Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07091996 - SD7 SID . TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra�.o tra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE WJIa ,. DATE: June 17, 1996 County Ti Nfi' SUBJECT: APPROVE REPORT ON THE CCTA'S DRAFT REVISED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept report on the draft revised Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist and request the following: - include July 1, 1997 as the deadline for adopting regional transportation mitigation programs, and - the Authority should clarify if the County's current practices comply with the proposed revisions concerning participation in cooperative multi-jurisdictional planning. FISCAL IMPACT None directly. Proposed revisions to the Checklist could affect the County's eligibility to receive Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds which amount to approximately $1 .5 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In December 1995, the Authority initiated work to revise the Checklist used to measure a jurisdiction's compliance with the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program. The intent of this effort is to simplify the Checklist, make the questions more direct, and improve CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF UNT PMISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION O E _ APPROVE _ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): J ff ith Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON July 9. 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x The Board APPROVED the recommendations as listed above and additionally REQUESTED that the Board of Supervisors' CCTA representatives convey the Board's concerns to the CCTA about the issue of regular attendance at CCTA meetings. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT --------- TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 335-1240 ATTESTED_ July 9. 1996 Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Chair Tatzin, CCTA (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Supervisor Bishop AND C ADMINIST OR Supervisor Torlakson 5 _ BY SLG:c:\transconn\rvchklst.bo Sl) .-7 Draft Revised Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist June 17, 1996 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) accountability. On May 23, the Authority transmitted draft revisions to local agency staff for comment (see Exhibit A). The Transportation Committee has prepared this report describing the most significant issues concerning the revised Checklist. Comments should be submitted to the Authority by September 20, 1996. Issue No. 1 : Equal emphasis on regional mitigation fees, general plan amendment review, and affordable housing. In November 1995, the Authority adopted Resolution 95-05-G resolving that each jurisdiction is expected to satisfactorily address the following three key elements for compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program -- implementing a CEQA-based general plan amendment review process, establishing a regional transportation mitigation program, and addressing housing options and job opportunities. The intent of the revised Checklist is to place equal emphasis on these key elements. Question 1 requires each jurisdiction to implement the specific general plan amendment review process described in Resolution 95-06-G. Question 2 requires each jurisdiction to work to develop and/or implement a regional transportation mitigation program. Question 3 requires each jurisdiction to adopt a Housing Element consistent with state law. Working to develop and or implement a regional transportation mitigation program is not as definitive as complying with Resolution 95-06-G or adopting a Housing Element. The CCTA should establish July 1 , 1997, as a deadline for completing all regional transportation mitigation programs in the county. Failure to meet the deadline, could be a basis for finding a jurisdiction out of compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program. The Transportation Committee believes that nine years is more than adequate time to satisfy this critical component of the Measure C ballot measure, which was approved in 1988. Issue No. 2: Requiring regular participation of Board Members in meetings. Question 6 addresses participation in cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning. Compliance is defined as regular participation by a jurisdiction's Council/Board member in meetings of the appropriate Regional Transportation Planning Committee or other forums established.by the CCTA. The existing Checklist asks if a jurisdiction has regularly participated, but it does not specifically reference a jurisdiction's Council/Board member. Failure of a Board member to regularly attend the meetings of each Regional Committee may be a basis for finding the County out of compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program. Although the County is the only jurisdiction guaranteed representation on the Authority, it is not clear if regular attendance of Authority meetings alone would satisfy the revised language proposed in the Checklist. Currently the County satisfies this requirement through a combination of efforts that include meeting attendance by Board members at the Regional Committee and Authority levels, reports by staff, and reports by the Board of Supervisor's Transportation Committee. Schedule conflicts or the absence of significant agenda items causes some Supervisors to miss certain Regional Committee meetings. The Authority should indicate to the Board if our existing practice satisfies the proposed language. EXH161T A -,S1 " MAY 28 PH 2: 27 CONTRA COSTA '"'' DEVE!i i'i :NT DEPT TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS: Don Tatzin TO: CONTRA COSTA CITY MANAGERS,PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORS,AND Chair PLANNING DIRECTORS Cathie Kosel Vice Chair FROM: MARTIN R. ENGELMANN,P.E. )* Gayle Bishop Deputy Director,Planning Millie Greenberg Barbara Guise DATE: May 23, 1996 John E.Marquez SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF THE DRAFT REVISED GROWTH MANAGEMENT Allen Payton PROGRAM ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST FOR FISCAL YEAR Julie Pierce (FY) 1996-1997 LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT Gwen Regalia FUNDS Tom Torlakson Hermann welm Attached for your review is the Draft Revised Growth Management Program Annual Robert K.McCleary Compliance Checklist for FY 1996-97 funds allocation. In December the Authority directed its Executive Director Technical Coordinating Committee to work on revisions that would simplify the Checklist,make the questions more direct,and improve accountability. While the funds allocated will be from FY 1996-97 revenues,the checklist will cover calendar year 1996 compliance. The first Annual Compliance Checklist was adopted by the Authority as part of the Implementation Documents in December 1990. The questions on that checklist paralleled the eight key elements listed in the Growth Management Program of Measure C(1988). The Authority's adoption of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan in July 1995 placed renewed emphasis on three key elements of the Measure C Program--establishing the regional mitigationtfee program, implementing a CEQA-based general plan amendment review process, and addressing housing options/job opportunities. Also, in the course of reviewing local jurisdictions' checklist submittals, issues such as clarity,accountability,self-certification,and the TPAC review process were on occasion raised and discussed at the PGA and Authority meetings. All of these considerations led to the decision to revise the Checklist. A workshop may be held in June or July to discuss the proposed revisions. Comments should be submitted to the Authority by September 20, 1996. Attachment 1340 Treat Boulevard Suite 150 Walnut Creek CA 94596 PHONE: 5101936.3970 PAX: 510438-3993 DRAFT CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST - FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 ALLOCATION OF 18% LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT FUNDS REPORTING PERIOD: CALENDAR YEAR 1996 BACKGROUND To receive their 18%Local Street Maintenance and Improvement funds,Measure C requires each jurisdiction in Contra Costa County to take several actions. These actions include adopting a Growth Management Element that sets traffic level-of-service and facility performance standards,adopting both a development mitigation program and a transportation systems management ordinance,participating in cooperative planning to reduce traffic impacts,developing a five-year capital improvement program,and addressing housing options and job opportunities. Each jurisdiction should use the attached checklist to demonstrate how it complies with the requirements of Measure C. In addition to filling out the checklist,the jurisdiction must attach the detailed information that is requested in the attachments section. A completed compliance checklist and attachments with supporting documentation must be submitted by the jurisdiction,then reviewed and approved by the Authority. Upon approval of a jurisdiction's checklist,the Authority will allocate funds by formula in accordance with the attached table. In Fiscal Year 1996-97,approximately$8.1 million will be available to be allocated. Each year,the Authority will distribute the checklist by January 31 following the end of the calendar year which the checklist covers. Jurisdictions are eligible to received 18 percent funds on April 1 of each fiscal year,provided they can demonstrate program compliance for the previous calendar year. If the jurisdiction cannot certify that it meets all of the program requirements by June 30 of the year following the year that the checklist is issued, it should prepare a"Statement of Progress"outlining how it is working to meet those requirements. Some important reference documents that the Authority has adopted and that local staff should have on hand when completing the Checklist are: 1) Growth Management Implementation Documents:Implementation Guide, Model Growth Management Element, and Administrative Procedures Manual,December 1990; 2) Guide to Local Planning and Growth Management,October 1990; 3) Technical Procedures,adopted August 1992;and C WPD May 16, 1996 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS PAGE 1 S� 7 4) Countywide Comprehensive TJransponatfon Plan,Exhibits A through E, Excerpts from Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance—Local Jurisdictions'Responsibilities for Compliance with the Cooperative,Multi jurisdictional Planning Process to Reduce the Cumulative Regional Traffic Impacts of Development,adopted July 19, 1995. . All of these documents are available through the Authority offices at no expense. Should you need a copy, please call us at 256-4720. MEASURE C REQUIREMENTS The following describes in greater detail the requirements of the Measure C Growth Management Program (GMP)as they relate to each section of the Checklist. These requirements were broadly defined in the Measure C Expenditure Plan that was approved by the voters of Contra Costain November 1988. The Growth Management Implementation Documents,adopted by the Authority in December 1990,elaborate on the technical and procedural requirements of the GMP. The compliance requirements listed below constitute a synopsis of both the Measure C Expenditure Plan GMP and the Implementation Documents. The jurisdiction should respond"yes"or"no"to each question depending upon whether it has fulfilled the requirements. For certain questions,the"Not Applicable"response is appropriate. 1. Action Plans. Measure C requires local jurisdictions to implement the actions,measures,and programs agreed upon in the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance as adopted by the jurisdiction's Regional Committee and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The question has three parts. Parts b and c concern procedural requirements for general plan amendments.A"yes"response is appropriate if the jurisdiction has complied with these requirements by following the procedure. Or,if no general plan amendments were considered during the reporting period,a"yes"response is also appropriate. S Part a asks if the jurisdiction has taken steps to implement the actions,programs,and measures identified in its subarea Action Plan. Detailed information on steps taken needs to be attached. Jurisdictions should work with their RTPC managers to obtain formatting and reporting guidance on providing the information requested; Part b is a three part question that relates to procedural requirements in the Action Plan: i. Circulation of environmental documents is required under Authority Resolution 92- 03-G adopted in March 1992(attached).For projects and general plan amendments that generate more than 100 peak-houctrips,jurisdictions must circulate Notices of Preparation std Notices of Availability't all Regional Committees. t�. ii. The jurisdiction must analyze the impacts of proposed General Plan Amendments C:\W PFQ,EWL.Q4NINGIGROWMGM r%=STSIQ.4.W PD May 16, 1996 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS PAGE 2 and determine if the amendment would violate action plan policies or the ability to meet Traffic Service Objectives. The jurisdiction may propose changes to the Action Plan for consideration by its Regional Committee to assure that the general plan amendment does not adversely affect the regional transportation network. iii. The jurisdiction should review its subarea Action Plan to determine if any conditions exist for the approval of projects. For example,the East County Action Plan includes,specific project evaluation responsibilities of local jurisdictions and a Mitigation Toolbox that jurisdictions are to use and report on in their environmental documents. Part c relates to Authority Resolution 95-06-G,adopted by the Authority in July 1995 along with the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Attachment B to the resolution is a flow chart illustrating the CEQA-Based Multijurisdictional Review Process for General Plan Amendments. When preparing General Plan Amendments,jurisdictions must follow this procedure in order to be found in compliance with the GMP. 2. Regional Traffic Mitigation Program. Measure C requires local jurisdictions to adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that development pays its fair share of the costs associated with that development and to ensure that no funds from the Measure will be used to replace private developer funding that has been or will be committed to any project(part a). Part b relates to the jurisdiction's participation in the Authority's efforts to develop,through the regional committees, a regional transportation mitigation program, including fees,assessments,or other mitigation. 3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities. Measure C requires each jurisdiction to develop an implementation program,built on its capital improvement program and housing element,that creates housing opportunities for all income levels.Each jurisdiction must also address land use information as it relates to transportation demand,and discuss its efforts to address housing options and job opportunities on a city,subregional and countywide basis. 4. Growth Management Element:Performance Standards. Measure C requires that each jurisdiction adopt a Growth Management Element that establishes performance standards for fire,police,parks,sanitary facilities,water and flood control. The standards are to be applied in the development review process.These standards are to be maintained through capital projects and should take fiscal constraints into account. Jurisdictions may review their performance standards on an annual basis,in conjunction with Special - Districts where appropriate,and may elect to modify the standards. The Implementation Documents include a Model Growth Management Element with required and optional subsections to which the jurisdiction's Growth Management Element should conform. May 16, 1996 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS PAGE 3 5. Growth Management Element:Traffic Level-of-Service Standards. Measure C requires each jurisdiction to adopt and comply with traffic Level of Service(IAS)standards keyed to types of land use. Where intersections exceed these standards,the Authority may establish mitigation measures,jointly with local jurisdictions,or make a Finding of Special Circumstances.Intersections that exceed standards but that will be brought into compliance through implementation of the current five-year capital improvement program are considered to be in compliance. The Measure C Growth Management Program also requires that jurisdictions prepare traffic studies for projects that generate more than 100 peak hour trips. No development project expected to genera—tLover 100 peak-hour vehicle trips may be approved unless the jurisdiction has made a kiindings ofConsistency 'th regard to LOS standards,consistency with adopted Action Plans for Routes of keigionall rgm icance,and compliance with Performance Standards for public services. Jurisdictions that approve a project without making Findings of Consistency would be out of compliance with the GMP. -- 6. Participation in Cooperative,Multi-Jurisdictional Planning. The Growth Management Program requires the Authority to establish a forum for jurisdictions to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts. This is accomplished through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees supported by an ongoing countywide comprehensive transportation planning process in which all jurisdictions participate. 7. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. To meet and maintain adopted traffic service and performance standards,Measure C requires local jurisdictions to develop a five-year capital improvement program. The capital improvement program must include approved projects,their estimated costs and a financial plan for providing the improvements. The CIP should be amended annually,taking into account changes in project cost,funding sources,project development,and timing. If funds allocated to any project for the previous year were not spent during the year,and the funds will be needed in the future,that should be reflected in the CIP update. (See reference document No.2,page 49). 8. Transportation Systems Management Program. Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt a transportation systems management ordinance or alternative mitigation program. 9. Maintenance of Effort. Section 6 of Measure C requires each jurisdiction to maintain a minimum level of local street and road expenditures.This minimum level of funding must be the amount spent by the jurisdiction in fiscal year 1986-1987.If the jurisdiction received extraordinary funds during that period,it may use the average of transportation funding during the three-year period ending in fiscal year 1986-1987 or the amount of transportation funding less any extraordinary funding,or it may apply for special consideration to establish a new minimum level of transportation funding. 10.Posting of Signs. Each jurisdiction must post signs meeting Authority specifications for all projects exceeding$250,000 that are funded,in whole or in part,with Measure C funds. 11.Other Considerations. The jurisdiction has the opportunity to explain the reasons for noncompliance or the rational for using other methods to meet the requirements and the intent of Measure C. C'%WPFUF"c.ANNMOCROW?ACT v CKLISTSKaA.wPD May 16, 1996 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS PAGE 4 DRAFT CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction: FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 ALLOCATION OF 18% LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT FUNDS REPORTING PERIOD: CALENDAR YEAR 1996 1. ACTION PLANS YES NO a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the applicable Action Plan ❑ ❑ for Routes of Regional Significance for all designated Regional Routes within the jurisdiction? b. Has the jurisdiction implemented the following procedures as outlined in the applicable Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance? i. Circulation of environmental documents, ❑ ❑ ii. Analysis of the impacts of proposed General Plan Amendments and ❑ ❑ recommendation of changes to Action Plans,and iii. Conditioning the approval of projects consistent with Action Plan ❑ ❑ policies? c. Has the jurisdiction followed the procedures for RTPC review of General Plan ❑ ❑ Amendments as called for in the attached flow chart?(Attachment B to Authority Resolution No.95-06-G,adopted July 19, 1995). 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM YES NO a. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a development mitigation program to ❑ ❑ ensure that new development pays its fair share of the impact mitigation costs associated with that development? b. Is the jurisdiction working to develop and/or implement a regional mitigation 11 ❑ program,including regional traffic mitigation fees,assessments,or other mitigation as appropriate? COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST PAGE 1 DRAFT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction: Fiscal Year: 1996-1997 Reporting Period: Calendar 1996 3. HOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES YES NO a. Has the jurisdiction adopted a Housing Element that has been certified by the State ❑ ❑ Department of Housing and Community Development to comply with State Law? b. Has the jurisdiction adopted a Housing Element that complies with the requirements of§ 65583 et seq. of the Government Code,by: ■ Identifying local responsibilities for meeting regional housing needs, ■ Establishing goals and policies for meeting those needs,and = ❑ ❑ ■ Outlining a 5-year program of actions to implement the Housing Element? ❑ ❑ c. Does the jurisdiction's General Plan—or other adopted policy document or report— ❑ ❑ evaluate the effects of planned land uses on local,subregional and regional travel patterns and propose land use policies and a pattern of land uses that would promote more efficient use of the transportation system? 4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT:PERFORMANCE STANDARDS YES NO a. As part of its General Plan,has the jurisdiction adopted a Growth Management ❑ ❑ Element which is in substantial compliance with the Authority's Model Growth Management Element? b. Does the jurisdiction now comply with adopted performance standards,or expect to ❑ ❑ comply with the standards within the next five years through implementation of its Capital Improvement Program? 5. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: TRAFFIC LEVEL-OF- SERVICE STANDARDS YES NO N/A a. Using the Authority's procedures,have traffic impact studies been conducted as part 11 El El development review for all projects estimated to generate more than 100 peak-hour vehicle trips? YES NO b. Does the jurisdiction maintain a list of Reporting Intersections on non-regional 0 ❑ routes,and measure the level of service at those intersections annually? COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST PAGE 2 DRAFT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction: Fiscal Year: 1996-1997 Reporting Period: Calendar 1996 5. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: TRAFFIC LEVEL-OF- SERVICE STANDARDS YES NO c. Do all Reporting Intersections meet LOS standards through actual measurement,or ❑ ❑ after assuming implementation of five-year capital improvement program and accounting for changes in travel demand? d. Does a request for Findings of Special Circumstances for those intersections that do ❑ a not and will not meet LOS standards,accompany this checklist? e. Has the jurisdiction ever been granted a Findings of Special Circumstances by the ❑ ❑ Authority? 6. PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVEt MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING YES NO a. Over the past year,has the jurisdiction's Council/Board member regularly ❑ ❑ participated in meetings of the appropriate Regional Transportation Planning Committee or other forums established by the CCTA,and have the jurisdiction's local representatives to the Regional Transportation Planning Committee regularly reported on the activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or board? b. As needed,has the jurisdiction made available,as input into the countywide ❑ ❑ transportation computer model,data on land use and traffic patterns? 7. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YES N O Does the jurisdiction have an adopted five-year capital improvement program(CIP) ❑ ❑ that estimates project costs and includes a plan that outlines general mechanisms for financing transportation and public facilities,including fire,police,parks,sanitary facilities,water and flood control? 8. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM YES NO To Be Revised following discussion of the implementation of SB 437 ❑ ❑ COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST PAGE 3 SD-77 DRAFT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction: Fiscal Year:- 1996-1997 Reporting Period: Calendar 1996 9. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT YES NO Has the jurisdiction met the maintenance of effort requirements of Measure C as ❑ ❑ stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance? 10. POSTING OF SIGNS YES NO N/A Has the jurisdiction posted signs meeting Authority specifications for all projects exceeding$250,000 that are funded, in whole or in part,with Measure C funds? ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS YES N/A If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C have been satisfied in ❑ ❑ a way not indicated on this checklist,please attach an explanation. 12. -REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CHECKLIST This checklist was prepared by: Signature: Date: Name and Title: Phone: The council/board of[ ]has reviewed the completed checklist and found that the policies and programs of the jurisdiction as reported herein conform to the requirements for compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. Certified Signature: Date: Name and Title: Attest Signature: Date: City/Town/County Cleric Name: COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST PAGE 4 DRAFT CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - ATTACHMENTS TO COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Note: This form is available in electronic media on WordPerfect or Word. QUESTION INFORMATION REQUESTED REFERENCE 1. ACTION PLANS a. Please summarize steps taken during last year to implement the actions,programs, and measures called for in the applicable Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance: C. Attach, list and briefly describe any General Plan Amendments that were approved during the reporting period. Please specify which amendments affected ability to meet the standar in the Growth Management Element and/or affected ability to implement Action Plan policie or meet Trak Service Objectives. Indicate if amendments were forwarded to the jurisdiction's RTPCfor review, and describe the results of that review relative to Action Pl implementation: 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM b. Describe progress on development and/or implementation of the regional mitigation program. If under development, what is the anticipated date of adoption of the program? CHECKLIST ATTACHMENTS PAGE 1 DRAFT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction: Fiscal Year: 1996-1997 Reporting Period: Calendar 1996 QUESTION INFORMATION REQUESTED _ REFERENCE 3. HOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES a. Please list the date of State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD) certification of the jurisdiction's Housing Element and attach the HCD letter: b. If the Housing Element is not certified,please list the date of adoption and resolution numbe of the jurisdiction's resolution finding that the Housing Element complies with State law. Also state what actions have been taken during the reporting period to contribute toward achieving the housing allocations established by ABAG for all income levels. 4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS b. If the jurisdiction does not currently meet its adopted performance standards,please describe what actions the jurisdiction intends to take to bring it into compliance within the next five years, including actions contained in the adopted five year capital improvement program-* 5. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS a. Please list projects that generate more thgj100 peak hoursrfps for.which tr�c impact studies were conducted and indicate tha a Findings of Consistency with Standards was made: CHECKLIST ATTACHMENTS PAGE 2 DRAFT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction: Fiscal Year: 1996-1997 Reporting Period: Calendar 1996 QUESTION INFORMATION REQUESTED REFERENCE 5. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS (continued) b. Please list Reporting Intersections, dates of counts and LOS monitoring results. Also attach LOS calculations. Explain reasons for any LOS exceedances and proposed mitigation through implementation of the 5-year CIP or other mechanism. e. Please list intersections for which the Authority has adopted Findings of Special Circumstances and describe actions taken over the past year to carry out required condition of compliance: 7. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Please list resolution number and date of adoption of most recent five year CIP. Cite any performance standards for which CIP implementation is required to meet standards, and state the number of years for which this condition has prevailed. 8. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (To be completed following discussion of the implications of SB 43 7) 11. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Please specify any alternative methods of achieving compliance for any components for the Measure C Growth Management Program. CHECKLIST ATTACHMENTS PAGE 3 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1) Allocations of Local Street Maintenance Funds for 1996. 2) Authority Resolution 92-03-G regarding circulation of environmental documents(pertains to question l.b.i). 3) Authority Resolution 94-02-G regarding allocation of 18%funds and treatment of funds withheld from jurisdictions for noncompliance. 4) Authority Resolution 95-06-G regarding the general plan review process(pertains to question l.c). This resolution includes a flow chart depicting the general plan review process adopted by the Authority in July 1995. CHECKLIST EXHIBITS PAGE 1 SD .� LIST OF ACRONYMS ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIP Capital Improvement Plan GMP Growth Management Plan HCD Housing and Community Development LOS (Traffic)Level of Service RTPC Regional Transportation Planning Committee = CHECKLIST EXHIBITS PAGE 2 r CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 92-03-G RE; Policy for notification of Regional Transportation Planning Committees of proposed projects and General Plan amendments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips. WHEREAS the Authority's Growth Mvagement Program has been defined in the Implementation Documents.published in December 1990; and WHEREAS the Implementation Documents describe the contents and requirements of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance to establish and achieve trafficservice objectives on Regional Routes; and WIIEl2EAS the Action Plans shall establish a process for the circulation and review of Environmental Documents such as Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports/Statements; and WHEREAS as an interim measure, the Authority wishes to facilitate notification of affected jurisdictions of the preparation of environmental documents for proposed projects or General Pian amendments that generate more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips so that affected jurisdictions may comment on draft environmental documents; and WE�RF.AS the Authority has brought this issue to its Technical Coordinating Committee, and the committee has forwarded a recommendation to the Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee for consideration by the Authority. NOW, THEREFORE (1) BE IT RESOLVED THAT for any proposed project or General Plan amendment that generates more than 100 trips during the peak hour.for which an environmental document (either a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report/Statement (ElR/LIS)) is being prepared, the Lead Agency shall notify all Regional Transportation Planning Committee Chairs or designated Staff Person; and Resolution 92-03-G Page 1 of 2 13,(21, 1992 5,V .7 . (2) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT notification shall be made at the following two Ccritical junctures: a) upon issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue a Negative Declaration or a Notice of Preparation for an EIRMIS; and b) upon completion of a Negative Declaration or a Draft EIRMS (Notice of Completion); and (3) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Regional Committees shall in turn notify jurisdictions within its subarea as appropriate so that affected jurisdictions may comment on proposed projects; and (4) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT pursuant to this resolution and in accordance with the Implementation Documents, the Regional Committees shall adopt as part of the Action Plans procedures for the review and circulation of environmental documents. These procedures will supplement the requirements for circulation of environmental documents set forth herein. This resolution was entered into at a regular meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority held` JoAz -t8; 1992 in Walnut Creek, CA. C_ , hair . M Cleary Executive Director arre.a.cir Resolution 9243-G Page 2 of 2 3.( P*, 1992 • S D. 7 hG:4:iiiiii::ii::^:iiii:.:::::::i:4in:::::::::::::r:::::::::::::::::::.....::i::ii4in�::::ii:�:4:i4:::::::i:•ii:vii: (REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEES) WCCTAC{West CountvTMeets ast fldW of Month (West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee) Chair: Irma Anderson Staff: Lisa Hogeboom 5016 Nunn Street One Alvarado Square Richmond, CA 94804 San Pablo, CA 94806 235-9288 Fax: 235-6288 215-3044 Fax: 235-7059 TRANSPAC(Central Countvl Meets lsf and 3rd Thursday. _...__._ ...,� .,: ,... ._ :: ....�.�py.. - (Transportation Partnership and Cooperation) Chair: Bill McManigal Staff: Barbara Neustadter 1460 Washington Blvd. Ste. B-102 City of Pleasant Hill Concord, CA 94521 100 Gregory Ln. 672-1932 Fax: 672-1885 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 671-5250 Fax:208-3614 TRANSPLAN'( §UPountvl Meets 2nd Thursday Chair: Allen Payton Staff: Patrick Roche P.O. Box 1968 CCC Community Dev. Antioch, CA 94509 651 Pine St. 4th Flr.,N. Wing 753-1994 (vm)Fax: 754-5587 Martinez, CA 94553 335-1242 Fax: 335-1299 SWATSouthwest Count Meets 1st Monday NOTE:`CHAIR 6 MONTSROTATION ..,.. :. a .H .. w _ . �. . , _.w:�_.�.r....:,,. (Southwest Area Transportation Committee) Chair: Hermann Welm Staff: Karen Stein City of San Ramon Town of Moraga 2222 Camino Ramon P.O. Box 188 San Ramon, CA 94583 Moraga, CA 94556 275-2342 Fax: 866-1236 376-2522 Fax: 376-2034 TVTC n"Valley Tranportation CounciU Meets-4th Wednesday Chair: Tom Reitter Staff: Bill van Gelder 1052 S. Livermore Ave. P.O. Box 520 Livermore, CA 94550 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 422-1468 (work) 484-8257 Fax: 484-8291 KLD- Revised May 24, 1996 SDI CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (CCTA) RESOLUTION #94-02-G RE: Authority policy regarding allocation of Measure C Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds (18 percent) and treatment of funds withheld from jurisdictions found to be out of compliance with the Growth - Management Program WHEREAS, the voters of Contra Costa approved the Measure C Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program in November 1988; and WHEREAS, Measure C includes a Local Street Maintenance and Improvements Program where funds are returned to local jurisdictions on a formula basis for local, subregional and • regional transportation projects as determined by cities and the county, including street and . road maintenance and/or transit improvements; and " WHEREAS, Measure C Local Street Maintenance and Improvements funds shall be allocated annually to each jurisdiction, provided that the CCTA finds the jurisdiction to be in compliance with the Growth Management Program; and WHEREAS, the CCTA adopted the Growth Management Implementation Documents in December 1990 which included an annual compliance checklist for the determination of local jurisdiction compliance with the Growth Management Program; and WHEREAS, Measure C states that "Because of the great variations among the jurisdictions, it is expected that the Authority will need some flexibility in determining compliance with the Growth Management Program. Generally this flexibility may take the form of the Authority setting deadlines for achieving one or more requirements as a condition of receiving local street maintenance and improvement funds;" and WHEREAS, due to the lower than forecast revenues accruing to the Measure C Program to date, and resulting financial forecasts; the Authority's 1993 Stretegic Plan projects that most project categories will have a shortfall and be funded at no more than 90 percent of the originally anticipated levels; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the CCTA hereby adopts the following policies for the allocation of Measure C Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and the treatment of funds withheld from jurisdictions found to be out of compliance with the Growth Management Program: - (1) The Authority will distribute the Growth Management Checklist by January 31 of each fiscal year. Jurisdictions are eligible to receive 18 percent funds on April 1 of each fiscal year and the CCTA retains the funds until a jurisdiction comes into compliance with the Growth Management Program. To comply with the Growth Management Program a jurisdiction must submit a compliance checklist and the Authority must approve that checklist. SD .7 Resolution 1194-02-G October 19, 1994 Page 2 (2) Jurisdictions will be given until June 30th of the year following the year that the checklist is issued to submit their completed checklist or a Statement of Progress to the CCTA. If a jurisdiction has not submitted their checklist or a Statement of - Progress by that date, they will be found out of compliance. For jurisdictions that do submit their checklist and are found out of compliance, the CCTA would issue a Findings of Noncompliance stating the reason for noncompliance and the deadline for curing the defects in the jurisdictions checklist. If a jurisdiction submits their checklist in advance of the June 30th date and is found out of compliance, in no case shall the deadline for compliance be before the June 30th date. A Statement of Progress shall consist of a letter approved by the jurisdiction's Council/Board including: a) progress made on compliance with the Growth Management Program; and b) a proposed schedule for submittal of a completed Growth Management Checklist. The Authority will respond in writing to each Statement of Progress, indicating approval or the need for revision. The Authority may reject a Statement of Progress and set deadlines for a jurisdiction's Checklist submittal. It is the intent of the CCTA to have all checklists approved within one year following the initial June 30th deadline. (3) After FY 1991-92 annual gaps in compliance would be permissible; however, jurisdictions would not be eligible to receive 18 percent funds for years that they are not found in compliance with the Growth Management Program. (4) After expiration of a compliance deadline, a noncomplying jurisdiction's 18 percent funds will revert to the CCTA for allocation to- projects contained in Measure C that are not fully funded, are of high priority, and are of broader regional significance. (5) No interest will be accrued to local jurisdictions on behalf of their unallocated funds. (6) When a response on a formerly approved checklist is discovered which would have led to a Findings on Noncompliance, and that condition continues, the CCTA will issue a Findings.of Noncompliance for the current fiscal year, and current and future year allocations will be withheld until the condition is corrected. No retroactive action will be taken. This RESOLUTION was entered into at a ------� meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation oel Keller, Chair Authority held October 19, 1994 in Walnut Creek, California Attest: 6-e Robert cCl ecutive Direct r Resolution 94-02-G Contra Costa Transportation Authority Resolution 95-06-G RE: APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEAENT PROGRAM 1) VVEMREAS, Measure C requires the Authority "to establish a forum to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts. This will be accomplished through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees . . .;"1 and 2) WHEREAS, Measure C also stated that "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 General Plan Amendments. This would provide a quantitative basis for inter jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts;"' and 3) INUEREAS, Measure C further requires that "The Authority, jointly, with affected Iocal 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 5)";' and 4) WHEREAS, in response to these mandates the Authority adopted in December, 1990 Implemeruation Docuwneras, specifying that the Action Plan process, the establishment of Traffic Service Objectives and Actions, the General Plan Amendment Review process, and the Conflict Resolution process would be used to meet the requirements outlined above; and 5) NVEFREAS, the Authority will separately approve the details of the Conflict Resolution process to be used in the event of disputes between jurisdictions; and 6) WHEREAS, to recognize the differences between jurisdictions, and the flexibility provided to it within Measure C to judge compliance with the Growth Management Program, the Authority has agreed to ultimately evaluate compliance with Measure C, as it relates to review and negotiation of proposed General Plan Amendments, on the basis of "good faith;" 'The 1988 Measure C Expenditure Plan, Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program, p. 11, Paragraph 5. (Adopted August 1988) 21. 'mid, p. 10. Resolution 95-06-G July 19, 1995 Page 2 the Authority has agreed to ultimately evaluate compliance with Measure C, as it relates to review and negotiation of proposed General Plan Amendments, on the basis of "good faith;" 1) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Authority hereby adopts the attached summary (Attachment A) and flow chart (Attachment B) to serve as the General Plan Amendment Review process required by Measure C; and 2) BE IT FURTER RESOLVED, that in so doing, the Authority will evaluate the compliance of individual jurisdictions at the time of its review of the Annual Compliance Checklist submittal by the jurisdiction; and 3) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Authority will review each Agency's "good faith" participation in the Growth Management Program during its annual review of the Compliance Checklists. Good faith participation will be evaluated in consideration of the following factors: 3.1 Analysis - Was the Countywide (or Regional) traffic model used to evaluate projects with the potential to impact Routes of Regional Significance? 3.2 Evaluation - Were impacts to Routes of Regional Significance identified and appropriate and feasible mitigations defined? 3.3 Notification - Were all affected agencies properly notified? 3.4 Meet and Confer - Did the Agency meet and confer with neighboring jurisdictions, RTPCs and other who expressed interest in and/or concerns about proposed projects? 3.5 Responsiveness to concerns/comments - Did the Agency agree to evaluate specific concerns and project impacts? Were they responsive and did they attempt to resolve and work out issues and concerns? Did the Agency propose to and/or agree to participate in conflict resolution? (Attachment C includes examples of "good faith" which the Authority may use, but is not limited to, individually or in combination, in its assessment of a jurisdiction's responsiveness to concerns and attempts to resolve issues, including its proposed mitigation of impacts.) and 4) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Authority shall consider the concerns of both the jurisdictions generating traffic as a result of a General Plan Amendment, and those of the recipient(s) of such traffic, equally, in making its evaluation of "good faith." Resolution 95-06-G July 19, 1995 Page 3 lube Pierce, Chair This RESOLLMON was entered into at a meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority held July 19, 1995 in Walnut Creek, California Attest: Robert Cle Executivehector rIs\rewIutns\res9S-o6.fal Resolution 95-06- _ R G July 19, 1995 Page A-1 ATTACHIVI ENT A OVERVIEW OF THE GENERAL PLAN A IENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS 1. The process shall be concurrent with the CEQA time line for preparation.of a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. It is recognized that Conflict Resolution could extend the process beyond the date of expected CEQA certification and corresponding approval of the project. However, every effort should be made by both the project sponsor and by concerned jurisdictions to address potential issues of conflict within the time frame provided under CEQA. Early identification of problems and consultation with affected jurisdictions is recommended. All affected jurisdictions shall participate in M Conflict Resolution process, if necessary, for each General Plan Amendment. 2. The process requires that a jurisdiction study the impacts of a proposed GPA on the Action Plan when the size of the GPA exceeds the threshold ,size established by the RTPC in its Action Plan; or 500 peak hour trips if such threshold has not been established. 3. The GPA sponsor may approve the GPA without consequence if: (1) the GPA does not adversely affect the ability of local jurisdictions to meet the Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) or to implement the agreed-upon actions in the Action Plans; or (2) the GPA and/or Action Plan have been amended to mitigate the impact on the regional system relative to TSOs and actions, to the satisfaction of the affected RTPC; or (3) the affected RTPC has agreed to amend the Action Plan; or (4) the Conflict Resolution process has been otherwise successful. When any of these conditions is satisfied, the sponsor and the local RTPC shall advise the Authority. Failure to satisfy one of these conditions could result in a finding of non-compliance by the Authority, unless the Authority finds the jurisdiction has acted in good faith to negotiate resolution of conflicts. Sponsoring jurisdictions must work in "good faith" to address all concerns raised during the CEQA review process for proposed GPAs. The Authority's evaluation of "good faith" will consider the factors detailed in Item 6 below, and the sponsoring Agency's responsiveness to concerns raised by other RTPCs and other Agencies. 4. The jurisdiction preparing the GPA should notify all impacted RTPC(s) and" jurisdictions as early as possible of potential impacts with respect to previously approved TSOs and actions. Concerned jurisdictions may voice concerns to the GPA sponsor, the RTPC, and the Authority regarding impact on TSOs by commenting: on the Notice of Preparation; on the draft Negative Declaration or EIR and/or prior to project approval. 5. If a conflict should arise during review by the affected RTPC(s) and or during CEQA reviews of proposed GPA proposals, any party to the conflict may call for initiation of conflict resolution. The parties may utilize the Authority's conflict resolution process, or an alternative process, as long as it is acceptable to the parties to the conflict. The Authority, during its annual review of the Compliance Checklists, will Resolution 95-06-G SD . July 19, 1995 Page A-2 ATTACEENCENT A evaluate each party's "good faith" efforts to resolve conflicts. Failure to participate in conflict resolution could be the basis for a finding of non-compliance. 6. Good faith participation in the Measure C program will be evaluated annually in consideration of the following factors: 6.1 Analysis - Was the Countywide (or Regional) traffic model used to evaluate projects with the potential to impact Routes of Regional Significance? 6.2 Evaluation -Were impacts to Routes of Regional Significance identified and appropriate and feasible mitigations defined? 6.3 Notification - Were all affected Agencies properly notified? 6.4 Meet and Confer - Did the Agency meet and confer with neighboring jurisdictions, RTPC(s) and others who expressed interest in and/or concerns about proposed projects? _ 6.5 Responsiveness.to concerns/comments - Did the Agency agree to evaluate specific concerns and project impacts? Were they responsive and did they attempt to resolve and work out issues and concerns? Did the Agency propose to and/or agree to participate in conflict resolution? (Attachment C includes examples of "good faith" which the Authority may.use, but is not limited to, individually or in combination, in its assessment of a jurisdiction's responsiveness to concerns and attempts to resolve issues, including its proposed mitigation of impacts.) rim\plavVtem95%mr9506g.ata L.. 5 4 a 8" � ,a � OY it-Ili a c O o o vCL uj ? G'"' ty E Q 8 _ U *.- <L o------ ------ poo i.°' i to z °` �`g� 't y L i +S j O G O V W' .0 I v I IAV L z o 'L-----------1 li O ec rt c �N I I c Z Z v L .2 -j 1 (Uo1uO 10601) I c C tlM r'« I V � Wo� I o N I 1134 O!tsotoaa =ZPPu g bt 11134 °�s,uOWWaa 1 v V°q c I Oi spuodsoa 1134 I c4 � I E , € L L c i I z.— I < C, r ° wp"D I 1O o1O w 1 ° T uj CL aJ 61 M1 I I V e r O t I v U- p ^ Z r« I o o uj E I I D 0 I pRY E I O1 rFb ~ c I k I 1130 °� I iJUOWWO� aa11 1 IY-------- --------------- -- IJO,s,YOWWO I ( s'OU°J 1130 p n '� < o I•• { 41ON 01 SIUDWW02, :)aid c 06 i I o H 1 S I L v� €� gilt v I •_'^2 a�oo 1--------------------- -----� Mac 0 Eo S� Resolution 95-06-G July 19, 1995 Page C-1 Attachment C EXAMPLES OF "GOOD FAITH" PARTICIPATION IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS Formal written documentation verifying that some of the following or similar proposals have been offered to resolve conflicts in the conflict resolution process: General Plan Amendments 1. For the jurisdiction proposing development as sponsor of the GPA: • Reduce development densities; • Phase in development based on measurement of TSO(s), with development stopping if TSO(s) are exceeded; • Revise the mix of land use to encourage more internal trips, or more balance between internal and external trips; • Identified project mitigations which can be demonstrated to meet TSO(s), and offered to defray the cost of those improvements which are proportionately attributable to the development; • If no project improvements have been identified by the adjacent jurisdiction(s), offer to transfer funds to the adjacent jurisdiction(s) for mitigation which will be identified in the future, consistent with AB 1600 requirements; • Offer to accept metering on roadways in adjacent communities, and build "reservoir" capacity within the development; • Revise the urban design to encourage local trips for shopping, recreation, and non-commute purposes, including consideration of facilitating pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit trips; • Offer to pay for peak hour transit services connecting to major transit hubs, for an extended period of time; • Include fiber-optics cables for communications, and work with telephone and cable providers to provide ISDN and other high-capacity electronic capabilities to serve homes and businesses. 2. For a "downstream" jurisdiction receiving traffic from a new development: - • Agree to accept capacity improvements to local arterials and highways which are not in fundamental conflict with the jurisdiction's socio-economic character; • Consider non-physical improvements or minor physical modifications to enhance carrying capacity of local streets and roads, and freeways, such as: signal interconnections; auxiliary and turning lanes; signalized pedestrian crossings; SDI Resolution 95-06-G July 19, 1995 Page C-2 Attachment C pedestrian overcrossings; frontage roads to limit access to major facilities; revisions to.parking to add lanes; etc. • Accept additional transit service provided by the new development; • Accept work associated with necessary utility upgrades to provide enhanced electronic communications; • Consider supporting project alternatives which would serve the new development that do not significantly impact the downstream jurisdiction, in pursuit of funding resources external to the affected jurisdictions. • Support park and ride lots and intermodal transit facilities that could consolidate trips and reduce through traffic which would otherwise utilize affected roads. 3. In each case of conflict, "good faith" would of course also be assessed within the context of pre-existing legal agreements and understandings between the jurisdictions, and any other relevant information. TSO Adoption 1. Jurisdiction within which the facility is located, if it is a traffic recipient: • Proposes TSO(s) that are no more stringent than evidenced by traffic in 1990; • Shows flexibility in considering alternative TSOs that would not dramatically worsen the character of the jurisdiction if implemented; • Considers how facility improvements could accomplish desired TSO(s), without rejecting them "out of hand." 2. Jurisdiction which is a traffic generator: • Proposes TSO(s) that are meaningful, and not "whatever is needed to satisfy the development." • Proposes alternative TSO(s) if necessary to promote continued dialogue and discussion. • Recognizes the socio-economic character of the recipient jurisdiction in proposing any TSO(s) and capital projects to accomplish them deemed necessary to accommodate the development. plan\95plan\re45-06.atc