HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02072012 - C.65RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. FIND that the proposed 2012-2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Parks and
Sheriff Facilities is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (see Exhibit A);
2. ADOPT the 2012-2018 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B);
3. APPROVE the completed Biennial Compliance Checklist (Checklist) in substantially the
form presented (see Exhibit C) and FIND that the County's policies and programs conform
to the requirements for compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation and Improvement
and Growth Management Program as established by Measure C in 1988 and reauthorized
by Measure J in 2004; and
4. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign the completed Checklist.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 02/07/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Contact: Jamar Stamps, 925-335-1220
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 7, 2012
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: Steve Goetz, DCD, Patrick Roche, DCD, Steve Kowalewski, PWD, John Cunningham, DCD, Susan Cohen, PWD , Kara Douglas, DCD, Venus Zayas,
PWD, Elizabeth Arbuckle, Sheriff-Coroner
C.65
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris
Date:February 7, 2012
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Biennial Compliance Checklist and Capital Improvement Program for Measure J-2004 Growth Management
Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities and the approval of the Checklist will
qualify the County to receive its Fiscal Year 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 allocations of
Measure J "return to source" revenue, estimated to be approximately $2 million annually.
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), as the County's Congestion
Management Agency, also uses the Checklist to demonstrate compliance with the State
Congestion Management Act (Government Code §65088 et. seq.). The state will
withhold a portion of the state gas tax (Street and Highways Code §2105) to cities and
counties that fail to comply with the Congestion Management Act. The County receives
approximately $4.5 million annually from this revenue source which is dedicated for
transportation purposes.
BACKGROUND:
Measure J Growth Management Compliance
The County biennially submits a compliance checklist to CCTA to receive the County's
portion of the 18 percent of sales tax funds available for local street maintenance and
improvements.
Two related actions must precede completion and submittal of the Checklist:
1. CEQA review of the proposed 2012-2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
Parks and Sheriff Facilities; and
2. Adoption of the CIP for Park and Sheriff Facilities.
To comply with CEQA, DCD staff has found pursuant to adopted County CEQA
Guidelines that the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not a project subject to CEQA
(see Exhibit A). This follows from the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects
that have the potential to cause significant adverse effects to the environment. All capital
facilities programmed are either fully committed, constructed, awaiting occupancy, or
undergoing separate environmental review. Under the provision of §15061(b)3, of the
State and County CEQA guidelines, it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities could have a
significant effect on the environment.
The CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B) was prepared as part of the
County's Development Mitigation Program. The CIP is authorized by Implementation
Measure 4-n of the County General Plan. Any capital project sponsored by the County
and necessary to maintain adopted levels of performance must be identified in a CIP with
a minimum programming period of five years. Funding sources for the complete cost of
the improvements, and phasing, if any, must also be identified in the CIP. The CIP
demonstrates that development anticipated between 2012-2018 will maintain compliance
with the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. A seven-year
programming period is used to be consistent with the County's other capital improvement
programs.
Table 5 of the CIP shows no expansion of sheriff facilities is proposed for the seven-year
period for patrol and investigation use. The existing "surplus" capacity is expected to be
sufficient to accommodate population growth during this period.
The CY 2010 and 2011 Checklist covers the compliance reporting period from January 1,
2010 to December 31, 2011. The County has satisfied all Checklist requirements during
the 2010 and 2011 CYs. Although traffic LOS standards will no longer be a requirement
under Measure J, the County will continue to monitor LOS at representative
intersections. Previous LOS monitoring did not show that the representative intersections
were under any threat of substandard performance (all operating at LOS A). Therefore,
absent deficient performance no further action would be necessary.
Performance standards for other urban services in the unincorporated area were
maintained. The County implemented all the required plans, programs and ordinances for
mitigating local and regional transportation impacts of development projects,
implemented the adopted Housing Element, and constructed the necessary capital
improvements for urban services.
The growth management provisions of the County General Plan comply with the new
requirements of Measure J. County voters approved an ULL in 2006 and the County
complied with the provisions of the referendum during 2010 and 2011. The Board of
Supervisors has participated in or taken actions during the reporting period consistent
with the multi-jurisdictional transportation planning process established by Measure J.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Failure to adopt the CIP for Park and Sheriff Facilities or approve the Checklist will
prevent the County from qualifying for its Fiscal Year allocation for 2011/2012 of
"return to source" funds and §2105 state gas tax funds. Funds will be available for
allocation beginning June 30, 2012.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
No impact.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit B: Development Mitigation Program
Exhibit C: Checklist
Exhibit A: CEQA Determination
1
EXHIBIT B
Contra Costa County
Development Mitigation Program
2012 - 2018
Capital Improvement Program for
Parks and Sheriff Facilities
Prepared by
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development
January 2012
2
I. INRODUCTION
This document is Contra Costa County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for providing park
and Sheriff Facilities in the unincorporated area of the County. A companion document, the
County Road Improvement & Preservation Program, describes transportation projects to
mitigate the transportation impacts of new development. Both documents respond to the
requirements of the County General Plan and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s
(CCTA) growth management program that was initiated with the Measure C transportation sales
tax in 1988, and reauthorized in Measure J in 2004.
The County General Plan includes a Growth Management Element that has performance
standards for urban services (i.e. roads, sewers, water police, fire, parks and flood control). New
development needs to demonstrate that it meets these performance standards or such
development cannot be approved. The County is responsible for providing the following urban
services in the unincorporated area: roads, police and parks. The Growth Management Element
requires that capital projects sponsored by the County necessary to maintain the performance
standards for these three urban services shall be identified in the five-year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvement, and phasing, if any,
shall also be identified.
The Measure J growth management program requires local jurisdictions to develop a five-year
capital improvement program. It is CCTA policy that all capital improvement programs be
amended, taking into account changes in project costs, funding sources, project development and
timing. Jurisdictions can avoid annual updates by developing longer range capital improvement
programs. The County has elected to use a seven-year horizon for the CIP.
CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT:
The CIP is based on a seven-year horizon, 2012-2018 growth estimates for that time period are
presented in Section II.
Section III of the CIP reviews the performance standards, which were established by the Growth
Management Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, and describes the status of
County’s compliance with these standards based on the estimated population growth.
Section IV describes the program facilities needed to meet the demands of future growth as
dictated by the performance standards set forth in the Growth Management Element.
II. POPULATION ESTIMATES
Table 1 provides an estimate of past population growth in the unincorporated area since adoption
of the County’s Growth Management Element in 1991. It also describes projected population
growth for the seven-year period of the CIP, 2012-2018. The projected population growth is
based on information received from the Housing Element of the County General Plan. These
forecasts are based on ABAG’s projected population estimates, as adjusted by the Department of
Conservation and Development to reflect the actual growth recorded on the unincorporated area
between 1991 and 2012.
3
TABLE 1
PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA
AREA 1991-2012 2012-2018
East County 11,877* 8,612
Central County 16,059** 2,595
West County 4,310 943
TOTAL 32,246 12,150
* Includes growth in Oakley up to year 2000.
** Does not include the growth in Dougherty Valley, which ABAG assigns to City of San Ramon.
*** Sources: 2000 Census, Projected 2010 estimated provided by Association of Bay Area Governments refined by CCC Department of
Conservations and Development.
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The Growth Management Element establishes standards for the provision of certain public
services in the unincorporated areas. These performance standards are applied to all development
that was approved since the adoption of the County General Plan in January 1991. The standards
apply to the entire unincorporated area, countywide.
Park Facilities: The growth management standard for park facilities is three acres of
neighborhood parks per 1,000 population. Table 2 evaluates this standard as of 2010. This
evaluation is based on population growth for the 1991 - 2011 time period and the park acreage
opened during that period.
Parks are financed largely by park dedication fees assessed against new development in the
unincorporated area. A Park Impact Fee Nexus Study was approved by the Board in 2007 and
fees were updated shortly thereafter. Fees range from $2,109 to $4,489 depending on dwelling
type and location. Unless otherwise indicated, the parks shown on Table 4 occur on County-
owned parcels or land dedicated by developers to the County. Expenditures are for park
improvements only.
Since January 1991, the County has opened approximately 140 acres of new park facilities that
meet the neighborhood park classification. Actual park construction exceeded the growth
management standard by 44 acres. These facilities represent a broad range of accomplishments,
including contribution to joint school/park facilities, pro-rated credit for park facilities of cities or
special districts funded partially by County revenues or land-dedication, and linear parks that
serve the local area. See Appendix A for a description of these park facilities.
TABLE 2
EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE
WITH THE PARK FACILITIES STANDARD AS OF 2010
REQUIRED FACILITIES FACILITIES OPENED SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)
96 acres 140 acres 44 acres
Sheriff Facilities: The growth management standard for Sheriff facilities is 155 square feet of
patrol and investigation facilities per 1,000 population.
4
Table 3 evaluates compliance with the performance standard as of 2011. The evaluation is based
on population growth for 1991-2011 time period and the square footage of Sheriff Facilities
opened as of 2011. The population growth between 1991 and 2011 created a demand for 4,998
square feet of patrol, investigation and support facilities. Since 1991, the County has opened
21,039 square feet of facilities that serve patrol, investigation and support activities. Actual
Sheriff Facility construction exceeded the growth management standard by 16,041 square feet.
See Appendix B for the inventory of Sheriff Facilities.
TABLE 3
EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE
WITH SHERIFF FACILITIES STANDARD AS OF 2010
REQUIRED FACILITIES FACILITIES OPENED SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT)
4,998 sq.ft. 21,039 sq.ft. 16,041 sq.ft.
IV. SEVEN-YEAR PROGRAM FOR PARK AND SHERIFF FACILITIES
The County’s Growth Management Element and CCTA’s Measure J growth management
program requires that capital improvement programs include approved projects, their estimated
costs and a financial plan for providing the improvements. This section describes a seven-year
program of projects to maintain compliance with the County’s adopted growth management
standards for park and sheriff facilities.
Park Facilities: The projected growth during the 2012-2018 time period will generate the need
for 36 acres of neighborhood and community parks. Table 4 describes the park facilities
programmed for construction during the 2012-2018 time period. A total of nearly 28 acres of
neighborhood parks are programmed for construction during that time period. As of 2011, the
County maintains a surplus of 44 acres (as previously shown in Table 2).
By adding the total acreage from Table 4 to the current surplus of 44 acres, the County would
maintain a 12 acre park facilities surplus by 2018.1
Sheriff Facilities: The projected growth during the 2012-2018 time period will generate the need
for 1,883 square feet of Sheriff facilities to serve patrol and investigation activities. The surplus
square footage resulting from Sheriff facilities opened as of 2011 is 16,041 sq. ft. This “surplus”
of facility capacity is sufficient to serve all growth projected to occur in the unincorporated area
by 2018, with approximately 14,158 sq. ft. of capacity remaining by that time. The formula
utilized to evaluate this need for facilities in 2018 is detailed in Table 5.
No construction or acquisition of additional sheriff facilities is programmed for the next seven
years. Existing capacity is expected to be more than sufficient to accommodate population
growth for the next seven years.
Fees are currently in place for new development in the unincorporated area to provide ongoing
support for Sheriff operations. The fees do not cover additional facilities that may be needed in
the future.
1 The formula utilized to evaluate this need for facilities in 2018 is detailed in Table 5.
g:\transportation\measure j tracking\measure j tracking 2010-2011\sheriff_parks\draft cip.doc
5
Since 1991, a significant inventory of space for patrol and investigation activities has been made
available on a short-term basis to the Sheriff through donations or leases. These facilities total
3,400 sq. ft. and are listed in Appendix B. The Sheriff recommends that this space not be claimed
by the Board for the purpose of meeting the growth management standard for Sheriff Facilities.
This CIP is consistent with that recommendation.
TABLE 4 SEVEN YEAR PROGRAM OF PARK FACILITIES Year of Expenditures ($0,000) Park Location Park Type Region Of County Total Acreage Acreage for Growth Mgmt. Compliance 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 North Richmond Neighborhood West 0.30.3 El Sobrante Neighborhood West 5.05.0$1,160 Iron Horse Trail Pocket Parks Pocket Central 0.30.3$195 Pacheco Community Park Community Central 5.05.0$1,160 Vine Hill Park Neighborhood Central 2.02.0$100 Big Oak Tree Park Neighborhood Central 0.10.1$200 Bay Point Shoreline Ballfields Community East 5.05.0$2,000 Byron Community Park Community East 5.05.0$1,160 Bethel Island Park Community East 5.05.0$1,160 Total (rounded) 27.6 (28)27.6 (28)$6,935 TABLE 5 EVALUATION OF THE NEED FOR FACILITIES IN 2016 Projected Population Growth 2012-2018 Park Acres Required 2012 - 2018 (3 Acres/1000 people) Park Acres to be Constructed 2012-2018 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres from 1991-2012 Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres by 2018 12,150 36 28 (8) 44 36 Sheriff Facilities Required 2012 - 2018 (155 sq.ft./1000 people) Sheriff Facilities to be Constructed 2012-2018 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. from 1991-2012 Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. by 2018 12,150 1,883 0 (1,883) 16,041 14,158 6
7
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX AParkLocationAreaType of ParkTotal AcresAcres for Growth ManagementCompletion DateMontalvin Park Denise Dr Pinole Neighborhood 7.0 7.0 1991MonTaraBay Community Center and Ball Fields (Rehab)Tara Hills Dr Pinole Community Facility 4.0 4.0 1991California Pacific Waterways Porthole/Foghorn Byron Neighborhood 5.2 5.2 1992Alamo Elementary School Park Livorna/Wilson Alamo Neighborhood 3.1 2.5 1992Clyde Park Norman/Sussex Clyde Neighborhood 2.0 2.0 1992Fox Creek Park (Pleasant Hill BART) Las Juntas Way Walnut Creek Neighborhood 0.5 0.3 1992Cornell Park Disco Bay Blvd/Willow Lake Byron Neighborhood 10.0 10.0 1992Boeger Park Caskey St Bay Point Neighborhood 0.6 0.5 1992Old Tassajara School Camino Tassajara/Finley Rd Tassajara Community Facility 1.0 1.0 1992Marie Porter Park Kilburn Street Clyde Neighborhood 0.5 0.5 1992Rancho Laguna Knoll Dr/Camino Pablo Moraga Neighborhood 8.1 8.1 1993Brentwood Ball Fields (3) Sunset Rd Brentwood Neighborhood n/a n/a 1993Bettencourt Ranch Camino Tassajara Danville Neighborhood 6.0 2.5 1994El Sobrante Open Space Castro Ranch Rd El Sobrante Regional 100.0 n/a 1994Hap Magee Park (City/County) Camille Ave Alamo Neighborhood 17.2 8.0 1994North Richmond Ball Field 3rd and Walnut Creek North Richmond Community Facility 8.0 4.0 1994Lefty Gomez Community Center and BallfieldsParker Avenue Rodeo Community Facility 11.0 11.0 1995Diablo Vista Park Crow Canyon/Tassajara Ranch Town of Danville Neighborhood 2.0 0.7 1996Marie Murphy School Valley View El Sobrante Neighborhood 0.5 0.3 1996Olinda School Olinda Rd El Sobrante Neighborhood 0.5 0.3 1996Valley View School Maywood/Meadowbrook El Sobrante Neighborhood 0.5 0.3 1996Sheldon School May/Laurel El Sobrante Neighborhood 0.5 0.3 1996El Sobrante Elementary Manor/Mitchell El Sobrante Neighborhood 0.5 0.3 1996De Anza High School Valley View Rd El Sobrante Neighborhood 4.0 2.0 1996Tradewinds Court Park Tradewinds Court Bay Point Neighborhood 0.7 0.7 1996Livorna Park Livorna/Miranda Alamo Neighborhood 4.4 4.4 1997Laurel Park Laurel Rd Detention Basin Oakley Neighborhood 14.4 14.4 1998Rodeo Creek Trail Willow Ave/Parker Ave Rodeo Neighborhood 2.5 2.5 1998Rancho Romero School Hemme Ave Alamo Neighborhood 5.4 5.4 2000Country Place n/a n/a Neighborhood 2.5 2.5 2000Andrew H. Young Danville Blvd/Jackson Alamo Neighborhood 0.2 0.2 2000Maybeck Park Amy Lane Clyde Neighborhood 0.2 0.2 2000Discovery Bay West n/a Discovery Bay (Rec Center) 2.4 2.4 2002Discovery Bay West Lakeshore Circle Discovery Bay Neighborhood 4.0 4.0 2002Del Hombre Respite Treat Blvd Pleasant Hill Neighborhood 0.7 0.7 2002Regatta Park (Tyler Memorial Park) n/a Discovery Bay Neighborhood 4.8 4.8 2002Silfer Park Newport Dr Discovery Bay Neighborhood 5.8 5.8 2002Viewpoint Park (aka Lehman) Sea Cliff Place Bay Point Neighborhood 0.1 0.1 2002Ravenswood Park Discovery Bay Neighborhood 2004Diablo Vista Middle School Sports FieldCamino Tassajara/Monterosso Danville School 15.0 15.0 2005Spears Circle ParkSpears Circle North Richmond Neighborhood 0.5 0.5 2007Big Oak Tree Park Kilburn Street Clyde Neighborhood 0.1 0.1 2008El Sobrante Children's Reading GardenAppian Avenue El Sobrante Community Facility 0.2 0.2 2008Parkway Estates (Tot Lot) Malcom Drive North Richmond Neighborhood 0.3 0.3 2011Pacheco Creekside Park Aspen Drive Pacheco Neighborhood 1.6 1.6 2011Clyde Pedestrian Trail Norman Avenue Clyde Neighborhood 3.8 3.8 2011Total262.3 140.48
APPENDIX B3,000 3,000 3,0001,600 1,600 0 0(1,600)n/a 0 2,500 2,500 2,50023,390 23,390 23,390 23,390 0n/a 0 600 600 6002,117 2,117 1,117 1,117(1,000)n/a 0 1,200 1,200 1,200n/a 0 1,149 1,149 1,149n/a 0 n/a 100 100n/a 0 n/a 50 501,100 1,100 n/a 0(1,100)4,8992,350 1,567 n/a 0(1,567)2,200 733 n/a 0(733)n/a n/a 3,209 1,070 1,0703,900 3,900 0 0(3,900)n/a n/a 0 0 01,684 842 1,684 842 08,764 4,382 8,764 4,382 0n/a n/a 4,549 1,650 1,6506,500 3,250 6,500 3,250 0n/a n/a 0 0 0n/a 0 0 0 0n/a 0 10,000 3,000 3,0007,500 3,000 12,269 4,907 1,9073,800 3,800 n/a 0(3,800)1,470 490 0 0(490)n/a n/a 25,187 15,147 15,147n/a n/a n/a 3,856 3,85616,140n/a 0 n/a 600 600n/a 0 n/a 0 0n/a 0 n/a 900 900n/a 0 n/a 100 100n/a 0 n/a 600 600n/a 0 n/a 500 500n/a 0 n/a 700 7003,40024,43921,039Grand Total Minus LeasedCrockett, 1538 Pomona St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Richmond, 1675 1st St - Auxiliary Patrol ActivitiesRodeo, 301 California St - Auxiliary Patrol ActivitiesBay Point, 642 Pt Chicago Hwy - Auxiliary Patrol ActivitiesTotalGrand TotalTotalTotalMartinez, 823 Marina Vista - Administration (40% Field Support)Martinez, 1960 Muir Rd - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's)Martinez, 651 Pine St - Administration (40% Patrol Support)Martinez, 651 Pine St/No. Wing - RecordsByron, 1636 Discovery Bay Blvd - Auxiliary Patrol ActivitiesDiscovery Bay, 1555 Riverlake Blvd, Ste J - Patrol SubstationMartinez, 651 Pine St/No. Wing - Administration (40% Patrol Support)Concord, 2099 Arnold Ind, Ste D - Property Svcs, Crime Lab/Patrol SupportConcord, 2099 Arnold Ind, Ste C - Property Svcs, Crime Lab/Patrol SupportLeased Patrol FacilitiesDanville, 1092 Eagle Nest Pl - Patrol SubstationMartinez, 500 Court St - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's) (GGC)Martinez, 401 Escobar St - Property Storage (1/2 Sheriff's)Martinez, 821 Escobar St - Training (10% Field Operations)Martinez, 1139 Escobar St - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/2 Sheriff's)Martinez, 1122 Escobar St - CriminalisticsMartinez, 30 Glacier Dr - Tech. Svcs. Admin. (30% Field Support) Martinez, 40 Glacier St - Communications Center (1/2 Sheriff's)Martinez, 815 Marina Vista - Administration (40% Field Support)Field Enforcement Support FacilitiesAntioch, 212 H St - Dispatch Facility (2/3 Sheriff's)Martinez, 729 Castro St - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's)Richmond, 555 Giant Highway - Patrol SubstationRichmond, 1555 3rd St - Joint Office w/ Richmond PD and CHPRodeo, 199 Parker St - Auxiliary Patrol ActivitiesSan Pablo, 2280 Giant Rd - Patrol SubstationLOCATIONAs of 1/1/91 As of 12/31/11AmountofSq FtClaimed for GrowthManagementTotal Bldg AreaSHERIFF'S Total Bldg AreaSHERIFF'S Patrol FacilitiesSpace in BldgOakley, 210 O'Hara Ave - Patrol SubstationOakley, Lauritzen's Harbor - Marine Patrol SubstationSpace in BldgAlamo, 150 B+C Alama Plaza - Patrol SubstationAlamo, 3240 W Stone Valley Rd - Patrol SubstationConcord, 81 John Glenn Dr - Helicopter HangerMartinez, 1980 Muir Rd - Patrol/InvestigationEl Sobrante, 3796 San Pablo Dam Rd, Ste b - Auxiliary Patrol Activities9
Compliance Checklist DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Repo
Page 1
rting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Note: Instructions for this checklist are available at:
http://www.ccta.net/EN/home/quicklinks/currentactivities.html
1. Action Plans
a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the
applicable Action Plan for all designated Routes of Regional
YES NO N/A
Significance within the jurisdiction?
b. Has the jurisdiction implemented the following procedures as
outlined in the Implementation Guide and 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 Implementation Guide
(see Exhibit 5).
2. 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
YES NO
development?
b. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented the regional
transportation mitigation program, developed and adopted by the
applicable Regional Transportation Planning Committee, including
any regional traffic mitigation fees, assessments, or other
mitigation as appropriate?
Compliance Checklist DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Page 2
3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities
a. Has the jurisdiction prepared and submitted a report to the
Authority demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing
opportunities for all income levels under its Housing Element? The
YES NO
report can 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 its 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 its General Plan and zoning regulations
facilitate improvement or development of sufficient housing to
meet the Element’s objectives.
b. Does the jurisdiction’s General Plan—or other adopted policy
document or report—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 reasonable be provided?
c. Has the jurisdiction incorporated policies and standards into its
development approval process that support transit, bicycle and
pedestrian access in new developments?
Compliance Checklist DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Page 3
4. Traffic Impact Stu
a. Using the Authority’s Technical Procedures, have traffic impact
studies been conducted as part of development review for all
projects estimated to generate more than 100 net new peak‐hour
vehicle trips? (Note: Lower traffic generation thresholds
dies YES NO N/A
established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply).
b. If the answer to 5.a. above is “yes”, did the local jurisdi ction notify
affected parties and circulate the traffic impact study during the
environmental review process?
5. Participation in Cooperative, MultiJurisdictional
Planning
a. Over the past year, has the jurisdiction’s Council/Board
representative regularly participated in meetings of the
appropriate Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC),
and have the jurisdiction’s local representatives to the RTPC
regularly reported on the activities of the Regional Committee to
the jurisdiction's council or board? (Note: Each RTPC should have a
policy that defines what constitutes regular attendance of
YES NO
Council/Board members at RTPC meetings.)
b. Has the local jurisdiction worked with the RTPC to develop a nd
implement the Action Plans, including identification of Routes of
Regional Significance, establishing Multimodal Transportation
Service Objectives (MTSOs) for those routes, and defining actio ns
for achieving the MTSOs?
c. Has the local jurisdiction applied the Authority’s travel demand
model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of General Plan
Amendments (GPAs) and developments exceeding specified
thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system,
including on Action Plan MTSOs?
Compliance Checklist DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Page 4
d. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the
countywide transportation computer model, data on proposed
improvements to the jurisdiction’s transportation system, including
roadways, pedestrian circulation, bikeways and trails, planned and
improved development within the jurisdiction, and traffic patterns?
6. FiveYear Capital Improvement Program
Does the jurisdiction have an adopted five‐year capital
improvement program (CIP) that includes approved projects and
an analysis of project costs as well as a financial plan for pr oviding
the improvements? (The transportation component of the plan
must be forwarded to the Authority for incorporation into the
Authority’s database of transportation projects)
YES NO
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 or qualified for adoption of
alternative mitigation measures because it has a small employment
base?
YES NO
8. Maintenance of Effort (MoE)
Has the jurisdiction met the MoE requirements of Measure J as
stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation
Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (as amended)?
(See the Checklist Instructions for a listing of MoE requirements by
local jurisdiction.)
YES NO
Compliance Checklist DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Page 5
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 C or Measure J funds?
YES NO N/A
10. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management
Element
Has the local jurisdiction adopted a final GME for its General Plan
that substantially complies with the intent of the Authority’s
adopted Measure J Model GME?
YES NO N/A
11 Adoption of a voterapproved Urban Limit Line
a. Has the local jurisdiction adopted and continually complied with an
applicable voter‐approved Urban Limit Line as outlined in the
Authority’s annual ULL Policy Advisory Letter?
. YES NO N/A
b. If the jurisdiction has modified its voter‐approved ULL or approved
a major subdivision or General Plan Amendment outside the ULL,
has the jurisdiction made a finding of consistency with the
Measure J provisions on ULLs and criteria in the ULL Policy
Advisory Letter after holding a noticed public hearing and mak ing
the proposed finding publically available?
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?
YES NO N/A
Compliance Checklist DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Page 6
13. Review and Approval of Checklist
his checklist was prepared by: T
Febru
Date
ary 7, 2012
Signature
r
amar Stamps, PlanneJ
Name & Title (p
4‐7823
rint)
925‐67
stamps@dcd.cccounty.us
jamar.
Phone Email
The council/board of Contra Costa County has reviewed the completed checklist and found that
the policies and programs of the jurisdiction as reported herei n conform to the requirements for
compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management
rogram. P
February 7, 2012
Certified Signature (Mayor or Chair)
. PIEPHO – DISTRICT SUPERVISOR MARY N
III SUPERVISOR
Date
Name & Title (print)
ary 7, 2012
Febru
Attest Signature (City/Town/County
NEAR – CHIEF CLERK
Clerk)
TIFFANY LEN
Date
Name (print)
Compliance Checklist Attachments DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Page 7
Note: This form may be downloaded in Word ® from www.ccta.net;
instructions for completing this portion of the Checklist are available at
http://www.ccta.net/EN/home/quicklinks/currentactivities.html
Compliance Checklist Attachments DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Page 8
Supplementary Information (Required)
1. Action Plans
a. Please summarize steps taken during the reporting period to implement the actions,
programs, and measures called for in the applicable Action Plans for Routes of Regional
Significance:
See Attachment A. Please note that Actions, Programs and Measures that do not include
Contra Costa County are not listed.
b. 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 standards in
the Growth Management Element and/or affected ability to implement Action Plan policies or
meet Traffic Service Objectives. Indicate if amendments were forwarded to the jurisdiction’s
RTPC for review, and describe the results of that review relative to Action Plan
implementation:
See Attachment B. The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment resulted in an
increase in peak‐hour traffic volumes in both the AM and PM per iods. Due to concerns from
a neighboring jurisdiction, the County adopted policy consistent with GMP cooperative
planning requirements and agreed to further study Appian Way (r oute of regional
significance). The study is currently underway. The GPA was ado pted by the Board of
Supervisors on June 7, 2011 (Resolution #2011/33).
2. Development Mitigation Program
a. Describe progress on implementation of the regional transportation mitigation program:
Contra Costa County has been implementing regional mitigation programs in West, Central,
East and South County Areas.
3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities
a. Please attach a report demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities
for all income levels.
Compliance Checklist Attachments DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporti
Page 9
ng Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
The State Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed the County’s
revised Housing Element in 2009 and found the element in full c ompliance with State
housing element law. (See Attachment C, letter dated March 2, 2010).
4. Traffic Impact Studies
a. Please list all traffic impact studies that have been conducted as part of the development
review of any project that generated more than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips. (Note:
Lower traffic generation thresholds established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply).
N/A – The County did not process any land development applicati ons that generated more
than 100 peak hour trips.
6. N/A
7. FiveYear Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Please list resolution number and date of adoption of most recent fiveyear CIP.
The CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (2012‐2018) was adopted January 24, 2012.
8. Transportation Systems Managem ent Program
Date of Ordinance or Resolution Adoption: January 21, 2003
Resolution or Ordinance Number: #2003/02
9. Maintenance of Effort (MoE)
Please indicate the jurisdiction’s MoE requirement and MoE expenditures for the past two
fiscal years (FY 200910 and FY 201011). See page 8 of the Instructions to identify the MoE
requirements.
MOE Requirement: $420,000
MOE Expenditures: $599,437 (2009/2010)
$621,536 (2010/2011)
$610,487 (2009‐2011 Average)
Compliance Checklist Attachments DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: _Contra Costa County_
For Fiscal Years 2011‐12 and 2012‐13
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2010 & 2011
Page 10
10. N/A
11. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management Element
Please attach the adopted Final Measure J Growth Management Element to the local
jurisdiction’s General Plan.
See Attachment F.
12. Adoption of a voterapproved Urban Limit Line
The local jurisdiction’s adopted ULL is on file at the Authority offices. Please specify any
actions that were taken during the reporting period with regard to changes or modifications
to the voterapproved ULL.
The County took no actions that resulted in a change or modification to the voter‐approved
ULL.
13. Other Considerations
Please specify any alternative methods of achieving compliance for any components for the
Measure J Growth Management Program
N/A
2010 AND 2011 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: LAMORINDA AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. Prepare letters of support to Caltrans, ACMA, CCTA, and MTC for continued improvement of HOV and transit capacity in I-80 corridor to reduce traffic pressure on San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo. San Pablo Dam Road The ratio of the peak hour travel time to the off-peak travel time (the delay index) should be no greater than 2.0 by the year 2010. 2010 WCCTAC, SWAT 9 I In 2009 the County, through participation on SWAT and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board, supported the inclusion of a new Action in the 2009 Update to the Lamorinda Action Plan, “Support operational improvements that increase throughput on I‐80 to discourage diversion onto San Pablo Dam Road”. 9 In 2009 Contra Costa County, through its involvement with the SWAT Committee recommended that the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project be high priority when seeking earmarks. 2. Seek grant funding to develop and implement signal coordination plan for 1) Camino Pablo between Miner Road and Brookwood and 2) and San Pablo Dam Road. San Pablo Dam Road The ratio of the peak hour travel time to the off-peak travel time (the delay index) should be no greater than 2.0 by the year 2010. 2010 City of Orinda, Contra Costa County 9 In 2009 the County, through participation in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board, supported the inclusion of the study of signal coordination of San Pablo Dam Road in the 2009 Countywide Transportation Plan. 3. Seek grant funding to develop signal coordination plan for Camino Pablo between Bear Creek Road and Ardilla Road that reduces blockage of side street access by through vehicles without significantly increasing the capacity for through vehicles. (All other locations on San Pablo Dam Road meet this TSO, but seek similar funding for other projects on San Pablo Dam Road, if appropriate.) San Pablo Dam Road The maximum wait time for drivers on side streets wishing to access San Pablo Dam Road or Camino Pablo should be no greater than one signal cycle length by the year 2010. 2010 City of Orinda, Contra Costa County 9 See Action #2. 4. Seek Measure “C” funding of HOV facility needs study for San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo Corridor. Study to look at need for, feasibility, and cost of installing additional park and ride lots and HOV bypass lanes at critical congestion points in the corridor. San Pablo Dam Road The average vehicle occupancy should be increased as much as possible, with an initial goal of achieving 1.30 by the year 2010. 2010 WCCTAC, SWAT 9 See Action #2. 9 In 2009 the County supported the inclusion of the Camino Pablo Carpool Lot project in the 2009 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan 9 In 2009 the County, through participation in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board, supported the inclusion of an HOV facility study on the San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo Corridor. 5. Maintain and improve Lamorinda School bus program service to Wagner Ranch School. San Pablo Dam Road Increase vehicle occupancy with an initial goal of achieving 1.3 persons/veh. 2010 SWAT, City of Orinda 9 None. 6. Local jurisdictions to work with San Pablo Dam Road The average bus 2010 Transit operators, local 9 None.
2010 AND 2011 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: LAMORINDA AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) transit agencies to resolve transit stop access and amenity needs as identified by the transit agencies. ridership for the bus lines in the corridor should be increased as much as possible, with an initial goal of achieving a weekday daily riders by the year 2010. jurisdictions, Contra Costa County 7. Work with AC Transit, BART, County Connection, WestCAT, and MTC to explore feasibility of service re-organization in San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo corridor and develop recommendations to increase frequency and connectivity of bus service for people traveling between City of Richmond, San Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole, and Orinda. Request annual reports from transit operators to WCCTAC and SWAT on their activities related to this action. Seek additional funds for public transit. San Pablo Dam Road The average bus ridership for the bus lines in the corridor should be increased as much as possible, with an initial goal of achieving a weekday daily riders by the year 2010. 2010 WCCTC, SWAT, City of Pinole, City of Richmond, City of San Pablo, Contra Costa County, City of Orinda. 9 None. 8. Install, where appropriate, bicycle lanes as part of roadway improvements along the corridor. San Pablo Dam Road Provide facilities to improve pedestrian and bicycle access with related safety enhancements along the corridor by the year 2010 2010 Contra Costa County 9 None. 9. Support added trip capacity on regional freeways that could divert traffic from Pleasant Hill Road. Pleasant Hill Road Improve existing peak hour peak direction delay Index by 10% by 2010. 2010 Lafayette, LPMC, and SWAT jurisdictions. 9 In 2009 Contra Costa County, through its involvement with SWAT, TRANSPAC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, included numerous actions in the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan to support fulfillment of this policy. 10. Support development of HOV lane programs on all freeways and regional routes where feasible. Pleasant Hill Road Improve existing peak hour peak direction delay Index by 10% by 2010. 2010 Lafayette, SWAT, and TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 9 In 2009 Contra Costa County, through its involvement with SWAT, TRANSPAC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, included a proposed Pleasant Hill Road traffic management plan which would support fulfillment of this policy. 11. Participate in the Regional Transportation Mitigation Program (RTMP) Pleasant Hill Road Maintain or increase the average vehicle occupancy to 1.2 by 2010. 2010 LPMC Jurisdictions 9 None.
2010 AND 2011 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: LAMORINDA AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 12. Seek funding for an auxiliary lane on eastbound SR24 Gateway on-ramp to Brookwood and continue completion of improvements to eastbound Brookwood off-ramp subject to specific design criteria. SR 24 A delay index of 2.0 or better between I-680 and the Caldecott Tunnel during peak periods in the peak direction 2010 LPMC Jurisdictions 9 In 2009 Contra Costa County, through its involvement with SWAT and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, included a project in the 2009 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan which supports the policy. 13. Support the Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore. SR 24 A delay index of 2.0 or better between I-680 and the Caldecott Tunnel during peak periods in the peak direction 2010 SWAT Jurisdictions 9 In 2009 Contra Costa County, through its involvement with SWAT, TRANSPAC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, supported amendments to the Strategic Plan which ensured the Caldecott Tunnel Improvement Project would continue to be fully funded. 9 In 2009 Contra Costa County, through its involvement with the SWAT Committee recommended that the Fourth Bore Project be a high priority project when seeking earmarks. 14. Monitor and evaluate the MTSOs for all Routes of Regional Significance every four years. Areawide Not applicable (no TSO for area wide actions) Not applicable. LPMC Jurisdictions 9 In 2008 and 2009 Contra Costa County, in all the sub-regional forums including SWAT participated in an Action Plan update which included a comprehensive review of regional routes. 9 In 2009 Contra Costa County, through its involvement with SWAT, TRANSPAC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, included a proposed Pleasant Hill Road traffic management plan which would support fulfillment of this policy. 15. Encourage expanded TDM programs to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation and increase overall vehicle occupancy. Promote TDM activities including ridesharing, casual carpooling and BART pool using resources such as the SWAT TDM program and RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. Areawide Not applicable (no TSO for area wide actions) Not applicable. LPMC Jurisdictions 9 In 2009 Contra Costa County, through its involvement with SWAT and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, included projects (0036b, 0525, 1109, 0282a, 1130) in the 2009 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan update to continue funding of the Countywide TDM Program. 16. Support expanding transit service, including service between Lamorinda BART stations and adjacent communities, service on Pleasant Hill Road, service to Bishop Ranch and the Tri-Valley area, and service through the Caldecott Tunnel. Areawide Not applicable (no TSO for area wide actions) Not applicable. LPMC Jurisdictions 9 None. g:\transportation\measure j tracking\measure j tracking 2010-2011\draft docs\swat 10_11.doc
2010 AND 2011 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. Support the completion of a continuous HOV system on I-680. AREAWIDE Maintain minimum average speed of 30 mph on freeways and 15 mph on principal arterials, except for SR4 from the top of the Willow Pass Grade to the 242 exit for which the Peak Hour Travel Speed is 20 mph. 2010 All TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 9 None. Continue to support investment in and implementation of HOV lanes on I-680. I-680 Delay Index of 4.0 2010 All Transpac jurisdictions 2. Continue to monitor and evaluate operational improvements at freeway interchanges on I-680, SR-242, SR-24, and SR-4. Support the study and implementation of potential regional freeway management strategies. AREAWIDE For segments with a delay index (DI) of less than 2.0, maintain current levels. Improve segments with DI greater than 2.0, to 2.0 or better by 2010 except for SR4 from the top of the Willow Pass Grade to the 242 exit for which the DI is 3.0. 2010 All TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 9 In 2009 County staff participated in the Caltrans Corridor System Management Plan for all segments of State Route 4 from I-80 in West County to SR 160 in East County. 9 In 2010 County staff participated in the SR-4 Integrated Corridor Analysis. I-680 Delay Index of 4.0; Min. Pk. Hr. Avg. Speed of 30 mph; Areawide Vehicle Occupancy of 1.2 persons 2010 All Transpac jurisdictions SR-4 Delay Index of 5.0 from Cummings Skyway (WCCTAC boundary) to Willow Pass (TRANSPLAN boundary). This MTSO is expected to be revised upon completion and adoption of the Corridor Management Plan by TRANSPAC, TRANSPLAN and WCCTAC. 2010 All Transpac jurisdictions 3. Continue to support the completion of the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel (SR-24) AREAWIDE n/a 2010 All TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 9 In 2009 all studies were completed and Caltrans prepared to begin construction. 4. In cooperation with SWAT, TVTC, CCTA, Caltrans and the Alameda Congestion Management Agency, support funding and implementation of a comprehensive study and the evaluation of congestion management strategies in the I-680 Corridor between Central Contra Costa and I-580. The impacts of new and planned improvements in the corridor should be analyzed in this study or in a separate effort. The purpose of the(se) study(ies) is to evaluate the impact of new AREAWIDE Increase peak period work-trip average vehicle occupancy (AVO) to 1.2 by 2010. 2010 All TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 9 In 2008-2009 the County continued its participation in the Action Plan updates. The plans were completed and adopted by TRANSPAC and the other regional committees in 2009.
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) and planned improvements, alternative solutions to the growing traffic congestion in the corridor and to develop recommendations for effective traffic management. AREAWIDE n/a 2010 All TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 9 In 2008 and 2009 the County (and other agencies) worked with County Connection to develop a mobility management center for better use of existing public and private vehicle fleets, funded in part by grants from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 5. Promote the expansion and development of an effective transit network within and through Contra Costa County including feeder service to BART. Treat Boulevard Concord: Average Stopped Delays (signal cycles to clear) at the following intersections: • Clayton Road/Denkinger Road: 3 • Cowell Road: 5 • Oak Grove Road: 5 Walnut Creek: LOS F at Bancroft Road intersection. Contra Costa County: 1.5 v/c for all intersections. 2010 6. Support and promote subregional and employer TDM programs. AREAWIDE None 2010 All TRANSPAC jurisdictions. 9 TRANSPAC’S TDM Program administers and implements activities in support of the TDM Ordinances for the six Central County jurisdictions. 9 Ongoing, the County reviewed & approved TDM programs prepared by developers for new subdivisions. 9 Ongoing, the County funds and administers an agreement with CCCA to implement TDM program in the Pleasant Hill BART station area. 9 In 2011, the County approved a contract for work to complete the Contra Costa Centre Redevelopment Area wayfinding sign program. Treat Boulevard Concord: Average Stopped Delays (signal cycles to clear) at the following intersections: • Clayton Road/Denkinger Road: 3 • Cowell Road: 5 • Oak Grove Road: 5 Walnut Creek: LOS F at Bancroft Road intersection. 2010 County Concord Walnut Creek
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Contra Costa County: 1.5 v/c for all intersections. 7. Support the expansion of the TR@KS website/kiosk system as a component of an enhanced countywide transportation clearinghouse for the coordinated distribution of commute alternative information. AREAWIDE n/a 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and TRANSPAC 9 None. 8. Continue to support implementation of the Measure J Growth Management Program. AREAWIDE n/a 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and TRANSPAC 9 None. 9. Continue to support transit-oriented development around transit stations. AREAWIDE n/a 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and TRANSPAC 9 In 2008 and 2009 the County redevelopment projects were under construction. 9 In 2010, the County adopted Resolution 2010/341 to authorize the M-31 assessment district to levy and collect assessments for FY 2010-2011 for transportation demand management purposes. 10. Support better coordination of new growth with available infrastructure, preserve resource lands and open space. AREAWIDE n/a 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and TRANSPAC 9 In 2008 and 2009 the County participated via TRANSPAC in discussions with CCTA to simplify the development review process for general plan amendments and provide for a more efficient and useful process. 11. Continue to implement the Central Contra Costa Traffic Management Program within the TRANSPAC area and cooperate /and/ encourage participation by other RTPCs. AREAWIDE n/a 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and TRANSPAC 9 None. Ygnacio Valley Rd/ Kirker Pass Rd. Concord: Average Stopped Delays as follows: • Clayton Road/Kirker Pass Road: 3 • Alberta Way/Pine Hollow Drive: 4 • Cowell Road: 4 Walnut Creek: LOS F at both Bancroft Road and Civic Drive intersections. Contra Costa County: 1.5 v/c for all intersections. 2010 All TRANSPAC jurisdictions 12. Evaluate the need, timing and impact of parallel and new arterials accessing AREAWIDE 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and 9 The County participated in TRANSPAC discussions about a joint planning study with SWAT concerning travel demand and traffic management between the Lamorinda area and Central
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Central County. TRANSPAC County. 13. Seek funding for local improvements. AREAWIDE 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and TRANSPAC 9 In 2008 and 2009 the County sought additional federal funding to complete the financing for the Carquinez Scenic Drive Bay Trail project. 9 In 2010, the County adopted Resolution 2010/68 to submit a Transportation Development Act Grant Application to MTC for funds for the Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project. 9 In 2011, the County adopted Resolution 2011/41 to submit a Transportation Development Act Grant Application to MTC funds for the Clyde Pedestrian Path. 14. Work with Solano County Congestion Management Agency representatives continuing joint TDM Program efforts and ways to manage traffic in the I-680 and I-780 corridors. AREAWIDE 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and TRANSPAC 9 Ongoing, County staff continues to participate with other agencies on the CCTA/STA Congestion Management Agency Committee to coordinate improvements to the Benicia Bridge and the Carquinez Bridge. I-680 Delay Index of 4.0. 2010 All TRANSPAC jurisdictions 15. Include the needs of pedestrians & cyclists in the design, construction and maintenance of roadways, and widening projects, where feasible. AREAWIDE None 2010 TRANSPAC jurisdictions and TRANSPAC 9 In 2010, the County approved the Alhambra Valley Road Safety and Bicycle Facility Improvements project. 9 In 2010, the County approved the Iron Horse Corridor Public Information Element of the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program. 9 In 2011, the County completed the Alhambra Valley Road Safety and Bicycle Facility Improvement project. 9 See action #13. 9 In 2011, the County executed a contract to begin the design of the Clyde Pedestrian Path project. 9 In 2011, the County executed a contract to begin work on the Alhambra Valley Road Safety and Bicycle Facility Improvement Project.
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) I-680 Delay Index of 4.0. 2010 All Transpac jurisdictions 16. Pursue funding to implement regional and local pedestrian and bicycle plans and work with CCTA to assess the feasibility of developing a Countywide Bicycle Plan, which meets Caltran’s Bicycle Lane Account Planning requirements. Bicycle and pedestrian plans should address how to provide and/or improve access to regional activity and transit centers. Treat Boulevard, Pleasant Hill BART Station Concord: Average Stopped Delays (signal cycles to clear) at the following intersections: • Clayton Road/Denkinger Road: 3 • Cowell Road: 5 • Oak Grove Road: 5 Walnut Creek: LOS F at Bancroft Road intersection. Contra Costa County: 1.5 v/c for all intersections. 2010 County Concord Walnut Creek 9 None. 17. Support on going construction of SR-4 including provision of HOV lanes. SR 4 Delay Index of 5.0 from Cummings Skyway (WCCTAC boundary) to Willow Pass (TRANSPLAN boundary). This MTSO is expected to be revised upon completion and adoption of the Corridor Management Plan by TRANSPAC, TRANSPLAN and WCCTAC. 2010 County and Transpac jurisdictions dictions9 Ongoing: County contracts with CCTA for assisting with real property acquisition for the SR4 freeway widening projects. 18. Support traffic signal synchronization study. Ygnacio Valley Rd/ Kirker Pass Rd Concord: Average Stopped Delays as follows: • Clayton Road/Kirker Pass Road: 3 • Alberta Way/Pine Hollow Drive: 4 • Cowell Road: 4 Walnut Creek: LOS F at both Bancroft Road and Civic Drive intersections. Contra Costa County: 1.5 v/c for all intersections. 2010 All Transpac jurisdictions 9 None.
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 19. Pursue planning and seek funding to complete widening to 4 lanes Pacheco Blvd. Martinez: 15 MPH Average Speed in both directions in the AM and PM peak hours. Contra Costa County: 1/5 v/c for all intersections. 2010 County 9 None. 20. Pursue planning and seek funding for improvements at Pleasant Hill Rd/Taylor Boulevard Pleasant Hill RoadPleasant Hill: 15 MPH Average Speed in both directions in the AM and PM peak hours. Contra Costa County: 1/5 v/c for all intersections. 2010 County and Pleasant Hill 9 None. 21. Assess possible applications of the Central Contra Costa Traffic Management Program. Treat Boulevard Concord: Average Stopped Delays (signal cycles to clear) at the following intersections: • Clayton Road/Denkinger Road: 3 • Cowell Road: 5 • Oak Grove Road: 5 Walnut Creek: LOS F at Bancroft Road intersection. Contra Costa County: 1.5 v/c for all intersections. 2010 County Concord Walnut Creek 9 None 22. Ygnacio Valley Road / Kirker Pass Road (p. 44): Construction of a truck-climbing lane on Kirker Pass Road from Concord toward Pittsburg. Ygnacio Valley Road / Kirker Pass Road Concord: Average Stopped Delays as follows: • Clayton Road/Kirker Pass Road: 3 • Alberta Way/Pine Hollow Drive: 4 • Cowell Road: 4 Walnut Creek: LOS F at both Bancroft Road and Civic Drive intersections. Contra Costa County: 1.5 v/c for all TBD County 9 In 2009 the County asked that the project be included in the first Measure J Strategic Expenditure Plan, for the FY 2015 funding cycle.
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) intersections. G:\Transportation\Measure J Tracking\Measure J Tracking 2010-2011\Draft Docs\Action Plans\1-24-12\TRANSPAC_ActionPln 10_11 rev1-24.doc
2010 AND 2011 AND MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPLAN AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. Implement Regional Highway Transportation Facility Improvements: Pursue an aggressive campaign to implement the following East County highway transportation projects: SR 4 widening from Loveridge Road to SR 4 Bypass; James Donlon Blvd Extension (previously know as the Buchanan Road Bypass); SR 4 widening through Oakley, Brentwood, Byron and Discovery Bay; West Leland Road extension to Willow Pass Road in Concord; and capacity enhancements in future State Route 84 and 239 Corridors. SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 BYPASS; SR 4 NON-FREEWAY; BYRON HIGHWAY. The Delay Index should not exceed 2.5 during the AM or PM Peak Period for this facility. The HOV lane utilization should exceed 600 vehicles per lane in the peak direction at peak hour. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. SR 4 FREEWAY 9 Ongoing, the County continues its contract with CCTA for assisting with real property acquisition for the SR 4 freeway widening. 9 In 2009 the County approved the conveyance of real property at California Avenue and State Route 4 (SR4) to the City of Pittsburg (City) pursuant to Streets and Highway Code §960 for the SR4 Widening Project. SR 4 BYPASS 9 Ongoing, the County continues its contract with the State Route 4 Bypass Authority to assist in the Bypass design and construction work, including engineering services support and professional contract oversight. 9 In 2011, the County approved a cooperative agreement and freeway agreement for adoption of the SR4 Bypass. 9 In 2011, the County approved a revised cooperative agreement with Caltrans to have the SR4 Bypass transferred to the State. MARSH CREEK ROAD (east of Deer Valley Road) CAMINO DIABLO ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD (rural portion) Peak hour level-of-service (LOS) shall not exceed the mid point of LOS D for non-signalized rural roadways. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. MARSH CREEK RD, DIABLO ROAD, DEER VALLEY ROAD 9 In 2011, the County approved and authorized advertisement of the Marsh Creek Shoulder Widening Project. SR 4 NON-FREEWAY (SR 160 to San Joaquin County line)VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR (including Mountain House Road) 2010 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. BYRON HIGHWAY Peak hour LOS shall not exceed the mid point of LOS D for non-signalized rural roadways. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. NON-FREEWAY SR 4 9 In 2008 the County solicited letters of support from regional cities and agencies for a federal earmark request for the Vasco Road Safety Improvement project. 9 In 2008 the County executed a contract with Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers in the amount of $165,940 for civil engineering services on Byron Highway Shoulder Widening Project. 9 In 2010, the County approved the Vasco Road/Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements project. VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR 9 In 2009 the County executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Brentwood for the transfer of federal earmark funds to the County for the Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project. BYRON HIGHWAY 9 None.
TRANSPLAN AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 2. Continue Growth Mitigation and Monitoring Program: Implement a growth management strategy that reduces the traffic impacts of future development proposals in eastern Contra Costa County. Applying appropriate mitigation to development projects can result in development that minimizes impacts on regional routes and provides amenities that facilitate and encourage the use of non-automobile transportation. KIRKER PASS ROAD Signalize Suburban Arterial Routes: Peak hour v/c ration at signalized intersections should not be worse than 0.85 (mid LOS D) based on the Authority’s method of LOS analysis. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. 9 Ongoing, the County continued its participation in general plan review through the TRANSPLAN Technical Advisory Committee. VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR (including Mountain House Road) 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. 9 Same as above. MARSH CREEK ROAD (east of Deer Valley Road) CAMINO DIABLO ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD (rural portion) Non-Signalized Rural Roads: Peak hour LOS shall not exceed the mid point of LOS D for non-signalized rural roadways.2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. 9 Same as above. 3. Monitor and Update the East County Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee: Periodically review the sub-regional transportation mitigation fee that pays a portion of regional improvements, such as – SR 4 widening from Bailey Road to SR 4 Bypass; SR 4 Bypass; and other projects – which East Contra Costa County Regional Fee and Finance Authority (ECCRFFA) or other appropriate agency determines are necessary to implement the East County Action Plan and Growth Management Program. SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 BYPASS; BUCHANAN ROAD BYPASS SR 4: The Delay index should not exceed 2.5 during the AM or PM Peak Period for this facility. The HOV lane utilization should exceed 600 vehicles per lane in the peak direction at peak hour. Non-Signalized Rural Roads: Peak hour LOS shall not exceed the mid point of LOS D for non-signalized rural roadways. Signalized Suburban Arterial Roads: Peak hour v/c ratio at signalized intersections should not be worse than 0.85 (mid LOS D) based on the Authority’s method of LOS analysis. 2010 Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, County. 9 None. 4. Explore Rail Transit Options: Request the Contra Costa Transportation Authority lead an exploration of rail options together with other agencies such as BART, SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 NON-FREEWAY; PARALLEL ARTERIALS SR 4: The Delay index should not exceed 2.5 during the AM or PM Peak Period for this facility. The HOV lane utilization should exceed 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions, CCTA, TRANSPLAN 9 None.
TRANSPLAN AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, the San Joaquin Route (Caltrans), Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), and AMTRAK. 600 vehicles per lane in the peak direction at peak hour. Non-Signalized Rural Roads: Peak hour LOS shall not exceed the mid point of LOS D for non-signalized rural roadways. Signalized Suburban Arterial Roads: Peak hour v/c ratio at signalized intersections should not be worse than 0.85 (mid LOS D) based on the Authority’s method of LOS analysis. 9 Ongoing, the Board of Supervisors, through its representatives, continues to participate on the eBART Partnership Policy Advisory Committee which is guiding implementation of the eBART project. 5. Provide Intermodal Transit Centers: Develop East County BART, eBART, and other stations as Intermodal transit centers for East County. Planning efforts should also consider Amtrak, ferry and other modes. This will involve these two aspects: improve coordination and interface between all transit operators; and station area specific plans. SR 4 FREEWAY The Delay index should not exceed 2.5 during the AM or PM Peak Period for this facility. The HOV lane utilization should exceed 600 vehicles per lane in the peak direction at peak hour. 2010 County, Pittsburg, BART and Tri Delta Transit. 9 None. 6. Transportation Funding: Advocate for increased transportation funding at the Federal, state and regional level as appropriate. SR 4 FREEWAY; VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR; BYRON HIGHWAY SR 4: The Delay index should not exceed 2.5 during the AM or PM Peak Period for this facility. The HOV lane utilization should exceed 600 vehicles per lane in the peak direction at peak hour. Non-Signalized Rural Roads: Peak hour LOS shall not exceed the mid point of LOS D for non-signalized rural roadways. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions 9 See Action #1, pp. 1 and 2. 9 In 2009 the County amended the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement/Contribution Agreement with the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) for the use of Proposition 1B funds for Phase 1 of the State Route 4 Bypass. 7. Encourage Walking and Bicycling Transportation: Provide improvements that encourage transportation via walking and bicycling, such as: provision of sidewalks and bicycled AREAWIDE ACTIONS Not applicable (no TSO for area wide actions). Not applicable. All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions 9 In 2008 the County applied for a TDA grant for the Knightsen Pedestrian Path 9 In 2008 the County applied for a TDA grant for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Project. 9 In 2008 the County submitted an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $245,845 in funding from the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program for the Iron Horse Trail Pedestrian Overcrossing Project
TRANSPLAN AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) lanes or other facilities in conjunction with street improvement projects or new streets; and identification and elimination of physical barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel. at Treat Boulevard 9 In 2008 the County executed a contract with the California Department of Transportation, effective February 26, 2008, to accept grant funding in the amount of $511,000 for a term not to exceed three years, to construct a Class-2 bicycle lane on Viera Avenue, Antioch area. 9 In 2009 the County executed a Temporary Construction Permit issued by East Bay Municipal Utility District required for the construction of the Delta DeAnza Trail Gap Closure Project in the Bay Point area. 9 In 2009 the County executed a contract in the amount of $100,973.00 for the Delta De Anza Trail Gap Closure project in the Bay Point area. 9 In 2009 the County executed a Cooperative Agreement containing modified indemnification language, effective September 15, 2009, between Contra Costa County and East Bay Regional Park District for the county to provide funding up to $25,000 for the engineering study of the Great California Delta Trail project in the Bay Point and Clyde areas. 9 In 2010, the County adopted a resolution accepting as complete the contracted work for the Delta De Anza Trail Gap Closure project. 9 In 2011, the County approved a memorandum of understanding with the City of Pittsburg for the Bailey Road Improvement Project. 9 In 2011, the County adopted resolution 2011/410 accepting as complete contracted work performed for phase 1 of the Willow Pass Road Safety Improvement project. 8. Pursue A Jobs-Housing Balance in East County: East County jurisdictions should work on growth policies and programs to promote more employment development, to provide an opportunity for shorter East County commutes and use available transportation capacity in what is now the “reverse commute” direction. SR 4 FREEWAY The Delay index should not exceed 2.5 during the AM or PM Peak Period for this facility. The HOV lane utilization should exceed 600 vehicles per lane in the peak direction at peak hour. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. 9 The County continued its participation in the Inter-Regional Partnership with San Joaquin, Alameda, Santa Clara and Stanislaus Counties to improve the jobs-housing balance and reduce commute lengths. 9 The County initiated efforts to move forward with the SR 239 Interregional Corridor Study, in part because development of SR 239 will encourage major employers to locate in East County. 9 See Action #1, p.1 for Byron Highway. g:\transportation\measure j tracking\measure j tracking 2010-2011\draft docs\action plans\1-24-12\transplan_actionpln 10_11 rev 1-24.doc
2010 AND 2011 AND MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: TRI-VALLEY AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. None specified in the Action Plan Danville Boulevard LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County, Danville 9 County development review procedures will ensure compliance with TSO (now called Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objectives, or MTSOs). 2. Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. Camino Tassajara Road, East of Crow Canyon Road LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Danville, San Ramon & Contra Costa County 9 County development review procedures will ensure compliance with TSO. 9 3. An initial level of development of 8, 500 units may be constructed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agreement. Up to 11,000 units may be considered pending the completion of additional traffic studies as set forth in the settlement agreement. Camino Tassajara Road, East of Crow Canyon Road LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Danville, San Ramon & Contra Costa County 9 County development review procedures will ensure compliance with TSO. 9 4. Secure funding for operational improvements. Crow Canyon Road LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville 9 None. 5. Secure funding for widening to 6 lanes. Crow Canyon Road LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville 9 None. 6. Improve Camino Tassajara intersection (See Camino Tassajara). Crow Canyon Road LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville 9 None. 7. Improve geometrics of intersection of Crow Canyon/I-680 southbound off-ramp. Crow Canyon Road LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville 9 None. 8. Improve intersection at Sunset. Bollinger Canyon Road, East of I-680 LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon 9 Ongoing: the County continued to collect fees on new development to help finance this project. 9. Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, San Ramon, Contra Costa County, Danville control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. Bollinger Canyon Road, East of Alcosta LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon 9 Development Agreement adopted to ensure Dougherty Valley developers participate in funding. 9 See Actions #2 and 3. 9 The County continues to convene the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee with all affected jurisdictions, agencies and developers to monitor impacts of growth, including traffic impacts. 10. Improve intersection at Alcosta. Bollinger Canyon Road, East of Alcosta LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon 9 County development review procedures will ensure compliance with TSOs. 9 This project is complete, financed with the help of County fees on new development as noted above. 11. Complete extension project in conjunction with the development of Bollinger Canyon Road, East of Alcosta LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon 9 None.
SWAT: TRI-VALLEY AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Dougherty Valley. 12. Secure developer funding for planned widenings. Dougherty Road, North of Old Ranch Road LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville 9 Development Agreement adopted to require developers to fund their share of the widening. 9 See Action #2, 3and 12. 9 Planning study is complete. The County is discussing cost shares with Dougherty Valley developers to finance construction. 13. Put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. Dougherty Road, North of Bollinger Rd. LOS D at signalized intersections. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville 9 All three jurisdictions have adopted a Joint Exercise Powers Agreement (JEPA) in 1996 establishing a subregional traffic impact fee to fund this and other transportation improvements. 9 Ongoing: County development review procedures will ensure compliance with TSOs, which are now known as Multi-modal Transportation Service Objectives or MTSOs. 14. Pursue funding for auxiliary lanes. I-680, between Central Contra Costa County and SR 84 Maintain minimum average speed of 30 MPH and a delay index of 2.0 between Contra Costa County and SR 84 No more than 5 hours of congestion south of SR 84 2010 Contra Costa Co., San Ramon, Danville 9 The County in 2008-2009 continued participating in the Nexus Study update and development of a new strategic expenditure plan. That process was still in progress by TVTC as this compliance report was completed. 15. Support active promotion of regional ridesharing services and commute incentives. I-680, south of SR 84 Not applicable 2010 All TVTC Jurisdictions 9 Implemented TDM ordinances. 9 In 2008 and 2009 the County worked with County Connection to determine how to continue bus service in Dougherty Valley in light of greatly diminished impact fee revenues due to the housing slowdown. Alternative funding sources were being sought as this compliance report was completed. 9 In 2011, the County executed a Public Mass Transportation Service Agreement with County Connection to provide service hours on Route 135 in the Dougherty Valley. 16. Advocate Express Bus Service. I-680, south of SR 84 Not applicable 2010 All TVTC Jurisdictions 9 None. 17. Improve the operational efficiency of freeways and arterial streets through effective corridor management strategies. These strategies could include traffic operations systems and ramp metering, provided studies show that metering would effectively reduce overall delay within the corridor and not adversely affect operations of adjacent intersections. Provide HOV bypass lanes whenever space permits. Area Wide Not applicable Not applicable Contra Costa, San Ramon, Danville 9 The County participated in an update of the Central, East, Southwest Arterial and Freeway Ramp Metering Study. 9 The County participated in updating the Tri Valley Transportation Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. 18. (2000) Work to find sources of stable funding to support ongoing transit operations and to support new or Area Wide Not applicable Not applicable Contra Costa, San Ramon, Danville 9 In 2008 and 2009 the County worked with County Connection to determine how to continue bus service in Dougherty Valley in light of greatly diminished impact fee revenues due to the housing slowdown. Alternative funding sources were being sought as this
SWAT: TRI-VALLEY AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) enhanced express bus service. compliance report was completed. 9 In 2010 the County adopted a resolution (No. 2010/342) to establish a T-1 Transit Service Assessment District.
ATTACHMENT A 2010 AND 2011 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST WCCTAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. Prepare a letter to the Caltrans district director in support of a Caltrans planning study for the SR 4 / I-80 freeway connector. INTERSTATE 80 STATE ROUTE 4 Increase I-80 HOV lane usage by 10% between year 2007 and 2012. (I-80) Maintain a Delay Index of 3.0 or less on I-80 during weekday morning and evening peak hour. (I-80) Maintain LOS E or better on all segments of the route.(SR 4) By 2010 design the SR 4 Bikeway between the Bay Trail and Cummings Skyway. (SR 4) 2010 County, Hercules, WCCTAC 9 None. 2. Work with Solano County Vallejo Transit, Caltrans and MTC to obtain funding in Solano County for HOV lanes on I-80 from I-680 to I-505, park and ride lots, and increased express bus service to the Bay Area. INTERSTATE 80 Maintain LOS E or better on all segments of I-80 during non-peak hours only. Ongoing WCCTAC, jurisdictions 9 Ongoing, County staff continues to monitor CCTA/STA Congestion Management Agency Joint Meetings 3. Utilize the I-80 ICM project to enhance the current Transportation Management System along the I-80 Corridor by using State of the Practice solutions to build an integrated, balanced, responsive and equitable system that will monitor and maintain optimum traffic flow along the network to regulate speed, reduce delays, and reduce incidents to improve the safety and mobility for all users. INTERSTATE 80 WCCTAC, Jurisdictions, Caltrans, CCTA, ACCMA 9 In 2008, the County adopted the I-80 Corridor Mobility Project Resolution of Support. 4. Pursue implementation of a STATE ROUTE 4 2010 County 9County staff has pursued this concept in discussions in several forums: in TAC discussions
WCCTAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) bikeway on the westbound portion of the SR 4 expressway. at WCCTAC, on the Advisory Committee for the Countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan under development by CCTA, and in comments offered by the County to the City of Hercules on its development plans along the corridor. 5. Work with the County CMA, CCTA and MTC to seek funding to develop a bike lane on San Pablo Avenue between the Carquinez Bridge and south of Macdonald Avenue in Richmond, develop bikeway links to the Bay Trail such as the Ohio Avenue Greenway, Wildcat Creek Trail, Pinole Valley Road and SR 4; improve bicycle access to the BART stations, and improve bike security/parking facilities at transit stations and local activity centers. SAN PABLO AVENUE Maintain LOS E or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions, BART, AC Transit, WestCAT 9 In 2009, the County initiated work on the North Richmond Specific Plan which will include improvements to the Wildcat Creek Trail. 6. Create truck access routes to the Richmond Parkway that minimize truck traffic through residential areas. Final improvements would be determined through the County’s North Richmond Community Enhancement and Circulation Project. RICHMOND PARKWAY Maintain LOS D or better at al signalized intersections on Richmond Parkway. 2010 (all) City of Richmond, Contra Costa County 9 In 2009, the County initiated work on the North Richmond Specific Plan which will add the North Richmond Truck Route to the County General Plan. 7. Utilize completed roadway alignment study of San Pablo Dam road between Appian Way and Tri Lane to adopt road design standards, a capital improvement program for infrastructure improvements, and zoning. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. Maintain LOS E or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. 2010 (all) City of Richmond, County 9 In 2010 the County adopted the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment. The County is pursing funding through CCTA TLC to develop the San Pablo Dam Road Streetscape Plan (b/w El Portal Drive and Appian Way), as well as utilizing Proposition 1b funding. 8. Seek grant funding from CCTA and MTC to study SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. 2010 WCCTAC, County, City of Richmond, City of San 9 LOS “E” achieved at 23 of 24 intersections (24 of 24 LOS “E” or better in the AM, 23 of 24 LOS “E” or better in the PM).
WCCTAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) access from side streets and intersection configurations in the residential and commercial portions on San Pablo Dam Road. Maintain LOS E or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. Pablo, County 9. Work with transit agencies and jurisdictions to resolve transit access and amenity needs as identified by the transit agencies. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2010 County, City of Richmond, City of San Pablo, transit operators 9 None. 10. Work with CCTA and MTC to explore service reorganization on San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo Corridor, develop recommendations to increase the frequency and connectivity of bus service for riders between Richmond, San Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole and Orinda with annual reports from transit operators, and seek additional funds for public transit. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions, transit operators. 9 None. 11. Coordinate any vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements with the findings of recently complete Downtown El Sobrante couplet study. Based on the finding s of this study, potentially add and coordinate signals in commercial core as well as improve pedestrian and bicycle access through installation of pedestrian SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2010 County, City of Richmond, City of San Pablo, Caltrans 9 See Action #7.
WCCTAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) crosswalks, traffic calming measures, school safety measures, and streetscape improvements. 12. Work with CCTA and MTC to seek funding for upgrading the Cummings Skyway / I-80 interchange, and widening Appian Way to four lanes from Valley View Road to Michael Drive. MAJOR ARTERIALS Maintain LOS D or better on all segments of regionally significant arterials. 2010 WCCTAC, Caltrans, jurisdictions. 9 In 2010, the CCTA, WCCTAC, Pinole, Richmond and the County agreed to execute a study to determine the feasibility of widening Appian Way to 4-lanes. The study is anticipated to be completed early 2013. 13. Encourage a planning study regarding the implementation of a Cummings Skyway bikeway. MAJOR ARTERIALS By 2010 provide a bikeway network along the regionally significant arterials. 2010 WCCTAC, County 9 None. 14. Monitor levels of service biennially. REGIONAL Maintain LOS D or better at all signalized intersections along Willow, Cutting, Carlson, 23rd, El Portal, and Richmond Parkway Ongoing Jurisdictions, Caltrans. 9 The County monitors level of service each year for some of its roads, on a rotating basis around the County. 15. Support efforts by Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to promote the removal of disabled vehicles from the roadway. REGIONAL Review each jurisdiction’s General Plan amendments and air quality requirements to ensure that they address growth management issues. Ongoing WCCTAC, jurisdictions, transit operators. 9 None. 16. Study the truck movements in West County to reduce impacts on local roads and to ensure efficient goods movement. REGIONAL Maintain pavement quality to at least 1999 levels. 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions, Caltrans. 9 None.
WCCTAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 17. Adopt General Plan components within each community that encourage jobs/housing balance, promote transit and livable communities public awareness programs, support preservation of open space and infill, encourage higher density residential commercial mixed use development, encourage transit friendly development and incorporate transit goals and policies supporting transit use in the circulation element. REGIONAL By 2010 achieve a drive alone rate of no more than 75 percent. 2010 Jurisdictions, WCCTAC 9 See Actions #7. 18. Work with BAAQMD to alert residents of air quality problem days with the “Spare the Air” campaign. REGIONAL By 2010 achieve a drive alone rate of no more than 75 percent. 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions. 9 The County continues to participate in Spare the Air for its major work sites. 19. Develop pavement management systems/schedules to manage and monitor pavement needs. REGIONAL By 2010 achieve a drive alone rate of no more than 75 percent. 2010 Jurisdictions 9 The County has developed such a system.
WCCTAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 20. Work with CCTA and MTC to actively pursue funding to restore AC Transit service to pre-1996 levels, improve cross-county service and coordination, expand bus service to/from Pinole Hercules/Crockett/Rodeo, procure and operate vehicles for expanded service and neighborhood feeders, improve service to new developments and emerging markets (aging pop.) and under-served markets (welfare to work, e.g.), reduce environmental impacts of transit operations, install bus signal priority systems, improve security at bus stops and on buses, provide and maintain bus stops, procure and install bicycle racks on all WestCAT buses, market and promote transit services. REGIONAL Increase transit ridership in West County by ten percent between 2005 and 2010. 2010 WCCTAC, WestCAT, AC Transit, jurisdictions.9 The County has had discussions with AC Transit on expanding services in the unincorporated areas of West County. It is hoped that the County’s Redevelopment Plan for the Rodeo Downtown/Waterfront area will help foster more bus service to and from Rodeo. 21. Seek MTC study to research the feasibility and impacts of using high-speed ferries and developing other ferry corridors such as Berkeley/Albany, Rodeo, and Martinez/Benicia. REGIONAL By 2010, achieve daily ridership of 500 ferry passengers on the Richmond-San Francisco ferry line. 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions 9 None. 22. Monitor regional bicycle demand including AC Transit bicycle rack and ferry usage. REGIONAL By 2010 increase the pedestrian and bicycle mode splits to three percent for commute trips. 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions, Caltrans, AC Transit, BART, WestCAT 9 None. 23. Work with CCTA and MTC to seek funding for improved bicycle infrastructure and amenities (as proposed in the future West County Bikeway Plan), complete the San REGIONAL By 2010 increase the pedestrian and bicycle mode splits to three percent for commute trips. 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions, Caltrans 9 In 2010, the County submitted applications for Transportation Development Act Grant funds to MTC for the Montalvin Manor Pedestrian and Transit Access Improvements project. 9 In 2011, the County adopted resolution 2011/41 to submit a Transportation Development Act Grant Application for funds to construct the North Richmond Railroad Pedestrian Crossing project.
WCCTAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation Status as of December 31, 2011 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Francisco Bay Trail between Alameda County and the Carquinez Bridge, install pedestrian improvements, and provide landscaping enhancements such as tree planting and landscaped medians. 9 In 2011, the County approved the pedestrian and transit improvements along San Pablo Avenue and Kay Road in the Montalvin Manor Redevelopment Project Area. 9 In 2011, the County awarded a contract for the construction of the Market Avenue Sidewalk Improvements project. 24. Accelerate ADA compliance for pedestrians (e.g., improvements for the visually impaired). REGIONAL 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions 9 None. 25. Work with schools/districts to prepare a needs assessment of the sidewalk and bicycle facilities along school routes to promote safe access to schools. REGIONAL By 2010 improve bicycle and pedestrian routes to schools. 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions 9 In 2008, the County Health Services Department worked with the cities and West Contra Costa Unified School District to implement the West Contra Costa Safe Routes to School Program. 26. Work with schools/districts and Caltrans to actively pursue Safe Routes to Schools funding. REGIONAL By 2010 improve bicycle and pedestrian routes to schools. 2010 WCCTAC, jurisdictions 9 See the above action. g:\transportation\measure j tracking\measure j tracking 2010-2011\draft docs\action plans\1-24-12\wcctac_actionpln 10_11 rev 1-24.doc
Attachment B
General Plan Amendments 2010 and 2011
General Plan Amendments
Meet Growth
Management
Element
Standards Meet TSOs
RTPC
Reviewed
(GPAs)
Results of
RTPC Review
(GPAs)
1 Name: Downtown El Sobrante General Plan
Amendment
Location: El Sobrante
Applicant: Contra Costa County
County File: GP02-0003
Description: Revise the Land Use Element and the
Transportation-Circulation Element, including adding
new Mixed Use land use designations and additional
policies for El Sobrante area and removal of a planned
six lane bypass couplet.
Adopted: June 7, 2011
Resolution # 2011/233
Calendar Year: 2011
Net New Peak Hour Trips: 1,839
Yes Yes Yes
Adopted policy
consistent with
GMP cooperative
planning
requirements to
further study
portion of Appian
Way corridor
2 Name: Blackhawk HOA General Plan Amendment
Location: Blackhawk
Applicant: Blackhawk Home Owners Association
County File: GP08-0003
Description: Re-designation of 1 acre site within a 6-
acres of Open Space (OS) designated area within
Blackhawk (volleyball court) to Office (OF) for a new
office for the homeowners association
Adopted: March 1, 2011
Resolution # 2011/79
Calendar Year: 2011
Net New Peak Hour Trips: none
Yes Yes Yes
3 Name: Safety Element Update
Location: countywide
Applicant: County
County File: GP08-0006
Description: Minor text amendment to the Safety
Element adding reference to newly adopted local hazard
mitigation plan
Adopted: June 28, 2011
Resolution # 2011/277
Calendar Year: 2011
Net New Peak Hour Trips: not applicable (n/a)
Yes Yes n/a
4 Name:
Location:
Applicant:
County File:
Description:
Adopted:
Resolution #
Calendar Year:
Net New Peak Hour Trips:
Attachment D
2001 Housing Element
Program Implementation Status 2001 Through 2011
Name of Program Program Goal Objective Deadline in
H. E. Status
1. Neighborhood Preservation Program
Improve the quality of
existing housing &
neighborhoods.
Disseminate information.
Rehabilitate 125 units.
Ongoing 287 homes rehabilitated
2. HACCC Rental Rehabilitation Assistance
Improve the quality of
the rental housing
stock.
Disseminate information.
Rehabilitate 120 units.
Ongoing 28 rental unit rehabilitated
3. Public Housing Improvement
Maintain and improve
the quality of the public
housing stock.
Maintain and improve 608
public housing units.
Ongoing Public housing units are
routinely maintained.
4. Weatherization Program
Assist homeowners and
renters with minor
home repairs.
Assist 250 households. Ongoing Approximately 2,500
households were assisted.
5. Code Enforcement
Maintain & improve the
quality of existing
housing &
neighborhoods.
Continue to implement
program.
Ongoing 750 – 1,000 residential cases
processed each year
County adopted a rental
inspection ordinance.
Approximately 200 units are
inspected annually.
6. Redevelopment Replacement Housing
Provide replacement
housing to lower- &
moderate-income
households.
Continue to facilitate the
development of
replacement housing as
required.
Assess
replacement
obligations
every 2-3
years
The RDA has met all current
replacement housing
obligations. The Orbisonia
Heights project in Bay Point will
meet its replacement
obligation.
7. Condominium Conversion Ordinance
Preserve the rental
stock & protect
apartment tenants.
Continue to enforce
ordinance.
Ongoing 44 unit apartment building in El
Sobrante converted to condos
in 2005
8. Preservation of Assisted Housing
Preserve the existing
stock of affordable
housing.
Monitor at-risk units.
Participate in preservation
of units. Conduct tenant
education.
Work to
extend term
of
affordability
for Byron
Park units by
2008.
Byron Park, El Cerrito Del Norte
and Riverstone (formerly
Meadows) Apartments were
refinanced and affordability
continued.
9. New Construction of Affordable Housing
Increase the supply of
affordable housing.
Assist in the financing and
development of 200
affordable units.
Ongoing Assisted in financing of 400
affordable units in the
unincorporated County, and an
additional 849 units in the
cities.
10. Development Agreements
Integrate affordable
housing within market-
rate developments.
Continue to implement
program.
Ongoing Willow development integrated
into Alamo Creek development
in Danville
Dougherty Valley affordable
and market-rate units under
development
Inclusionary Ordinance adopted
in 2006
2001 Housing Element
Program Implementation Status 2001 Through 2011
Name of Program Program Goal Objective Deadline in
H. E. Status
11. Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
Improve existing
housing and increase
supply of affordable
housing.
Assist in the acquisition
and rehabilitation of 50
affordable units.
Ongoing No rehabilitation projects other
than the Housing Authority
rental rehabilitation program
undertaken in the
unincorporated County during
the reporting period.
12. Second Units Facilitate the
development of second
units.
Facilitate the development
of 100 units.
Ongoing 2nd unit ordinance revised to be
consistent with AB 1866
13. Special Needs Housing
Increase the supply of
special needs housing.
Provide financial and
other incentives for the
development of housing
for special needs
populations.
Through the County
Agriculture Advisory Task
Force, develop
recommendations to
address farmworker
housing issues.
Ongoing ABC Apartments, El Sobrante –
9 apartments for
developmentally disabled adults
Villa Amador, City of Brentwood
– County provided HOME funds
to support 92 unit family
apartment building also funded
with J. Serna Farmworker grant
and loan funds
CDBG funds used to purchase
the 75 bed Concord homeless
shelter for single adults.
14. Accessible Housing
Increase the supply of
accessible housing.
Require inclusion of
accessible units in all new
County-funded
construction projects.
Ongoing ABC Apartments, El Sobrante –
9 apartments for
developmentally disabled adults
All new construction funded
with HOME/CDBG require 5% of
units accessible to those with
mobility impairments and an
additional 2% accessible to
those with vision and/or
hearing impairments
15. Homeless Continuum of Care
Meet the housing &
supportive services
needs of the homeless
Pursue development of
two transitional housing
facilities with 48
apartments.
Develop two
new
transitional
housing
facilities by
2003.
Garden Park, City of Pleasant
Hill includes 28 units of
transitional housing for families
– supported with McKinney Act
funds.
McKinney Act also used for
Lakeside Apts, Concord; Giant
Rd., San Pablo; and Villa
Vasconcellos, Walnut Creek
16. First-Time Homebuyer Opportunities
Provide additional
homeownership
opportunities.
Assist 80 low and
moderate income first-
time homebuyers.
Ongoing Bella Flora, North Richmond –
35 single-family homes for
lower income families sold
Willow, Danville – 127
townhomes for moderate
income families sold
Mortgage Credit Certificates –
approximately 300 issued
throughout the County.
17. Section 8 Rental Assistance
Assist very low-income
households with rental
payments.
Continue to provide
Section 8 assistance.
Apply for additional
vouchers.
Prepare PHAP
– Action Plan
annually.
HA prepares annual action plan,
supports 6,504 vouchers,
maintains waiting list of 3,595
families
6-2C
2001 Housing Element
Program Implementation Status 2001 Through 2011
Name of Program Program Goal Objective Deadline in
H. E. Status
18. Home Sharing Program
Provide for home
sharing opportunities.
Support appropriate
agencies offering shared
housing opportunities.
Ongoing No requests for support;
generally not a preferred
housing option
19. Sites Inventory Provide for adequate
housing sites.
In 2002, review and
evaluate densities for
vacant and underutilized
sites provide adequate
sites for the development
of housing for very low,
low, and moderate income
households. Initiate
program in 2003 to
increase underlying
densities on at least 10
acres of residential land to
Multi-Family High Density
Residential (M-29) to
provide affordable housing
opportunities.
Maintain sites inventory.
Ongoing Department updating the sites
inventory using County’s GIS
information.
7.5 acres in Bay Point increased
to up to 65 units per acre
31 acres in Bay Point increased
to 29 units per acre
Nove GPA (2/13/07) rezoned
30 acres from industry to MF
allowing up to 370 residential
units
20. Mixed-Use Developments
Encourage mixed-use
developments.
Offer flexible development
standards for affordable
and special needs
housing.
Ongoing Evaluating new mixed-use land
designation in El Sobrante to
enable commercial/residential
mix
Seeking community consensus
21. Density Bonus & Other Development Incentives
Support affordable
housing development.
Offer density bonuses and
other incentives for
affordable housing.
Ongoing Bella Flora, North Richmond
Proposed – Signature/Nove,
North Richmond
22. Infill Development
Facilitate infill
development.
Identify small vacant
multi-family lots with
potential for lot
consolidation.
Ongoing Through update of sites
inventory, DCD intends to have
website list of vacant land
w/residential zoning and
available public services.
Unsuccessfully sought
legislative change to CEQA to
provide the unincorporated
County the same infill CEQA
exemption provided to cities
23. Planned Unit District
Provide flexibility in
design for residential
projects.
Pursue P-1 zoning of
Rodeo and Bay Point
Redevelopment Project
Areas.
Promote P-1 zoning in
unincorporated areas.
Consider elimination of 5-
acre minimum parcel size.
Rezone
Rodeo and
Bay Point
Redev. Areas
by 2002.
Rodeo and Bay Point P-1 plans
are adopted. Montalvin Manor
P-1 is pending.
Parcels smaller than 5 acres
may be re-zoned to P-1 under
certain conditions
24. Planning Fees Reduce the cost of
development.
Offer fee deferrals,
reduction, or waivers to
developers of affordable
housing.
Ongoing Will implement State law to
provide fee deferrals to
affordable housing development
6-3C
2001 Housing Element
Program Implementation Status 2001 Through 2011
Name of Program Program Goal Objective Deadline in
H. E. Status
25. Streamlining of Permit Processing
Expedite review of
residential projects.
Require only Zoning
Administrator’s review of
projects with <100 units.
Expedite permit
processing.
Ongoing If no GPA or re-zone required,
project only needs ZA approval
26. Review of Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance
Ensure County
regulations do not
unnecessarily constrain
housing development.
Periodically review
Planning and Zoning
Code.
Ongoing
Amended Second Unit and
Density Bonus ordinances.
Adopted Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. Reviewing
Condominium Conversion
Ordinance
27. Anti- Discrimination Program
Promote fair housing. Support local non-profits
offering fair housing
counseling and legal
services. Carry out AI
recommendations.
Complete AI
by 2001 and
ongoing
provision of
services.
AI completed and re-adopted
with 2005/09 Consolidated
Plan. On-going support of local
non-profits offering fair housing
counseling and legal services.
28. Residential Displacement Program
Protect households
being displaced or
relocated.
Continue to implement
program.
Ongoing Displaced households in
Orbisonia Heights, Bay Point
being relocated in conformance
with State law.
6-4C
4-1
4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Element is to establish policies and standards for traffic levels of
service and performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and
flood control to ensure generally that public facilities consistent with adopted standards
are provided. By including this Element in the adoption of the General Plan, the County
intends to establish a long range program which will match the demand for public
facilities to serve new development with plans, capital improvement programs and
development impact mitigation programs. The intent is to ensure that growth takes
place in a manner that will ensure protection of the health, safety and welfare of both
existing and future residents of Contra Costa County.
The responsible management of growth in the County is key to preserving the quality
of life for current and future County residents.
This Growth Management Element is the culmination of a process which was created by
the Mayors' Conference and the County Board of Supervisors. The Contra Costa
Transportation Partnership Commission was established as a Transportation Authority
under State law (PUC Section 180000) to provide a forum for transportation issues in the
County and to propose ways to manage traffic congestion. By approving Measure C -
1988, the voters established the Transportation Authority, added one-half cent to the
County sales tax for the next 20 years to be used for transportation funding, and gave
the Transportation Authority the charge to implement a Growth Management Program.
That program requires the County and each city to develop a Growth Management
Element as part of its General Plan in order to be eligible to receive local street
maintenance and improvement funds generated by Measure C-1988.
This Growth Management Element complies with the model element developed by the
Transportation Authority and includes the sections required by Measure C - 1988 to be
part of this Growth Management Element. These sections (1) adopt traffic levels of
service standards (LOS) keyed to types of land use, and (2) adopt performance
standards maintained through capital projects for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities,
water and flood control. The Transportation Authority recognizes that facilities
standards, as are discussed in this Element, establish performance standards to be
applied in the County's development review process.
In addition to adopting this Growth Management Element as part of the General Plan
under Measure C - 1988, the voters of the County, in Measure C - 1990, reaffirmed
that growth management should be an integral part of this General Plan.
This Element is also adopted pursuant to the authority granted to local jurisdictions by
Section 65303 of the Government Code of the State of California, which states:
4. Growth Management Program
4-2
"The General Plan may include any other elements or address any other
subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relates to the
physical development of the county or city."
4.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
As indicated in Section 3, Land Use Element, the Growth Management Element works
closely in conjunction with the Land Use Element to ensure that development proceeds
in a manner which will not negatively affect facility and traffic service standards for
existing land uses. In this regard, it should be noted that developments which cannot
satisfy the assurances required by these standards should not be approved. By utilizing
this Growth Management Element to responsibly manage new development proposals,
the County will ensure that new development projects will bear their appropriate share
of the adverse burdens and impacts they impose on public facilities and services. As a
result, the Growth Management Element must be carefully considered together with
Land Use and other elements of this General Plan when assessing General Plan
consistency. The timing of the potential physical development contemplated in the
Land Use Element will in part be determined by the ability of developers to satisfy the
policies and standards described in this Growth Management Element. The Urban Limit
Line (ULL) and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard also work together with the
Growth Management Element to ensure that growth occurs in a responsible manner
and strikes appropriate balances between many competing values and interests.
In addition, this Growth Management Element contains implementing programs which
encourage new development to promote the goals and objectives of the Conservation
Element; the Public Facilities and Services Element; and the Housing Element.
Moreover, by establishing an interjurisdictional land supply and development
monitoring program, the Growth Management Element coordinates the implementation
of the County General Plan with those of the 19 cities in the County.
To carry out the goals and objectives of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
Plan, new development must demonstrate that the level of service standards of the
Growth Management Element will be met. Only in this way will the negative effects of
such growth be avoided. While it is anticipated that new growth will be able to mitigate
its potential impacts through development fees and other exactions, it is possible that
the timing of project approvals may be affected by the inability of individual
developments to carry its appropriate cost of full service increments needed to allow
further growth in a given area of the County. Thus, the improvements needed to
implement the Circulation and Public Facilities and Services Elements of the Plan will in
part be directly tied to, and dependent upon, the implementation of the Growth
Management Element. Similarly, implementation of the Land Use Element will only
proceed when it can be demonstrated that the growth management standards can be
met by new development.
Policies relating to this "Pay as you Grow" philosophy underpinning the Growth
Management Element can be found in the Transportation and Circulation Element, Overall
Transportation/Circulation Goals 5-E and 5-F, and in the Overall Transportation/Circulation
Policies 5-1 through 5-4. Related Land Use Element Goals 3-F and 3-H and Land Use
Policies 3-5 through 3-10 are also part of the policy framework which underlies the
Growth Management Element, and are integrally related to it. In a similar fashion, each of
the required growth management performance standards included in this Element is also
included in the Public Facilities and Services Element under the applicable goals and
policies listed for sewers, water, police, fire, parks and flood control.
4. Growth Management Program
4-3
4.3 TRAFFIC SERVICE STANDARDS AND FACILITIES STANDARDS
The basic unit of measurement of performance of an intersection or roadway segment
is called a Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a measure of the ratio of the volume to
capacity of a roadway or intersection and is expressed as a letter A through F. In
general LOS A describes free flowing conditions, and F describes very congested
conditions, with long delays. Routes of Regional Significance are those roadways which
carry significant volumes of through traffic, which neither begins nor ends within the
affected jurisdiction. They generally include Interstate Freeways and State Highways,
as well as local roads which, due to their location between job and housing centers,
carry significant volumes of intra-county trips. All other roadways are referred to in the
Growth Management Element as Basic Routes. Basic routes, and their signalized
intersections, are those to which LOS standards are applied in determining whether
proposed projects may be approved. The methodology used in determining if projects
exceed allowable LOS standards is the method established by the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority in its Technical Procedures.
At present, most Basic Routes in the unincorporated area operate at or better than the
LOS Standards specified in the Growth Management Element. Many Routes of Regional
Significance are below these standards, however, reflecting the fact that the trips are
not dependent upon land uses in unincorporated Contra Costa County, but are
cumulative with traffic generated by land uses located outside of the unincorporated
areas. Public Protection Facility standards contained in this plan are based upon the
1990 facilities to unincorporated population ratio. In the area of parks, for example,
the current unincorporated population to park acreage yields a ratio of less than 1 acre
per 1,000 persons. While certain developed areas of the County experience flooding in
the event of the 100-year flood, the County Ordinance Code collect-and-convey
requirements are applied to all new developments. Water and sewer services are
generally adequate for existing development.
For the purposes of establishing a Public Protection Facility standard, several factors must
be considered. Firstly, the unincorporated community of Kensington has established a
Community Services District which provides the full range of police services in the area,
and the Sheriff does not service this area. Secondly, the California Highway Patrol is
responsible for enforcement of the Vehicle Code on highways and County roads
throughout the unincorporated area. Thirdly, certain economies of scale enable the
Sheriff to provide patrol and investigation services in physical facilities substantially
smaller than a comparable series of cities would require, due to centralized
administrative services, crime lab facilities and other similar functions which numerous
cities would duplicate in each location. According to the Department, very little time is
spent by deputies in the stations; nearly all is spent in the vehicles on patrol; no clericals
are housed in the stations. In addition, the Sheriff also provides coroner services,
incarceration and criminalistics services. For these reasons, direct comparisons between
County facilities standards and standards that may be adopted by cities in the County are
not advised, since such comparisons would be highly misleading.
The computation of a Sheriff facility standard in this General Plan includes only patrol
and investigation services, adjusted for a marginal increase in centralized
administrative services. As of January, 1991, the County provides approximately 155
square feet of floor area per thousand population in six locations throughout the
County. In 1997, it became evident that the Sheriff’s Office needed to include support
facilities necessary to conduct patrol and investigation, which are now included in the
calculation of new square footage.
4. Growth Management Program
4-4
It should be noted that implementation of the goals of this Plan's various elements
depends not only upon the County's administration of the Growth Management
Program described below, but upon the interplay of several levels of government.
Federal and State funding for improvements to Basic Routes will be required to attain
and maintain traffic levels of service at designated levels. Finally, the County, the 19
cities, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
and the California Department of Transportation will all have to work cooperatively in
order to mitigate the negative impacts of growth upon the regional transportation
system to achieve the levels of population, housing and jobs anticipated by this Plan.
4.4 GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
GOALS
4-A. To provide for the levels of growth and development depicted in the Land Use
Element, while preserving and extending the quality of life through the provision
of public facilities and ensuring traffic levels of services necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare.
4-B. To establish a cooperative interjurisdictional growth monitoring and decision
making process in which each jurisdiction can share in the beneficial aspects of
new growth, and avoid its potential negative effects.
POLICIES
4-1. New development shall not be approved in unincorporated areas unless the
applicant can provide the infrastructure which meets the traffic level of service
and performance standards outlined in Policy 4-3, or a funding mechanism has
been established which will provide the infrastructure to meet the standards or
as is stated in other portions of this Growth Management Element.
4-2. If it cannot be demonstrated prior to project approval that levels of service will
be met per Policy 4-1, development will be temporarily deferred until the
standards can be met or assured. Projects which do not, or will not, meet the
standards shall be scheduled for hearing before the appropriate hearing body
with a staff recommendation for denial, on the grounds that the project is
inconsistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Growth Management
Element of the County General Plan.
4-3. Table 4-1 shows the performance standards which shall apply to development
projects. In the event that a signalized intersection on a Basic Route exceeds the
applicable level of service standard, the County may approve projects if the County
can establish appropriate mitigation measures, or determine that the intersection or
portion of roadway is subject to a finding of special circumstances, or is a Route of
Regional Significance, consistent with those findings and/or action plans adopted by
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority pursuant to Measure C - 1988. Mitigation
measures specified in the action plans shall be applied to all projects which would
create significant impacts on such regional routes, as defined by the Authority in
consultation with local agencies and as permitted by law. For the purpose of
reporting to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority in compliance with the Growth
Management Program, a list of intersections that will be reported on Basic Routes will
be prepared and maintained by the Conservation and Development Department.
4-4. The County shall institute an ongoing growth management program process, as
generally depicted in Figure 4-1.
4. Growth Management Program
4-5
4-5. For the purpose of applying the Traffic Level of Service standards consistent with
Measure C - 1988 only, unincorporated areas subject to the growth
management standards of this Element shall be characterized as Central
Business District, Urban, Suburban, Semi-rural and Rural as depicted in Figure
4-2.
4-6. Conformity with the growth management standards will be analyzed for all
development projects such as, subdivision maps, or land use permits. A general
plan amendment is a long range planning tool and is not to be considered a
development project or a project approval under the growth management
program.
Traffic
LOS Standards will be considered to be met if:
o measurement of actual conditions at the intersection indicates that operations
are equivalent to or better than those specified in the standard; or
o the County has included projects in its adopted capital improvements
program which, when constructed, will result in operations equal to or
better than the standard.
TABLE 4-1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Traffic Levels of Service Keyed to Land Use Type
Rural Areas: Peak Hour Level of Service of low C
(Volume/Capacity Ratio= .70-.74)
Semi-Rural Areas: Peak Hour Level of Service of high C
(Volume/Capacity Ratio= .74-.79)
Suburban Areas: Peak Hour Level of Service of low D
(Volume/Capacity Ratio= .80-.84)
Urban Areas: Peak Hour Level of Service of high D
(Volume/Capacity Ratio= .85-.89)
Central Business: Peak Hour Level of Service of low E
Districts (CBD): (Volume/Capacity Ratio= .90-.94)
Note: These terms are used solely with reference to the Growth Management Element performance standards.
Water
The County, pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity
responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development
and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall
require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can
be provided. At the project approval stage, (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.),
the County may consult with the appropriate water agency. The County, based on
information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate water
agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists
within the water system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or
(2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project
approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not
satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve
letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate water quantity and
quality availability.
Figure 4.1 Flow Chart of Growth Management ProcessCONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Page
4-6Land SupplyIdentificationDevelopmentMonitoringEvaluationPerformanceStandardsEvaluationInfrastructureConstraintsAnalysisJobs/HousingPerformanceEvaluationInterjurisdictionalCoordination andDecision-MakingProcessGrowthManagmentDeterminationsDirection ofImplementationProgramsDone Initially byGeneral PlanDone Annually5 year cycle5 year cycle5 year cycle5 year cycle5 year cycle5 year cycle
HERCULESHERCULESPINOLEPINOLERICHMONDRICHMONDMARTINEZMARTINEZCONCORDCONCORDPLEASANTHILLPLEASANTHILLWALNUTCREEKWALNUTCREEKLAFAYETTELAFAYETTECLAYTONCLAYTONANTIOCHANTIOCHOAKLEYOAKLEYBRENTWOODBRENTWOODSANRAMONSANRAMONDANVILLEDANVILLEORINDAORINDAMORAGAMORAGAELCERRITOELCERRITOSANPABLOSANPABLOPITTSBURGPITTSBURGCONTRA COSTA COUNTY05102.5Miles1:300,000Map Created on December 9, 2004Contra Costa County Community Development651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - N. Wing, Martinez, CA94553-009537:59:48.455N122:06:35.384WFigure 4-2 Level of Service Designations for Unincorporated AreasBay Area Rapid TransitFreeways and HighwaysRailroadsMajor RoadsIncorporated AreasUnincorporated AreasANTIOCHAlamoPage
4-7City Sphere of InfluenceCity LimitsSuburbanCentral Business DistrictUrbanRuralSemi Rural
4. Growth Management Program
4-8
Sanitary Sewer
The County, pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity
responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development
and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall
require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and
quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, (subdivision map, land use
permit, etc.), the County may consult with the appropriate sewer agency. The County,
based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the
appropriate sewer agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether
(1) capacity exists within the sewer system if the development project is built within a
set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other
mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to
their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific
project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate
sewage collection and wastewater treatment capacity availability.
Fire Protection
Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban,
suburban and central business district areas. Automatic fire sprinkler systems may be
used to satisfy this standard.
Public Protection
A Sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per
1,000 population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County.
Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood parks: 3 acres required per 1,000 population.
Flood Control and Drainage
Require major new development to finance the full costs of drainage improvements
necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. Limit development within the
100 year flood plain until a flood management plan has been adopted and
implementation is assured. For mainland areas along rivers and bays, it must be
demonstrated that adequate protection exists through levee protection or change of
elevation prior to development. Development shall not be allowed in flood prone areas
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency until a risk assessment and
other technical studies have been performed.
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
4-a Incorporate the performance standards outlined in Policy 4-3 into the review of
development projects.
4-b Work cooperatively with the 19 cities and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
through each of the Regional Transportation Planning Committees to define action plans
for mitigating the impacts of development on Routes of Regional Significance.
4-c Require traffic impact analysis for any project which is estimated to generate
100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips based upon the trip generation rates as
presented in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 6th edition,
1997, or the most current published edition.
4. Growth Management Program
4-9
4-d Require that during the review of development proposals, the traffic impact
analysis shall determine whether a project could cause a signalized intersection
or freeway ramp to exceed the applicable standard and shall identify
mitigations/fees such that the intersection or ramp will operate in conformance
with applicable standards. Development proposals shall be required to comply
with conditions of approval detailing identified mitigation measures and/or fees.
In no event shall Local Road Improvement and Maintenance Funds replace
development mitigation fee requirements, pursuant to Measure C-88.
4-e Establish through application to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and in
conjunction with the regional committees, a list of Routes of Regional Significance
and Intersections proposed for Findings of Special Circumstances. Proposed
projects affecting these routes and/or intersections will require alternate
mitigation as specified in Action Plans to be adopted by the Transportation
Authority, but in this respect only, shall not be subject to LOS Performance
Standards. Map 4-3 shows the Routes of Regional Significance as adopted by the
Transportation Authority in 2004. The County will assist in developing or updating
Action Plans for these routes (and for other roads if the Transportation Authority
revises the Routes of Regional Significance in the future.)
4-f In the event that any Basic Route does not meet adopted standards the County
shall consider amendments to either its General Plan Land Use Element, Zoning,
Capital Improvement program or other relevant plans or policies in order to attain
the standards. If this is not feasible for the reasons specified in the Transportation
Authority's "Implementation Guide: Traffic Level of Service Standards and
Programs for Routes of Regional Significance" application for findings of special
circumstances shall be made to the Transportation Authority. Such application
shall include alternative proposed standards and mitigation measures.
4-g Capital projects sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain and
improve traffic operations will be specified in a five year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). Funding sources for such projects, as well as intended project
phasing, if any, shall be generally identified in the CIP.
4-h The County will participate in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Conflict
Resolution Process as needed to resolve disputes related to the development
and implementation of Action Plans and other programs described in the
Transportation Authority's Model Growth Management Element.
4-i The County will implement specified local actions in a timely manner, consistent
with adopted action plans.
4-j As part of its program to attain Traffic Service levels, the County shall continue
to implement its Transportation Demand Management Ordinance.
4-k No development project (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.) shall be
approved unless findings of consistency have been made with respect to Policy 4-
3.
4-l The County will adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that new
development pays its fair share of the cost of providing police, fire, parks, water,
sewer and flood control facilities.
VascoRdVascoRdMarshCreekRdMarshCreekRdCaminoTassajaraCaminoTassajaraCaminoTassajaraCaminoTassajaraWalnut BlvdWalnut Blvd
ClaytonRdClaytonRdDamRdDamRdS a n P ab loS a n P ab loKirkerPassRdKirkerPassRdRailroadAveRailroadAveBalfourRdBalfourRdLoneTreeWayLoneTreeWayB y ro n H w y
B y ro n H w y
CrowCanyonRdCrowCanyonRdBollingerCanyonRdBollingerCanyonRdCutting BlvdCutting BlvdSanPabloAveSanPabloAveRichmondRichmondGarrard BlvdGarrard BlvdParkwayParkway23rdSt23rdStA lh a m braAve
A lh a m braAve YgnacioValleyRdYgnacioValleyRdTreatBlvdTreatBlvdGeary RdGeary RdPachecoBlvdPachecoBlvdBuchanan RdBuchanan RdWillow Pass RdWillow Pass RdE18thStE18thStCONTRA COSTA COUNTY05102.5Miles1:300,000Co ntra Cost a Bl v d
Co ntra Cost a Bl v d
D o u g h e r t y Rd
D o u g h e r t y Rd Map Created on August, 23 2004Contra Costa County Community Development651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - N. Wing, Martinez, CA94553-009537:59:48.455N122:06:35.384WC u m m in g s S kywayC u m m in g s S kywayTaylorBlvdTaylorBlvdDeerValleyRdDeerValleyRdSta t e R o u t e 4 B y p a s s
Sta t e R o u t e 4 B y p a s s
Figure 4-3 Routes of Regional Significance
S a n P a b lo A v e
S a n P a b lo A v e
D anville B lvd
D anville B lvd
Page
4-10JohnMuirParkwayJohnMuirParkwayAppianWay
A p p i a n W a yHillcres tAveHillcrestAveCaminoDiabloCaminoDiabloJamesDonlonBlvdJamesDonlonBlvdSomersvilleRdSomersvilleRdLelandRdLelandRdBuchananRdBypassBuchananRdBypassSandCreekRdSandCreekRdDallas Ranch R dDallasRanchRd
Main StMainSt Brentwood BlvdBrentwoodBlvd CaliforniaDeltaHwyCaliforniaDeltaHwyPleasantHillRdPleasantHillRdCa rlson
Blvd
Ca rlson
Blvd CentralAveCentralAveElPortalDrElPortalDrP a r k e r A v e
P a r k e r A v e
S a n R a m o n V a lle y B lvdS a n R a m o n V a lle y B lvdAlcostaAlcostaBlvdBlvdNMainStNMainStProposed Route of Regional SignificanceFreeway (Route of Regional Significance)Other RoadRoute of Regional Significance
4. Growth Management Program
4-11
4-m The County will only approve projects after finding that one or more of the
following conditions are met:
(a) Assuming participation in adopted mitigation programs, performance
standards will be maintained following project occupancy;
(b) Because of the characteristics of the development project, specific mitigation
measures are needed to ensure the maintenance of standards, and these will
be required as conditions of project approval; or,
(c) Capital improvements planned by the service provider will assure
maintenance of standards.
4-n Capital Projects sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain levels of
performance shall be identified in the five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvements, and phasing, if any,
shall also be identified.
4-o All new development shall contribute to, or participate in, the improvement of the
parks, fire, police, sewer, water and flood control systems in reasonable proportion
to the demand impacts and burdens generated by project occupants and users.
4-p The County shall develop and carry out a growth management/monitoring
program as generally indicated in Figure 4-1, as follows:
(a) a land supply and development monitoring process;
(b) periodic review of performance standards and monitoring of infrastructure
constraints;
(c) interagency coordination and decision-making to provide information for the
first two tasks and successfully implement the overall growth management
program;
(d) a jobs/housing performance evaluation to determine their relative balance
within each sub-region of the County; and
(e) growth management determinations, a process which identifies growth areas
capable and incapable of meeting performance standards, and directs
resources to overcoming any constraints.
These components are described in detail below.
Adoption of Performance Standards
The first step in the growth management program process is completed upon the adoption of
performance standards for public facilities and services in this Growth Management Element.
Figure 4-1 shows the flow chart of the growth management process.
Land Supply/Development Monitoring Analysis
The second step in the growth management process, an analysis of land supply and
development monitoring, will commence at the beginning of each calendar year.
Annual status reports on the implementation of the General Plan and its Growth
Management Element will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors and City Councils
in June. This status report will fulfill the requirements of Government Code 65400 (b)
in the State planning and zoning laws, which requires that every city and county must
prepare an annual report to the City Council or Board of Supervisors and the State
which summarizes the status of the General Plan and the progress that has been made
in its implementation. The subsequent steps in the process, commencing with the
performance standards evaluation, will occur on a five-year cycle.
4. Growth Management Program
4-12
The land supply and development monitoring process is a two-part component
designed as the basis for the periodic re-examination of lands available in the County
for urban development. The availability of developable lands is then contrasted against
the actual rate of growth which has been measured over the most recent period. In
essence, this component is a land supply and demand tracking process. This process is
designed to work in tandem with the other four components (performance
standards/infrastructure constraints analysis, interjurisdictional coordination,
jobs/housing balance analysis, and growth management determinations) in order to
obtain an updated, working perspective of the current capacity of the County to
accommodate growth.
The land supply and development monitoring process is prepared in an objective
fashion by staff, using a set methodology defined and agreed to by the jurisdictions
involved (the County, the 19 cities, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
and the individual service providers). The re-examination of the land supply (initially
set by the General Plan Review Program) will occur on an annual basis, in concert with
the State Population Certification program which is already conducted by the County
and each city planning department.
Using a standard format and methodology should provide a high degree of confidence in
the process and the established annual schedule should alert the development interests,
city agencies, and special districts as to when their contribution will be critical. At the
beginning of each annual cycle, formal notification will be given to each of the cities
informing them that the land supply and development monitoring process is being
initiated and requesting their active participation and cooperation.
The Land Use Information System (LUIS), developed in 1987, and the more recent
Geographic Information System, provides the foundation for tracking overall land supply,
land absorption, and changing land uses in the County. The specific questions that must
be answered during this process with the use of the updated LUIS data system are:
o how many acres of vacant land in the County, specified by land use type, are identified as
available for development?
o what changes have occurred in these numbers since the previous evaluation?
o how many acres of underutilized or previously developed land are available for
redevelopment?
o how many acres of land County-wide have been identified as unavailable for development
based upon environmental, health and safety, public resource, or other conditions? The
County Conservation and Development Department staff will prepare a report which
examines the absorption rate (i.e. approved development projects) and the General Plan
Amendment requests that have been received. The report on the status of development
areas will rely upon residential and commercial/industrial building permit and other project
approval information from the cities. This permit approval and General Plan Amendment
application information will then be compared to the expected rate of residential and job
growth projected for the jurisdiction over the planning period by the respective General
Plans. The annual report will be forwarded to decision-making bodies for use in reviewing
further General Plan Amendments which would alter the land supply component.
Performance Standards Evaluation and Infrastructure Constraints Analysis
While the second component of the growth management program (land supply and
development monitoring) will be prepared on an annual basis, the final four components
will generally be performed only once every five years. Although these final four
4. Growth Management Program
4-13
components of the Growth Management Program will be comprehensively and formally
evaluated every five years, circumstances may necessitate evaluating and modifying the
standards during the annual review of the land supply and development component of this
Growth Management Program. If circumstances so necessitate, the Board of Supervisors
should consider all information before it, including the Land Supply/Development
Monitoring Analysis, fiscal constraints, and other information obtained through
consultation with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, before modifying the
standards. The data and analysis generated in the annual land supply and development
monitoring reports will be aggregated for use in the tasks outlined in the following
processes.
The intent of this third component of the growth management program, performance
standards and infrastructure capacity evaluation, is to re-examine minimum allowable
performance standards for development projects set in the General Plan, and to
determine the remaining available capacities of certain infrastructure facilities.
The growth management program for the Contra Costa County General Plan mandates
the establishment of infrastructure performance standards for several different services or
facilities, including circulation (traffic), sanitary sewage, flood control and drainage, water
supply, police and fire protection and emergency services, and parks and recreation.
These standards and policies attempt to define a quality of life by setting benchmark
indicators of the minimum levels of service required for specific urban services.
Every five years the performance standards would be reviewed by staff and the service
providers by examining prior experience and ability to serve. In addition, service districts
may be provided an opportunity to explain why certain standards are not being met and
to explore measures to be taken to alleviate the situation. This information would then be
used to evaluate whether the standards for the current review period were appropriate.
The second major task to be completed during this phase of the growth management program
is an evaluation of the remaining infrastructure capacity in various areas of the County. Part of
this evaluation will determine where and why certain existing urbanized areas are not being
adequately served. The assumption is that adequate infrastructure capacities can be
engineered and built to serve virtually any amount and location of urban growth within the ULL,
but that opportunities exist to plan for cost-effective and efficient growth in areas particularly
within the ULL, where underutilized infrastructure capacities already exist or where the
extension of services is relatively unconstrained compared to other areas.
The basic data requirements of this portion of the process include:
o a determination of the remaining capacity for each facility or service provider based
upon the defined performance standards, and identification of the geographic areas
that could be served by the capacity;
o an itemization of funded infrastructure improvement projects, their location and expected
date of completion, and the service area or population they are designed to serve;
o identification of urbanized areas with inadequate service, as defined by the adopted
performance standards;
o an itemization of the major capital improvements not now funded but needed to
bring existing areas into compliance with the performance standards;
o itemization of major capital improvements necessary to serve anticipated future
development at the adopted service level, and the cost of these improvements;
o identification of major physical, economic and/or environmental constraints to the
provision of service or facilities in a given area; and
4. Growth Management Program
4-14
o identification of possible sources of funding for the improvements.
The object of the data gathering is to illustrate where future growth can and cannot
occur without major investment in new or improved infrastructure systems, and to
identify the level and source of financing required. Additionally, the exercise will allow
the preparation of estimates of future required capacity based upon the performance
standards. One outcome of this process will be to provide up-to-date information
concerning where future growth is expected to occur, thus assisting in capital facilities
planning efforts.
To ensure that high density "leapfrog" growth does not occur, as a matter of policy,
this growth management program mandates that new urban and central business
district levels of development shall not be approved unless the development is within
the ULL and near existing or committed urban or central business district levels of
development.
Jobs/Housing Performance Evaluation
The purpose of this step is to provide a basis for assessing the jobs/housing balance
within each section of the County for the current five year review cycle, to assist the
jurisdictions in the sub-regions in determining preferred locations for residential and
employment growth, and to assist in focusing the direction of implementation
programs.
The jobs/housing balance evaluation is based upon the County's Land Use Information
System data base, augmented by the information provided in the development
monitoring evaluation. The evaluation considers growth in housing units and
employment and housing and employment availability, relative affordability and
commute patterns, and to the extent that the data are available, price of the units and
wage levels of the jobs added.
The jobs/housing performance evaluation will be used to identify areas where jobs or
housing should be stimulated and encouraged. It would also be used to provide
information about areas in which infrastructure deficiencies need to be corrected in
order to facilitate a better jobs/housing balance.
Interjurisdictional Coordination and Decision-Making
The growth management program outlined here will not succeed without the
cooperation and active participation of the County, the Local Agency Formation
Commission, the 19 cities, and the service providers. These agencies and cities may
view cooperation with the County's growth management program as a threat to their
local authority over land use or other growth issues. The County's efforts to achieve
cooperation must be aimed at persuading the cities and agencies that the growth
management program will ultimately enhance their ability to meet their own General
Plan goals. In addition, the County will participate in the cooperative planning process
established by the Transportation Authority for the purpose of reducing the cumulative
regional traffic impacts of development.
Interjurisdictional cooperation would not require all of the cities and agencies to adopt
the same goals, policies and implementation measures as will be included in the
County's General Plan and growth management program. However, it would be
desirable for the County to request that the cities and agencies adopt resolutions that
specifically recognize and accept the growth management program and its premise.
4. Growth Management Program
4-15
A key commitment by the jurisdictions involves the dedication of a relatively small, but
adequate, level of staff time to assist the County in gathering the required data for the
necessary planning studies. Additional commitments must be made on the part of
policy makers and staff to review the annual land supply and development monitoring
reports, consider them when making important planning decisions, and to actively
participate in the growth management determination process every five years.
Growth Management Determinations
Building upon the preceding components of the growth management program, the final
aspect of the process involves using the reports that have been generated to make the
important decisions about where future growth in the County should be encouraged in
order to minimize infrastructure costs and to enhance the overall level of "quality of
life." The process for making these determinations is as important as the
determinations themselves. The process can help to achieve consensus among cities
and the County (in consultation with service providers) as to appropriate amounts and
locations of new residential, commercial and industrial growth in the County. The
growth management determination process should include the following steps, several
of which are based upon information developed in the previous components of the
program:
o indicate on a County General Plan map the current city boundary lines, Spheres of
Influence, the Urban Limit Line and current service areas for all of the major
utilities/facilities;
o add to the base map information regarding improvements or extensions to service
systems that have been completed since the last review period or improvements
itemized in capital improvement programs, as well as constructed and approved
development projects and adopted General Plan Amendments;
o identify lands that have been determined to be undevelopable;
o identify on the map the geographic areas with infrastructure constraints and the
locations of development projects that have been unable to meet performance
standards;
o review the annual land supply and development monitoring reports in conjunction
with the performance standards and infrastructure constraints analysis reports to
determine whether an adequate supply of vacant land is designated for urban use
in the County and city General Plans, on both a Countywide and subregional basis,
to allow the anticipated amount of urban development during the remainder of the
twenty year period. This urban development must be subject to the 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard. (See Section 3, Land Use Element.)
o Determine whether adjustment to the urban limit line is needed in order to provide
sufficient land to accommodate anticipated needs.
Growth management determinations shall be made in consultation with the Transportation
Authority. In addition, it is anticipated that these growth management determinations will be
made in a series of joint meetings conducted on a subregional basis with representatives of the
cities. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the service districts should also be
consulted. Staff will present the base map and accompanying reports to the County and City
Planning Commissions, LAFCO and service district boards, with a request that the agencies
review the recommendations and make formal comments. After this review period is complete
and appropriate changes, if needed, have been made, the map and reports will be recirculated
to all of the jurisdictions in the County. The final action will be to request that the cities, LAFCO
4. Growth Management Program
4-16
and service providers adopt resolutions in support of the recommendations and to initiate any
General Plan Amendment hearings which may result from the review process.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions apply to the geographic terms used with respect to the Growth
Management Element only. The level of service designations for unincorporated County
areas are shown in Figure 4-2.
Rural. Rural areas are defined as generally those parts of the County that are
designated in the General Plan for agricultural, open space or very low density
residential uses, and which are characterized by medium to very large parcel sizes (10
acres to several thousand acres). These areas have very low population densities,
usually no more than 1 person per acre or 500 people per square mile.
Suburban. Suburban areas are defined as generally those parts of the County that are
designated in the General Plan for low and medium density single family homes; low
density multiple family residences; low density neighborhood- and community-oriented
commercial/industrial uses; and other accompanying uses. Individual structures in
suburban areas are generally less than 3 stories in height and residential lots vary from
about one fifth of an acre (8,000 or 9,000 square feet) up to 2 or 3 acres. Population
densities in suburban areas fall within a wide range, from about 1,000 to 7,500
persons per square mile (1.5 to 12.0 people per acre).
Urban. Urban areas are defined as generally those parts of the County that are
designated in the General Plan primarily for multiple family housing, with smaller areas
designated for high density single family homes; low to moderate density
commercial/industrial uses; and many other accompanying uses. Urban areas usually
include clusters of residential buildings (apartments and condominiums) up to three or
four stories in height and single family homes on relatively small lots. Many commercial
strips along major arterial road are considered urban areas.
Examples of urban areas in Contra Costa County are the older neighborhoods in
Richmond, El Cerrito, Pittsburg, and Antioch and the downtown commercial districts in
smaller cities such as Martinez, Danville, and Lafayette. Population densities in urban
areas are usually at least 7,500 persons per square mile (12.0 people per acre).
Employment densities in commercial areas may range up to about 15 jobs per acre.
Central Business District/Major Commercial Center. Central business districts or
major commercial centers are defined as those areas designated in the General Plan for
high density commercial and residential uses. They consist of either the downtown area
of a major city in Contra Costa County (Concord, Walnut Creek, and Richmond) or a
large business/office complex (such as Bishop Ranch or the Pleasant Hill BART station
area). These areas are characterized by large concentrations of jobs and consist of
clusters of buildings four stories or more in height. CBD's or major commercial centers
generally have employment densities.
EXHIBIT A
DETERMINATION THAT AN ACTIVITY IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTIY ACT (CEQA)
FILE NO. CP 08-04
ACTIVITY NAME: Adoption of 2012-2018 Contra Costa County Development
Mitigation Program: Capital Improvement Program for Parks and
Sheriff Facilities
PREPARED BY: Jamar Stamps DATE: January 24, 2012
This activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15061(b) of Chapter 3 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant
effect on the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
The adoption of a Capital Improvements Program for the provision of Parks and Sheriff
facilities in order to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Measure J-2004. No
significant change in the environment will result from the adoption of this program: all capital
facilities programmed are either fully committed or constructed, awaiting occupancy or are
undergoing separate environmental review. Projects which may be funded in the future
consistent with, or under this program, which are as yet undefined, will be subject to review
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
LOCATION:
Countywide in the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
Date: January 24, 2012 Reviewed by:
Conservation and Development Department Representative
G:\Transportation\Measure J Tracking\Measure J Tracking 2010-2011\Draft Docs\CIP_CEQA_2012.doc