately, he emphasized that the CCTA aimed to provide design guidance to cities and support their efforts to align with best practices.
Commissioner Carlson then shifted the focus to core streets and the importance of transition zones between different street types. He cited examples where significant core streets transitioned into place streets and expressed his strong support for road diets. He also voiced concerns about how these changes might impact nearby freeways and adjacent roadways. He stressed the need for thoughtful planning to avoid creating traffic congestion, which could lead to increased vehicle idle time and greenhouse gas emissions.
Commissioner Carlson elaborated on the importance of considering public perception when implementing roadway changes, especially in areas involving multiple jurisdictions. He emphasized the necessity of synchronized signals and interjurisdictional cooperation. Commissioner Carlson expressed the need for clear communication and planning to help the public understand the broader vision behind proposed changes.
5. MEASURE J LINE 21A PROGRAM.
During a discussion on Measure J, Line 21A, Tiffany Gephart outlined its purpose, emphasizing the funding allocated for improving transportation access for students and that TRANSPAC selects specific projects that align with its goal.
Ms. Gephart noted n that Measure J designates 0.5% of sales tax revenue to this line item, generating approximately $600,000 annually. Historically, these funds have been used to support 511 Contra Costa programs. There is a current balance of over $4.2 million available.
Staff is exploring a pilot program to provide free bus fares for students in the TRANSPAC area. The current pass program provides a 2 month pass to a limited group of students.
Under the proposed framework, the pilot program would extend free bus rides for a longer period, potentially six months, starting mid-summer and running through the fall. Funding sources identified for the initiative included Measure J and TFCA funding. Ongoing discussions with County Connection, SWAT, and CCTA aimed to refine the program’s structure, eligibility period, transit provider participation, funding needs, and ridership impact.
Commissioner Carlson raised concerns about the existing "Pass2Class" program, noting that it only covered the first two months of the school year. He questioned whether Measure J’s 21A funds were being used for it and pointed out that the short duration left students struggling with transportation for the rest of the year. Commissioner Carlson referenced a county-funded navigator at Oak Grove Middle
7 School who helps connect families with services, including 511 Contra Costa’s programs. He also highlighted plans for a new Youth Center in District Four, expected to serve 2,000 children, with hopes of doubling its reach. He stressed the importance of ensuring students could access the center.
Tiffany Gephart responded, noting that the current concept was to open the program to all students rather than restrict it based on eligibility criteria. The long-term goal was to simplify the program by eliminating application requirements.
Commissioner Carlson expressed his support for broadening access but reiterated concerns about students facing financial hardships. He requested a cost analysis comparing different models, including extending the "Pass2Class" program or offering six months of access to all students. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that students who rely on the program are not left struggling for transportation once the initial period expires. Mr. Todd clarified that the existing "Pass2Class" program operates on a first-come, first-served basis.
Commissioner Carlson expressed his enthusiasm for the proposed transportation initiative, emphasizing the importance of eliminating barriers for students traveling to the Youth Center. He also pointed out that some individuals who have never used public transportation may hesitate due to a sense of privilege or unfamiliarity with the system.
Mr. Todd introduced Ruby Horta from County Connection, acknowledging her long-term experience with transit programs. Ms. Horta explained that the idea behind piloting the program was to ensure that there would not be a gap in services over the summer With certain 511 Contra Costa programs being discontinued or modified. A benefit of the pilot program aspect is that the program can be “tested” while avoiding the need for an immediate Title VI analysis, a federal requirement for long-term transit changes.
She noted that conducting such an analysis takes several months. The pilot will also provide data for the analysis.
Commissioner Carlson inquired whether the pilot and the required study could run concurrently, ensuring that the program’s momentum was not lost.
Ms. Horta confirmed that the pilot would generate data on ridership and allow them to evaluate whether the program disproportionately impacted low-income communities or other protected groups.
Additionally, she highlighted the importance of ensuring uniform access to students across service areas.
The ideal solution, she suggested, would involve a countywide program encompassing County Connection, Tri Delta Transit, and WestCAT to ensure equal access for all students.
Commissioner Carlson supported this broader approach, stating that breaking down transit barriers could help reduce the stigma surrounding public transportation, and cultivate a new generation of regular transit riders. Ms. Horta also emphasized the decision to eliminate the application process for students.
By removing this administrative hurdle, the program would be more accessible to all students, regardless of language barriers or financial constraints.
Mr. Todd added that TRANSPAC’s Measure J 21A funds provided financial backing for the program, but the SWAT region did not have a comparable funding source.
Commissioner Carlson then asked about whether TRANSPAC funds could legally be used to subsidize other jurisdictions outside its immediate service area. He suggested that students traveling from outside
8 TRANSPAC’s jurisdiction—such as those commuting from Bay Point to Mount Diablo schools—should still be eligible for the program and requested further clarification on the funding options Mr. Todd acknowledged this consideration and assured the group that their input would be incorporated into ongoing discussions with SWAT, County Connection, and CCTA.
Commissioner Carlson then reflected on broader transit issues, recalling past systems where a single fare allowed seamless transfers across multiple transit modes. He noted that current transit structures often require separate fares for different transit agencies, which creates financial and logistical barriers for riders. While the Clipper card had helped streamline payments, it did not eliminate costs entirely.
7. STREET SMARTS DIABLO WALK ‘N’ ROLL PROGRAM UPDATE.
A copy of the presentation is included in the agenda materials available at transpac.us.
Cara De Jong introduced the TRANSPAC Walk and Roll program which encourages active transportation and carpooling among elementary school students in the TRANSPAC area. Led by 511 Contra Costa, the initiative provides students with scan tags to track trips, which allow them to earn incentives like collectible charms. The program has expanded to multiple schools, showing significant increases in participation, reduced traffic congestion, and improved punctuality. Despite initial concerns about volunteer availability and safety, the program has successfully fostered a culture of sustainable commuting. Efforts are ongoing to expand it further, including outreach to Walnut Creek schools.
At Silverwood Elementary, the principal and the Walk and Roll coordinator wanted to encourage more students to bike to school. To address this, they launched a month-long "Let's See Your Wheels" event in March. As part of this initiative, they hosted a bike rodeo, where students could practice riding in a safe environment, and volunteers helped fit helmets properly. The event was a success, with over 75 attendees. Moving forward, they hope to bring similar rodeos to other schools to promote biking in a safe and supportive setting.
8. FORM 700 FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR 2025.
The Board received information on Form 700 requirements.
9. TRANSPAC CCTA REPRESENTATIVE REPORTS.
No comments from the Board.
10. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REPORT.
No comments from the Board.
11. TAC ORAL REPORTS BY JURISDICTION.
No comments from the TAC.
9 12. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.
No comments from the Board.
13. MANAGING DIRECTOR’S REPORT.
Matt Todd informed the Board that the April meeting might be canceled. He also noted a closed session was required for the May meeting.
14. ADJOURN / NEXT MEETING.
The meeting adjourned at 11:09am. The next regular meeting is proposed for April 10, 2025, at 11:00 A.M at the Pleasant Hill City Hall Large Community Room at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill.