HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02112014 - C.59RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. FIND that the proposed 2014-2020 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 2014-2020 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B), pursuant to the requirements of the
Measure J Growth Management Program;
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.
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 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 allocations of Measure J "return to source" revenue, estimated to be
approximately $2 million annually.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 02/11/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Jamar Stamps,
925-674-7832
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 11, 2014
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Stephanie L. Mello, Deputy
cc: John Kopchik, DCD, John Cunningham, DCD, Robert Sarmiento, DCD, Patrick Roche, DCD , Kara Douglas, DCD , Steve Kowalewski, PWD ,
Susan Cohen, PWD , Elizabeth Arbuckle, Sheriff-Coroner
C. 59
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Date:February 11, 2014
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Biennial Compliance Checklist and Capital Improvement Program for Measure J-2004 Growth Management Program.
FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D)
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:
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 submission of the Checklist:
1. CEQA review of the proposed 2014-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Parks and Sheriff Facilities;
and
2. Adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities, pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth
Management Program.
CEQA Analysis
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.
Development Mitigation Program
The CIP (see Exhibit B) is adopted pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program
and 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 2014-2020
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. The CIP is a
summary of Parks and Sheriff Facilities and was prepared as part of the County's Development Mitigation
Program.
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 projected to be sufficient to accommodate population growth
during this period.
The CY 2012 and 2013 Checklist covers the compliance reporting period from January 1, 2012 to December 31,
2013. The County has satisfied all Checklist requirements during the 2012 and 2013 CYs. Performance standards
for 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.
County voters approved an ULL in 2006 and the County complied with the provisions of the referendum during
2012 and 2013. 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.
County General Plan Growth Management Element and Measure J
In 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized actions to fulfill compliance requirements of the
Growth Management and Improvement Program for Measure J-2004 during the 2010-2011 reporting period,
which qualified the County to receive its FY 11/12 and 12/13 share of the transportation sales tax revenue
allocation ("return to source") for local streets and road maintenance. Following the board action, County staff
forwarded the Calendar Year 2010/2011 Growth Management Compliance Checklist to the Authority for review.
As part of their review of all Checklists, Authority staff compare the Growth Management Elements (GME)
submitted by local jurisdictions to the Authority's adopted model GME. At that time, the Authority's review of the
County's GME identified a need to include a correspondence table showing how the County's General Plan
complies with the Authority's adopted model GME. County staff submitted such a table to Authority staff on June
21, 2012. On July 10, 2012 the Board approved and authorized the correspondence table for inclusion in the
County's Checklist. The correspondence table is included as an attachment in Exhibit C.
On July 17, 2012 the CCTA Board reviewed and approved the County's checklist with the correspondence table,
signifying full compliance with the Growth Management Program and authorized release of the County's FY
12/13 share of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement ("return to source") funds in the estimated amount of
$2,056,708.
On October 15, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors authorized the General Plan Amendment study for the 5th
cycle Housing Element Update which will trigger a review and update of the County's Growth Management
Element to incorporate the correspondence table, pursuant to CCTA's letter dated July 25, 2013 (Exhibit D).
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 2013/2014 of "return to source" funds and §2105 state gas tax funds.
Funds will be available for allocation beginning June 30, 2014.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
No Impact.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: CEQA Determination
Exhibit B: Development Mitigation Program
Exhibit C: Checklist
Exhibit D: CCTA Letter 7-25-13
1
EXHIBIT B
Contra Costa County
Development Mitigation Program
2014 - 2020
Capital Improvement Program for
Parks and Sheriff Facilities
Pursuant to Measure J Growth Management Program
Prepared by
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development
January 2014
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, pursuant to the requirements of
the Measure J Growth Management Program. 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, 2014-2020 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, 2014-2020. 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 2014.
3
TABLE 1
PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA
AREA 1991-2014 2014-2020
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 2012. This
evaluation is based on population growth for the 1991 - 2013 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 $3,955 to $7,238 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 145 acres of new park facilities that
meet the neighborhood park classification. Actual park construction exceeded the growth
management standard by 48 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 2013
REQUIRED FACILITIES FACILITIES OPENED SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)
97 acres 145 acres 48 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 2013. The evaluation is based
on population growth for 1991-2013 time period and the square footage of Sheriff Facilities
opened as of 2013. The population growth between 1991 and 2013 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 2013
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 2014-2020 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 2014-2020 time period. A total of nearly 36 acres of
neighborhood parks are programmed for construction during that time period. As of 2013, the
County maintains a surplus of 48 acres (as previously shown in Table 2).
By implementing the Seven Year Program of Park Facilities from Table 4, the County would
maintain a 48 acre park facilities surplus by 2020.1
Sheriff Facilities: The projected growth during the 2014-2020 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 2013 is 16,041 sq. ft. This “surplus”
of facility capacity is sufficient to serve all growth projected to occur in the unincorporated area
by 2020, with approximately 14,158 sq. ft. of capacity remaining by that time. The formula
utilized to evaluate this need for facilities in 2020 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 2020 is detailed in Table 5.
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
4,500 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 6 Park Location Park Type Region Of County Total Acreage Acreage for Growth Mgmt. Compliance North Richmond Neighborhood West 0.30.3El Sobrante Neighborhood West 5.05.0Iron Horse Trail Pocket Parks Pocket Central 0.30.3Pacheco Community Park Community Central 5.05.0Vine Hill Park Neighborhood Central 2.02.0Big Oak Tree Park Neighborhood Central 0.10.1Bay Point Shoreline Ballfields Community East 5.05.0Byron Community Park Community East 5.05.0Bethel Island Park Community East 5.05.0Concord Ballfield Access Community East 5.05.0Bay Point Park Neighborhood East 3.03.0Total (rounded) 35.7 (36) 35.7 (36) TABLE 5 EVALUATION OF THE NEED FOR FACILITIES IN 2020 Projected Population Growth 2014-2020 Park Acres Required 2014 - 2020 (3 Acres/1000 people) Park Acres to be Constructed 2014-2020 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres from 1991-2014 Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres by 2020 12,150 36 36 0 48 48 Sheriff Facilities Required 2014 - 2020 (155 sq.ft./1000 people) Sheriff Facilities to be Constructed 2014-2020 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. from 1991-2014 Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. by 2020 12,150 1,883 0 (1,883) 16,041 14,158
7
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX AParkLocationAreaType of ParkTotal AcresAcres for Growth ManagementCompletion DateMontalvin ParkDenise DrMontalvin Manor/San PabloNeighborhood7.07.01991MonTaraBay Community Center and Ball Fields (Rehab)Tara Hills DrTara Hills/San Pablo Community Facility 4.04.01991California Pacific WaterwaysPorthole/FoghornByronNeighborhood5.25.21992Alamo Elementary School Park Livorna/WilsonAlamoNeighborhood3.12.51992Clyde ParkNorman/SussexClydeNeighborhood2.02.01992Fox Creek Park (Pleasant Hill BART) Las Juntas WayPleasant Hill Neighborhood0.50.31992Cornell ParkDisco Bay Blvd/Willow LakeDiscovery Bay Neighborhood10.010.01992Boeger ParkCaskey StBay PointNeighborhood0.60.51992Old Tassajara SchoolCamino Tassajara/Finley RdTassajaraCommunity Facility 1.01.01992Marie Porter ParkKilburn StreetClydeNeighborhood0.20.51992Rancho LagunaKnoll Dr/Camino PabloMoragaNeighborhood8.18.11993Brentwood Ball Fields (3)Sunset RdBrentwoodNeighborhoodn/an/a 1993Bettencourt RanchCamino Tassajara DanvilleNeighborhood6.02.51994El Sobrante Open SpaceCastro Ranch RdEl Sobrante Regional100.0n/a 1994Hap Magee Ranch Park (City/County) Camille AveAlamoNeighborhood17.28.01994North Richmond Ball Field3rd and Walnut CreekNorth Richmond Community Facility 8.04.01994Lefty Gomez Community Center and BallfieldsParker AvenueRodeoCommunity Facility 11.011.01995Diablo Vista ParkCrow Canyon/Tassajara RanchTown of Danville Neighborhood2.00.71996Marie Murphy SchoolValley ViewEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Olinda SchoolOlinda RdEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Valley View SchoolMaywood/MeadowbrookEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Sheldon SchoolMay/LaurelEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996El Sobrante ElementaryManor/MitchellEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996De Anza High SchoolValley View RdEl Sobrante Neighborhood4.02.01996Tradewinds Court ParkTradewinds CourtBay PointNeighborhood0.70.71996Livorna ParkLivorna/MirandaAlamoNeighborhood4.44.41997Laurel ParkLaurel Rd Detention BasinOakleyNeighborhood14.414.41998Rodeo Creek TrailWillow Ave/Parker AveRodeoNeighborhood1.02.51998Rancho Romero SchoolHemme AveAlamoNeighborhood5.45.42000Country Placen/an/aNeighborhood2.52.52000Andrew H. Young Danville Blvd/JacksonAlamoNeighborhood0.20.22000Maybeck ParkAmy LaneClydeNeighborhood0.10.22000Discovery Bay Westn/aDiscovery Bay (Rec Center)2.42.42002Discovery Bay WestLakeshore CircleDiscovery Bay Neighborhood4.04.02002Del Hombre RespiteTreat BlvdPleasant Hill Neighborhood0.70.72002Regatta Park (Tyler Memorial Park) n/aDiscovery Bay Neighborhood4.84.82002Silfer ParkNewport DrDiscovery Bay Neighborhood5.85.82002Viewpoint Park (aka Lehman) Sea Cliff PlaceBay PointNeighborhood0.10.12002Ravenswood ParkDiscovery Bay Neighborhood2004Diablo Vista Middle School Sports FieldCamino Tassajara/MonterossoDanvilleSchool15.015.02005Spears Circle ParkSpears CircleNorth Richmond Neighborhood0.50.52007Big Oak Tree ParkKilburn StreetClydeNeighborhood0.10.12008El Sobrante Children's Reading GardenAppian AvenueEl Sobrante Community Facility 0.20.22008Parkway Estates (Tot Lot)Malcom DriveNorth Richmond Neighborhood0.30.32011Pacheco Creekside ParkAspen DrivePachecoNeighborhood1.61.62011Clyde Pedestrian TrailNorman AvenueClydeNeighborhood0.53.82011Lynbrook ParkKevin Drive and Port Chicago HwyBay PointNeighborhood4.134.132013Hickory MeadowsWinterbrook and Summerfield DrBay PointNeighborhood0.370.372013Total261.7144.98
APPENDIX Bn/a 0 3,000 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 700n/a 0 n/a 1,100 1,1004,50025,53921,039Grand 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 ActivitiesBethel Island, 5993 Bethel Island Rd, Suite B Danville, 1092 Eagle Nest Pl - Patrol SubstationTotalGrand TotalTotalTotalByron, 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 FacilitiesMartinez, 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)Martinez, 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 - RecordsMartinez, 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)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 1/1/91As of 12/31/13AmountofSq 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 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 1
Note: Instructions for this checklist are available at:
http://www.ccta.net/EN/home/quicklinks/currentactivities.html
1. Action Plans YES NO N/A
a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the
applicable Action Plan for all designated Routes of Regional
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.
2. Transportation Mitigation Program YES NO
a. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a local development
mitigation program to ensure that new development pays its fair
share of the impact mitigation costs associated with that
development?
b. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented 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 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 2
3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities YES NO
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
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 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 3
4. Traffic Impact Studies YES NO N/A
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
established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply).
b. If the answer to 4.a. above is “yes”, did the local jurisdiction notify
affected parties and circulate the traffic impact study during the
environmental review process?
5. Participation in Cooperative, Multi‐Jurisdictional
Planning YES NO
a. During the reporting period, 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
Council/Board members at RTPC meetings.)
b. Has the local jurisdiction worked with the RTPC to develop and
implement the Action Plans, including identification of Routes of
Regional Significance, establishing Multimodal Transportation
Service Objectives (MTSOs) for those routes, and defining actions
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 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
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. Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program YES NO
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 providing
the improvements? (The transportation component of the plan
must be forwarded to the Authority for incorporation into the
Authority’s database of transportation projects)
7. Transportation Systems Management Program YES NO
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?
8. Maintenance of Effort (MoE) YES NO
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.)
Compliance Checklist ‐ DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 5
9. Posting of Signs YES NO N/A
Has the jurisdiction posted signs meeting Authority specifications
for all projects exceeding $250,000 that are funded, in whole or in
part, with Measure C or Measure J funds?
10. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management
Element YES NO N/A
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?
11. Adoption of a voter‐approved Urban Limit Line YES NO N/A
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?
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 making
the proposed finding publically available?
12. Other Considerations YES NO N/A
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?
Compliance Checklist ‐ DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 6
13. Review and Approval of Checklist
This checklist was prepared by:
February 11, 2014
Signature
Robert Sarmiento, Planner
Date
Name & Title (print)
925‐674‐7822
Robert.Sarmiento@dcd.cccounty.us
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 herein conform to the requirements for
compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management
Program.
February 11, 2014
Certified Signature (Mayor or Chair)
SUPERVISOR KAREN MITCHOFF
DISTRICT IV SUPERVISOR
Date
Name & Title (print)
February 11, 2014
Attest Signature (City/Town/County Clerk)
TIFFANY LENNEAR – CHIEF CLERK
Date
Name (print)
Compliance Checklist Attachments ‐ DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
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 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
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.
c. Provide a summary list of projects approved during the reporting period and the conditions
required for consistency with the Action Plan:
No projects during the reporting period required conditions to ensure consistency with the
applicable Action Plan.
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 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 9
The State Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed the County’s
revised Housing Element (HE) in 2009 and found the element in full compliance with State
housing element law. (See Attachment C and D, 3/2/10 letter and HE Progress Report).
b. Please attach the jurisdiction’s adopted policies and standards that ensure consideration of
and support for walking, bicycling, and transit access during the review of proposed
development.
Attached is the County's Complete Streets policy which ensures consideration of and
support for walking, bicycling, and transit access.
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).
Note whether the study was consistent with the Authority’s Technical Procedures and whether
notification and circulation was undertaken during the environmental review process.
Pantages Bays Residential Project (Fehr & Peers): 219 AM peak hour trips, and 295 PM
peak hour trips.
5. Participation
No attachments necessary.
During the reporting period, the County Board of Supervisors regularly participated in
Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) meetings. The County's
representatives to the RTPCs regularly reported on the activities of the RTPCs to the County
Board of Supervisors. The County has worked with the RTPCs to develop and implement the
RTPC's Action Plans. The County has applied the Authority's travel demand model and
Technical Procedures to the analysis of its General Plan Amendments and developments
exceeding specified vehicle trip thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation
system.
6. Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Please attach the transportation component of the most recent CIP version, if the Authority
does not already have it. Otherwise, list the resolution number and date of adoption of the
Compliance Checklist Attachments ‐ DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 10
most recent five‐year CIP.
The CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (2014‐2020) was adopted February 11, 2014.
The County is in the process of updating the Capital Road Improvement & Preservation
Program (CRIPP), which will be adopted in early 2014.
7. Transportation Systems Management Program
Please attach a copy of the jurisdiction’s TSM ordinance, or list the date of ordinance or
resolution adoption and its number.
Date of Ordinance or Resolution Adoption: January 21, 2003
Resolution or Ordinance Number: #2003/02
8. Maintenance of Effort (MoE)
Please indicate the jurisdiction’s MoE requirement and MoE expenditures for the past two
fiscal years (FY 2011‐12 and FY 2012‐13). See the instructions to identify the MoE
requirements.
MOE Requirement: $420,000
MOE Expenditures: $483,388 (2011/2012)
$635,647 (2012/2013)
$559,518 (2011‐2013 Average)
9. Posting of Signs
Provide a list of all projects exceeding $250,000 within the jurisdiction, noting which ones are
or were signed according to Authority specifications.
N/A
10. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management Element
Compliance Checklist Attachments ‐ DRAFT
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013‐14 and 2014‐15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Page 11
Please attach the adopted Final Measure J Growth Management Element to the local
jurisdiction’s General Plan.
See Attachment E. The Authority's review of the County's Calendar Year 2010/2011 Growth
Management Compliance Checklist identified a need to include a correspondence table
showing how the County's General Plan Growth Management Element (GME) complies with
the Authority's adopted model GME. County staff submitted said table to Authority staff on
June 21, 2012. On July 10, 2012 the County Board of Supervisors approved and authorized
the correspondence table for inclusion in the County's Checklist. The attached letter dated
7/25/13 confirms CCTA’s review and approval of the County’s report on progress toward
updating the GME to incorporate the correspondence table into the General Plan.
11. Adoption of a voter‐approved 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 voter‐approved ULL, which should include a resolution making a finding of consistency
with Measure J and a copy of the related public hearing notice.
The County took no actions that resulted in a change or modification to the voter‐approved
ULL.
12. Other Considerations
Please specify any alternative methods of achieving compliance for any components for the
Measure J Growth Management Program.
N/A
List if Attachments
Attachment A – Action Plan Reporting
Attachment B – General Plan Amendments
Attachment C – Housing Element Implementation
Attachment D – Development Mitigation Program
Attachment E – Growth Management Element
Compliance Checklist
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Attachment A
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. Support and seek additional funding for expanding transit service, including service between Lamorinda BART stations and adjacent communities in Central County, service on Pleasant Hill Road, service to Bishop Ranch and the Tri-Valley area, and service through the Caldecott Tunnel. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 2. Support BART and CCCTA strategies that enhance transit ridership and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage casual carpools for on-way BART ridership. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 3. Support bus headway reductions on routes providing service to the Bay Ponit/Colma BART line and reinstatement of direct service to important employment centers such as Pleasanton and Bishop Ranch. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 4. Support expansion of BART seat capacity through the corridor and parking capacity east of Lamorinda. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 5. Support augmentation and expansion of, and seek funding for, subscription bus service (flex van) to BART stations and high volume ridership locations such as St. Mary's College, to provide additional transit opportunities. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 6. Support expansion of BART seat capacity through the corridor and parking capacity east of Lamorinda. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 7. Seek funds to build and operate park and ride lots and associated BART shuttles in Lamorinda to encourage carpooling and transit ridership while reducing commute loads. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 8. Develop a Lamorinda Transit Plan to identify future community transit needs and to address the changing needs of the senior population. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 9. Support transit service that links Lamorinda bus service more directly to communities to the north and east of Lafayette. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 10. Encourage expanded Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation and increase overall vehicle occupancy. Promote TDM activities including ridersharing, casual carpooling and BART pool using resources such as the SWAT TDM program and RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 11. Support Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs at colleges and high schools. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 12. Implement the Spare the Air Program. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 13. Seek funding to construct park-and-ride lots along primary arterial roads approaching SR 24 throughout Lamorinda. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 14. Support programs and projects REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) that encourage students to take alternative modes of transportation to school to reduce demand on the roadway and increase vehicle occupancy rates. 15. Support a collaborative effort with the Acalanes Union High School District to promote and increase ridesharing and use of transit for travel to and from t he high schools in Lamorinda. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 16. Promote alternative work opportunities including employer pre-tax benefit programs, compressed work-week schedules, flex schedules and tele-work. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 17. In cooperation with Lamorinda jurisdictions, develop TDM plans and provide consultations to improve mobility and decreased parking demand for new development and redevelopment. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 18. Encourage "green" commuting including ZEV and NEV vehicles, clean fuel infrastructure and car sharing. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 19. Evaluate and seek opportunities to improve and/or build walkways/bikeway facilities between the Lamorinda BART stations and adjacent land uses and communities as outlined on the map included in the Action Plan. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions In 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of a memorandum of understanding with the cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek to support the conduct of the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study. 20. Support the development of regional bicycle facilities. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions In 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of a memorandum of understanding with the cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek to support the conduct of the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 21. Seek funding to provide bicycle parking infrastructure at employment sites and activity centers throughout Lamorinda. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 22. Support operational improvements that increase throughput on I-80 to reduce diversion of traffic through Lamorinda on alternative routes. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 23. Support multi-modal safety actions that encourage safe speeds with particular emphasis on access to schools. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 24. Pursue financial incentives to implement sound growth control strategies and support strengthening of growth management policies. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 25. Participate in the Regional Transportation Mitigation Program (RTMP). REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 26. Support continuation and expansion of Measure J return-to-source funds for road maintenance. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 27. Monitor and evaluate the MTSOs for all Routes of Regional Significance every four years. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 28. Establish reciprocity agreements with jurisdictions outside of Lamorinda to mitigate the downstream impacts of proposed new devlopment projects of General Plan Amendments that could adversely affect ability to achieve the MTSOs. REGION WIDE n/a 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 29. Seek funding for an auxiliary lane on eastbound SR 24 Gateway on-ramp to Brookwood and continue completion of improvements to esatbound Brookwood off-ramp subject to specific design criteria. STATE ROUTE 24 Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction (including freeway on-ramps) (2.5 after 2030) +10% daily ridership on public transit system (BART) 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 30. Support efforts of Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to implement an incident management program on SR-24. STATE ROUTE 24 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 31. Support HOV and transit improvements in the I-680 corridor to reduce single occupant automobile use on SR 24. STATE ROUTE 24 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 32. Support HOV and transit improvements in the I-680 corridor to reduce single occupant automobile use on SR 24. STATE ROUTE 24 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 33. Seek grant(s) to study 1) access from side streets and 2) intersection configurations in the residential and commercial portions on San Pablo Dam Road and make recommendations for improvements. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10% increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 34. Seek Measure J funding of HOV facility needs for San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo. 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. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 35. Local jurisdictions to work with the transit agencies to resolve transit stop access and amenity needs as identified by the transit agencies. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 36. Improve and/or add sidewalks and/or pedestrian pathways along San Pablo Dam Road. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 37. Install, where appropriate, bicycle lanes as part of any future roadway improvements to the corridor. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 38. Prepare letters of support to Caltrans, ACCMA, CCTA and MTC for continued improvement of high occupancy vehicle and transit capacity in the I-80 corridor to reduce traffic pressure on San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 39. Work with AC Transit, BART, County Connection, WestCAT and MTC to explore feasibility of service reorganization 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 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. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County, AC Transit, BART, County Connection, WestCAT, MTC None. 40. Support pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Camino Pablo, including BART access, to encourage alternative transportation modes, increase transit ridership, and reduce auto demand. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 41. Investigate appropriate mechanisms, including maintaing existing roadway lanes and widths and restrictive signal timing, to discourage use of San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo as a substitute for freeway travel. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. g:\transportation\measure j tracking\measure j tracking 2012-2013\action plans\swat 12_13.doc
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Encourage land use decisions that manage the increase of overall traffic demand: Continue to support implementation of the Measure J Growth Management Program. Continue to support higher-density development around transit hubs and downtowns. Continue to require each jurisdiction to: Notice the initiation of the environmental review process for projects generating more than 100 net-new peak-hour vehicle trips. For projects that require a General Plan Amendment, identify any conflicts with Action Plan MTSOs and then, if requested, present the analysis results and possible mitigation strategies to TRANSPAC for review and comment. Include the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in the design, construction, and maintenance of development projects. Continue to implement the TRANSPAC Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program. REGION WIDE n/a Ongoing TRANSPAC Jurisdictions None. Increase HOV lane usage: Support the completion of a continuous HOV system on I-680. Support consistent occupancy requirements for toll-free HOV lanes on the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and I-680. Support additional incentives for HOV users. Provide additional park-and-ride lots. REGION WIDE n/a Ongoing 2014 (Action 2-A) TRANSPAC Jurisdictions None. Work to improve freeway flow: REGION WIDE n/a Ongoing TRANSPAC In 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted resolution No. 2012/509 honoring the Caldecott Fourth Bore
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Continue to monitor and evaluate operational improvements at freeway interchanges on I-680, SR-242, SR-24 and SR-4. Continue to support the completion of the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel (SR-24). Support the study oand implementation of potential regional freeway management strategies. Consider a multi-agency approach to freeway ramp metering 2014 (Caldecott) Jurisdictions Medallion Design Competition winners. Manage arterial traffic flow: Seek funding for traffic and transit improvements along Regional Routes. Continue to implement the Central Contra Costa Traffic Management Program. Where feasible and appropriate, address the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists along Regional Routes. REGION WIDE n/a Ongoing TRANSPAC Jurisdictions None. Support an efficient and effective transit system: Support the development of real-time information and better connectivity for regional transit and local and feeder bus service. Promote coordination of transfer times among Express bus, feeder bus, BART, and park-and-ride lots. Support the expansion of BART service and BART station and parking facilities. Support the construction and maintenance of accessible bus stops, park-and-ride lots, and transit hubs. Support improvements that increase the efficiency of local transit on Regional Routes. REGION WIDE n/a Ongoing TRANSPAC Jurisdictions None.
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Support increased access to BART stations for buses and other alternative modes. Support innovative approaches to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit services for seniors and disabled persons through the allocation of Central County’s Measure J $10 million for Additional Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities. These funds are in addition to Measure J Other Countywide Programs and total $35 million in Central County. Support expansion and use of park-and-ride facilities using Express and local buses. Increase participation in the 511 Contra Costa Program to improve multi-modal mobility and decrease single-occupant vehicle use in Central County. Support the 511 Contra Costa Program to educate and encourage Contra Costa residents, students and commuters to use multi-modal alternatives by promoting transit, shuttles, carpooling, vanpooling, walking, bicycling, alternative work schedules and telecommuting. Develop TDM programs at K-12 schools and colleges to encourage carpooling, transit ridership, walking and bicycling. Promote alternative work opportunities including employer pre-tax benefit programs, compressed work-week schedules, flex schedules and telework. Encourage commuters to make REGIONA WIDE n/a Ongoing TRANSPAC Jurisdictions 511 Contra Costa In 20012, the Board of Supervisors authorized an application for Safe Routes to School funds for the Walnut Boulevard Pedestrian and Bike Safety Project. In 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of a contract with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to provide transportation demand management services for the Contra Costa Centre area, for the period of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) local trips or trips linked to transit by walking, bicycling, or carpooling instead of driving alone. Promote park-and-ride lot use to potential carpoolers, vanpoolers, and transit riders, including shuttle services, where applicable. In cooperation with Central County jurisdictions, develop TDM plans and provide consultations to improve mobility and decrease parking demand for new development and redevelopment. Explore innovative new technologies to improve mobility and reduce SOV trips. Seek funding to provide bicycle parking infrastructure at employment sites and activity centers throughout Central County. Encourage “green” commuting, including ZEV and NEV vehicle, clean fuel infrastructure, and car sharing. Continue to support investment in and implementation of HOV lanes on I-680. Continue to support planned improvements to the I-680/SR-4 interchange and to SR-4. Continue to work with Solano County to manage traffic in the I-680 corridor. Complete the I-680 HOV Express bus access stuyd funded through Regional Measure 2. INTERSTATE 680 4.0 Delay Index 2013 TRANSPAC Jurisdictions None. Partner with TRANSPLAN and WCCTAC to develop a Corridor Management Plan for SR4 from East County through Central County STATE ROUTE 4 5.0 Delay Index from Cummings Skyway (WCCTAC boundary) to Willow Pass (TRANSPLAN boundary). This MTSO is 2013 TRANSPLAC Jurisdictions None.
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) (boundaries to be defined) including connecting and/or supporting arterials. This process will identify an MTSO(s) for SR4, actions, projects and define an approach to managing arterials in the corridor. TRANSPAC, TRANSPLAN and WCCTAC jointly will seek funding for the Corridor Management Plan from CCTA and other available sources. Support improvements to the I-680/SR-4 interchange. expected to be revised upon completion and adoption of the Corridor Management Plan by TRANSPLAC, TRANSPLAN and WCCTAC. Assess possible applications of the Central Contra Costa Traffic Management Program. Complete Pacheco Transit Hub. Seek funding to widen Pacheco Boulevard to four lanes and make related improvements. Coordinate proposed improvements to the I-680/SR-4 interchange with surrounding arterials and local streets. Assess the need for improvements at the Pacheco Boulevard/Arnold Drive intersection. Work with Contra Costa County staff on coordination of the implementation of the Buchanan Airport Master Plan. PACHECO BOULEVARD 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. 2013 Martinez, Contra Costa County None. Work with SWAT/City of Lafayette on corridor issues and, if feasible, consider development of a traffic management plan and other operational strategies for Pleasant Hill Road. PLEASANT HILL ROAD Pleasant 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. 2013 Pleasant Hill, Contra Costa County None. Assess possible application of the TAYLOR Pleasant Hill: 15 MPH average 2013 Pleasant Hill, Contra None.
TRANSPAC AREA Relevant Action Plan Policy Route of Regional Significance Traffic Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implementation as of December 31, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Central Contra Costa Traffic Management Program. BOULEVARD speed in both directions in the AM and PM peak hours. Contra Costa County: 1.5 V/C for all intersections. Costa County Seek funding to improve vehicle, bus, bicycle and pedestrian access at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. 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. 2013 Concord, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County In 2012, the Board of Supervisors accepted the completed contract work for the Iron Horse Trail Pedestrian Overcrossing project in the Pleasant Hill/BART Station area (53% Federal Funds and 47% Redevelopment Funds). In 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved the license agreement between the City of Concord and the County for the City's use of a portion of the Iron Horse Corridor for a public trail north of Monument Boulevard to Mayette Avenue. Continue to support implementation of the East-Central Traffic Management Plan. Seek funding from Measure J/STIP for a truck-climbing lane on Kirker Pass Road toward East County. Seek funding to improve vehicle, bus, bicycle and pedestrian access at the Walnut Creek BART Station. 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 intersections. 2013 Concord, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County None. G:\Transportation\Measure J Tracking\Measure J Tracking 2012-2013\Action Plans\TRANSPAC_ActionPln 12_13.doc
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. Implement regional transportation improvements including SR 4 freeway widening, SR 4 Bypass, Buchanan Road Bypass, SR 4 non-freeway widening from Oakley to Discovery Bay, Byron Highway Corridor capacity increases, BART extension to Hillcrest Avenue. SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 BYPASS; SR 4 NON-FREEWAY; BYRON HIGHWAY. Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour (SR 4 Freeway and SR 4 Bypass) Delay index less than 2.5 (SR 4 Freeway, SR 4 Bypass and SR Non-freeway); less than 2.0 (Byron Highway) Level of service E (Byron Highway); D or better at signalized intersections and E or better at non-signalized intersections on non-freeway SR 4 Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. SR 4 FREEWAY In 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the execution of a contract to provide right of way services to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for the State Route 4 East Widening Somersville Road to State Route 160 Project. SR 4 BYPASS None. MARSH CREEK ROAD (east of Deer Valley Road) CAMINO DIABLO ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD (rural portion) Delay index less than 2.0. Level of service E. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. MARSH CREEK RD, DIABLO ROAD, DEER VALLEY ROAD In 2012, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Works Director to execute a construction contract in the amount of $378,520 with O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. for the Deer Valley Road Safety Improvements South of Chadbourne Road project. In 2012, the Board of Supervisors accepted as complete the contracted work for the Deer Valley Road Safety Improvements South of Chadbourne Road project. SR 4 NON-FREEWAY (SR 160 to San Joaquin County line)VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR (including Mountain House Road) Level of service D or better at signalized intersections. Level of service E or better at unsignalized intersections. Delay index less than 2.5 (from SR 160 to Balfour Road) and less than 2.0 (Balfour Road to San Joaquin County line). Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle during peak period. Delay index less than 2.5. 2010 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. BYRON HIGHWAY Level of service E. Delay index less than 2.0. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. NON-FREEWAY SR 4 None. VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR None. BYRON HIGHWAY None. 2. Implement a growth management strategy that reduces the traffic impacts of future development proposals in eastern Contra Costa County. KIRKER PASS ROAD Delay index less than 2.0. Level of service E. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR (including Mountain House Road) Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle during peak period. Delay index less than 2.5. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. MARSH CREEK ROAD (east of Deer Valley Road) CAMINO DIABLO ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD (rural portion) Delay index less than 2.0. Level of service E. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. 3. Periodically review the East County Subregional Impact Fee that pays a portion of three regional improvements: SR 4 widening from Bailey Road to SR 4 Bypass; SR 4 Bypass; and Buchanan Road Bypass. SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 BYPASS; BUCHANAN ROAD BYPASS Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour (SR 4 freeway). Delay index less than 2.5. Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, County. None. 4. Explore Commuter Rail Transit Options. Request CCTA lead an exploration of commuter rail options on existing tracks together with other agencies such as BART, Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, ACE, AMTRAK or others. . SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 NON-FREEWAY; PARALLEL ARTERIALS Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour (SR 4 freeway). Delay index less than 2.5 (less than 2.0 on SR 4 non-freeway between Balfour Road and San Joaquin County line) Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions, CCTA, TRANSPLAN None. 5. Intermodal Transit Centers: Develop East County BART stations as intermodal transit centers for East County. Involves improving coordination and interface between BART and bus transit; and Station area specific plans. SR 4 FREEWAY Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour. Delay index less than 2.5. Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 County, Pittsburg, BART and Tri Delta Transit. In 2012 the County accepted a report on the eBART study, a planning study evaluating an eBART extension into far East County. 6. Transportation funding: Lobby for increased transportation funding at the state or regional level. SR 4 FREEWAY; VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR; BYRON HIGHWAY Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour (SR 4 freeway and Vasco Road Corridor). 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Delay index less than 2.5 (less than 2.0 on Byron Highway). Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 7. Encourage walking and bicycling transportation: Provide improvements that encourage transportation via walking and bicycling, such as sidewalks and bicycled 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. AREAWIDE ACTIONS Not applicable (no TSO for area wide actions). Not applicable. All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions In 2012, the Board of Supervisors authorized an application for Safe Routes to School funds for the Canal Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project. In 2012, the Board of Supervisors accepted as complete the contracted work for the Viera Avenue Bike Lanes project. in 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Public Works Director to execute a consulting services agreement to provide transportation engineering services for the Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange project. In 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of Master Cooperative Agreement 13CO.02 with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to allow project funding through the Measure J Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities Program for the Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange project. 8. Pursue a jobs-housing balance in East County: 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 Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour. Delay index less than 2.5. Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. g:\transportation\measure j tracking\measure j tracking 2012-2013\action plans\transplan_actionpln 12_13.doc
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. None specified in the Action Plan Danville Boulevard Intersection LOS < .9 2010 Contra Costa County, Danville County development review procedures will ensure compliance with Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs). 2. Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. (p. 39) Camino Tassajara Road, East of Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections, except volume-to-capacity ratio of ≤0.9 at the intersection with Crow Canyon. 2010 Danville, San Ramon & Contra Costa County None. 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. (p.39) Camino Tassajara Road, East of Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections, except volume-to-capacity ratio of ≤0.9 at the intersection with Crow Canyon. 2010 Danville, San Ramon & Contra Costa County None. 4. Secure funding for operational improvements. Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.91 at intersections within San Ramon. Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections within Danville, except volume-to-capacity ration of ≤ 0.9 at the intersection with Camino Tassajara. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 5. Secure funding for widening to 6 lanes. Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.91 at intersections within San Ramon. Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections within Danville, except volume-to-capacity ration of ≤ 0.9 at the intersection with Camino Tassajara. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 6. Improve Camino Tassajara intersection (See Camino Tassajara). Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.91 at intersections within San Ramon. Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections within Danville, except volume-to-capacity ration of ≤ 0.9 at the intersection with Camino Tassajara. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 7. Improve geometrics of intersection of Crow Canyon/I-680 southbound off-ramp. Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.91 at intersections within San Ramon. Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 6. (Continued)
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) at intersections within Danville, except volume-to-capacity ration of ≤ 0.9 at the intersection with Camino Tassajara. 8. Improve intersection at Sunset. (p. 42) Bollinger Canyon Road, East of I-680 Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon 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 Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon 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 Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon None. 11. Complete extension project in conjunction with the development of Dougherty Valley. Bollinger Canyon Road, East of Alcosta Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon None. 12. Secure developer funding for planned widenings. Dougherty Road, North of Old Ranch Road Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 13. Put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. (p. 44) Dougherty Road, North of Bollinger Rd. Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville 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 None. 15. Support commute alternatives. I-680, south of SR 84 Not applicable 2010 All TVTC Jurisdictions None. 16. Advocate Express Bus Service. I-680, south of SR 84 Not applicable 2010 All TVTC Jurisdictions None. 17. Advocate HOV lanes from SR 84 to the Sunol Grade I-680, south of SR 84 Not applicable 2010 All TVTC Jurisdictions None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 18. 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. Area Wide Not applicable Not applicable Contra Costa, San Ramon, Danville The County participated in updating the Tri Valley Transportation Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. 19. (2000) Work to find sources of stable funding to support ongoing transit operations and to support new or enhanced express bus service. Area Wide Not applicable Not applicable Contra Costa, San Ramon, Danville None.
2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 1. Maintain pavement management systems/schedules to manage and monitor pavement needs. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 2. Seek funding for roadway maintenance. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 3. Acknowledge casual carpooling and work with local jurisdictions on specific issues (e.g. signage, marketing, transit coordination, drop-off and pick-up areas, and parking). Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 4. Develop a bicycle and/or pedestrian plan for West County using the update to the County-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan as a baseline for analysis. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 5. Continue to focus on ADA compliance for pedestrians (e.g. improvements for the visually impared). Area-wide Action n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 6. Work with CCTA and MTC to seek funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements to: Complete the San Francisco Bay Trail and connectors between Alameda County and the Carquinez Bridge. Close gaps in the pedestrian system through installation of improvements such as crosswalks, sidewalks, curb cuts, islands or “holding Area-wide Action n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions In 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and East Bay Regional Park District for the conversion and rehabilitation of a 1.7-mile segment of Carquinez Scenic Drive into a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail. In 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Public Works Director to execute a contract with Caltrans to continue the pedestrian improvement projects on Chesley Avenue and Market Avenue at the Union Pacific Railroad crossing.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) areas,” and bus shelters. Support streetscape enhancements, where feasible, and maintenance funding. Study bicycle and pedestrian safety enahcements at the Point Molate/Bay Train/Chevron property near the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll plaza. 7. Require project sponsors to routinely evaluate and address public and private project impacts on transit bus travel time and service affected on Routes of Regional Significance. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 8. Encourage adoption of General Plan components that: Support a jobs/housing balance. Support the preservation of open space and in-fill developments. Support high-density transit oriented development of residential, commercial and mixed use development, especially around rail stations and transit hubs. Incorporate transit-supporting goals and Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) policies in the circulation element, such as designation of a network of transit streets. Monitor development and implementation projects on or near the san Pablo Avenue corridor and the El Cerrito BART stations, as a designated ABAG FOCUS Priority Development Area. 9. Work with BAAQMD to alert residents of air quality problem days with the “Spare the Air” campaign. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 10. Work with schools/Districts to prepare a needs assessment of the sidewalk and bicycle facilities along school routes to promote safe access to schools. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 11. Continue support of Street Smarts Program to promote increase in public safety education and reduction in pedestrian and bicycle injury incidents and actively seek State and Federal Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit grant funding. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 12. Seek funding for installation of intersection signal emergency service vehicle preemption to permit faster response times. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 13. Work with CCTA, MTC, Caltrans, WCCTAC and WCCTAC jurisdictions to complete a West County goods movement study to reduce impacts on West County roadways and ensure efficient goods movement. Seek funding to study goods movement issues such as truck activity increases, truck and rail interaction, and designation of truck routes to address increased goods movement. Area-wide Actions n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 14. WCCTAC staff will prepare a Climate Change report specific to West County in coordination with the biennial Growth Management Compliance Checklist (with the collaboration of the member agencies – local jurisdictions and transit operators – and other transportation colleagues) for presentation to the WCCTAC Board through 2010. The Report will highlight the transportation and transportation-related actions that have been achieved that affect GHG emissions. Area-wide Action n/a 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 15. Create truck access routes to the Richmond Parkway that minimize truck traffic through residential areas. RICHMOND PARKWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Richmond Parkway. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 16. Participate in the planning and review of the proposed Point Molate Casino and Sugarbowl RICHMOND PARKWAY 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Casino in North Richmond 17. Plan and implement improvements identified by the North Richmond Truck Study adjacent to Richmond Parkway. RICHMOND PARKWAY 2013 WCCTAC, Richmond, Contra Costa County None. 18. Support improvement to the Richmond Parkway Bay Trail crossing at Wildcat Creek. RICHMOND PARKWAY 2013 WCCTAC, Richmond, Contra Costa County, San Pablo None. 19. Study potential roadway modifications to permit transit service improvements on Richmond Parkway and pedestrian crossings. RICHMOND PARKWAY 2013 WCCTAC, AC Transit, Richmond, Contra Costa County None. 20. Study traffic improvement and management options to discourage diversion from I-80 and encourage diverted traffic to return to I-80 on the next downstream feeder road. Clearly identify feeder roads to motorists that will take them back to I-80, particularly at Appian Way, Hilltop Drive, El Portal Drive, and San Pablo Dam Road. Include study of diversion traffic and reduction in diversion traffic as part of the I-80 ICM project and San Pablo SMART corridor. SAN PABLO AVENUE Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions, Caltrans In 2012, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Works Director to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans for the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project. 21. Work with CCTA and MTC to seek funding to: Develop bike route links to the Bay Trail SAN PABLO AVENUE 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions, BART, AC Transit, WestCAT, Contra Costa Health Services None.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) such as the Richmond Greenway, Wildcat Creek Trail, Pinole Valley Road, and John Muir Parkway as alternate bicycle facilities to San Pablo Avenue. Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to the West County BART stations. 22. Complete a corridor-wide specific plan for San Pablo Avenue through coordination of each partner jurisdiction, building upon the specific plans prepared by the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito as well as the County of Contra Costa (and potentially San Pablo). SAN PABLO AVENUE 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions, BART, AC Transit None. 23. Partner with ABAG on development of San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito del Norte BART station, Hercules New Town Center and Hercules Waterfront as well as other Priority Development Areas. SAN PABLO AVENUE 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 24. Seek funding for construction of completed plans for San Pablo Avenue SMART Corridor extension to Crockett. SAN PABLO AVENUE 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 25. Seek funding for SMART Corridors O&M. SAN PABLO AVENUE 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions, CCTA None. 26. Work with transit agencies and jurisdictions SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. Achieved in 2005 WCCTAC, AC Transit, Contra Costa County, None.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) to resolve transit access and amenity needs as identified by the transit agencies. Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. 2013 Richmond, San Pablo 27. Work with CCTA and MTC to develop recommendations to increase the frequency and connectivity of bus service for riders traveling between the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole and Orinda. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 WCCTAC, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo, Contra Costa County, AC Transit, BART None. 28. Seek grant funding from CCTA and MTC to study intersection configurations and signal coordination in the residential and commercial portions and San Pablo Dam Road. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 WCCTAC, Richmond, San Pablo, Contra Costa County None. 29. 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 2013 Richmond, Contra Costa County None.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) 30. Coordinate any vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle improvements with the findings of recently completed Downtown El Sobrante couplet study. Based on the findings of this study, potentially add and coordinate signals in commercial core as well as improve pedestrian and bicycle access through installation of pedestrian corsswalks, traffic calming measures, school safety measure and streetscape improvements. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 WCCTAC, Contra Costa County, Caltrans, Richmond, San Pablo, Contra Costa Health Services In 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved the San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project and authorized the Public Works Director to advertise the project. 31. Plan, design, fund and implement improvements to I-80/San Pablo Dam Road interchange. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Richmond, Caltrans, CCTA, Contra Costa County In 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of a contract with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to provide right-of-way services to CCTA for the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Project. In 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of an agreement with Caltrans, City of San Pablo and CCTA for the exercise of the power of eminent domain for the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Project. In 2013, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution of Necessity No. 2013/475 for acquisition by eminent domain of real property required for the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Project - Phase 1. 32. Based on the findings of the Downtown El Sobrante Study, work with CCTA and MTC to fund construction of any vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements. Modifications may include widening Appian Way to four lanes from Valley View Road in unincorporated Contra APPIAN WAY Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Appian Way. 2013 WCCTAC, Contra Costa County, Pinole None.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Costa County to Michael Drive in the City of Pinole. Additional modifications may include improved pedestrian and bicycle access through installation of pedestrian crosswalks, traffic calming measures, and streetscape improvements. 33. Encourage traffic safety and operational improvements including the planned extension of the existing truck climbing lane on Cummings Skyway approximately 2 miles. CUMMINGS SKYWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better on all segments on Cummings Skyway. 2013 WCCTAC, Contra Costa County None. 34. Design and fund the Cummings Skyway Class II bike lane project between Corockett Boulevard and Franklin Canyon Road. CUMMINGS SKYWAY 2013 WCCTAC, Contra Costa County None. 35. Seek grant funding to develop and implement a signal coordination plan for El Portal Drive. EL PORTAL DRIVE Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on El Portal Drive. 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Contra Costa County None. 36. Plan, fund, and implement bike route improvements to create a continuous bike route to Contra Costa College. EL PORTAL DRIVE 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Contra Costa County None. 37. Support implementation of the El Portal Gateway Project. EL PORTAL DRIVE 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Contra Costa County None. 38. Monitor requirement for changes or additions to the El Portal Drive interchange ramps as part of the I-80/San EL PORTAL DRIVE 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Richmond, Caltrans, CCTA, Contra Costa County None.
ATTACHMENT A 2012 AND 2013 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, 2013 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics) Pablo Dam Road interchange construction project. g:\transportation\measure j tracking\measure j tracking 2012-2013\action plans\wcctac_actionpln 12_13.doc
Compliance Checklist
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Attachment B
Attachment B
General Plan Amendments 2012 and 2013
General Plan Amendments
Meet Growth
Management
Element
Standards Meet TSOs
RTPC
Reviewed
(GPAs)
Results of
RTPC Review
(GPAs)
1 Name: Newport Pointe Residential Subdivision
Location: Discovery Bay/East Contra Costa County
Applicant: William F. Schrader
County File: GP08-0002
Description: Change the General Plan land use
designation from Agricultural Lands (AL) to the
following: Single-Family Residential- HighDensity
(SH), Single-Family Residential - Medium Density
(SM), Open Space (OS) and Parks and Recreation (PR)
Adopted: April 11, 2013
Resolution # 2013/195
Calendar Year: 2013
Net New Peak Hour Trips: 67
Yes Yes Yes No Comment
2 Name: Pantages Bays Residential Project
Location: Discovery Bay/East Contra Costa County
Applicant: Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC.
County File: GP99-0008
Description: Change the General Plan land use
designations from Agricultural Lands (AL) Delta
Recreation (DR) to Single- Family Residential High
Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium
Density (SM), Public/ Semi-Public (PS), Open Space
(OS) and Water (WA)
Adopted: December 3, 2013
Resolution # 2013/421
Calendar Year: 2013
Net New Peak Hour Trips: 219 AM peak hour trips, and
295 PM peak hour trips.
Yes Yes Yes No Comment
3 Name:
Location:
Applicant:
County File:
Description:
Adopted:
Resolution #
Calendar Year:
Net New Peak Hour Trips:
4 Name:
Location:
Applicant:
County File:
Description:
Adopted:
Resolution #
Calendar Year:
Net New Peak Hour Trips:
Compliance Checklist
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Attachment C
Attachment 1page 1]-Dec-1234Note below the number of units determined to be affordable without financial or deed restrictions and attach an explanation how the jurisdiction determined the units were affordable. Refer to instructions.55a Est. # Infill Units* Reporting PeriodJan-1212Housing Development InformationProject Identifier(may be APN No., project name or address)Unit CategoryAnnual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction Very Low-, Low-, and Mixed-Income Multifamily Projects (10) Total by income Table A/A3 ► ► ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionContra Costa CountyAssistance Programs for Each DevelopmentTenureR=RenterO=OwnerAffordability by Household Incomes67 8Housing without Financial Assistanceor Deed RestrictionsHousing with Financial Assistance and/or Deed RestrictionsModerate-IncomeSee InstructionsAboveModerate-IncomeTotal Unitsper ProjectDeed RestrictedUnitsSee InstructionsVery Low-IncomeLow-Income (9) Total of Moderate and Above Moderate from Table A3 ► ► Table A* Note: These fields are voluntary174 (11) Total Extremely Low-Income Units*
Attachment 1page 2]-Dec-12Reporting PeriodJan-12ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionContra Costa CountyTable A3(1) Rehabilitation Activity(3) Acquisition of Units(2) Preservation of Units At-Risk000(5) Total Units by Income 0 0Affordability by Household IncomesExtremely Low-Income*Activity Type00Very Low-IncomeAnnual building Activity Report Summary for Above Moderate-Income Units(not including those units reported on Table A)* Note: This field is voluntaryPlease note: Units may only be credited to the table below when a jurisdiction has included a program it its housing element to rehabilitate, preserve or acquire units to accommodate a portion of its RHNA whichmeet the specific criteria as outlined in GC Section 65583.1(c)(1) (4) Description of Activity Including Housing Element Program ReferenceLow-IncomeTOTAL UNITS2. 2 - 4 Units1746. Total5. Mobile Homes* Note: This field is voluntary3. 5+ UnitsNo. of Units Permitted for Above Moderate1. Single FamilyNo. of Units Permitted for Moderate1747. Number of infill units*4. Second UnitTable A2Annual Building Activity Report Summary - Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired pursuant to GC Section 65583.1(c)(1)0
Attachment 1page 3]-Dec-12Reporting PeriodJan-12ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionContra Costa County555Deed Restricted3671,6551,8531,4021132079 Remaining Need for RHNA Period ► ► ► ► ► 109 43Year9Total Units to Date (all years) 219228 88Total Remaining RHNAby Income Level727Income LevelRHNA Allocation by Income LevelYear3Non-deed restrictedLowDeed Restricted174101109Enter Calendar Year starting with the first year of the RHNA allocation period. See Example.20122007 2010 2013Year1Year5Year2Year8Year7Year4Year6Moderate1381530Very LowDeed RestrictedNon-deed restrictedNon-deed restricted3,508Total Units ► ► ►646Total RHNA by COG.Enter allocation number:174101Note: units serving extremly low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals.6871,4088151Permitted Units Issued by AffordabilityAbove Moderate 462 3376Table BRegional Housing Needs Allocation Progress59819872008 2009 2011 6983595
TABLE C
Housing Implementation Programs Summary – 2012
Name of Program Program Goal
Key Five-year
Objective(s)
Deadline in
Housing
Element Status
Housing and Neighborhood Conservation
1. Neighborhood
Preservation
Program
Improve the quality
of existing housing
& neighborhoods.
Disseminate
information.
Rehabilitate 40
units.
Ongoing 26 homes in the CDBG Urban
County were rehabilitated.
2. HACCC Rental
Rehabilitation
Assistance
Improve the quality
of the rental
housing stock.
Disseminate
information.
Rehabilitate 15
units.
Ongoing 5 apartments in the CDBG Urban
County were rehabilitated.
This program has been discontinued
due to lack of production and
decreasing resources to support the
program.
3. Public Housing
Improvement
Maintain and
improve the quality
of the public
housing stock.
Maintain and
improve 608
public housing
units.
Ongoing
4. Weatherization
Program
Assist homeowners
and renters with
minor home
repairs.
Assist 250
households.
Ongoing 2012 801 units weatherized
in County cities, towns, and communities
5. Code Enforcement Maintain & improve
the quality of
existing housing &
neighborhoods.
Continue to
implement
program.
Ongoing Program is continuing with a 50%
staff reduction: 940 cases opened, and
854 cases closed, approximately 90%
residential
6. Rental Inspection
Identify blighted
and deteriorated
housing stock and
ensure the
rehabilitation of
abatement of
housing that does
not comply with
State and local
building code.
Continue to
implement
program.
Ongoing Program has been suspended due to
budget cuts.
Program will be complaint driven
starting in 2012.
7. 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
Habitat for Humanity constructed
nine single-family homes in the El
Rincon development in Bay Point.
8. Condominium
Conversion
Ordinance
Preserve the rental
stock & protect
apartment tenants.
Continue to
enforce
ordinance.
Ongoing There were no condominium
conversion requests in this reporting
period.
9. Preservation of
Assisted Housing
Preserve the
existing stock of
affordable housing.
Monitor at-risk
units. Participate
in preservation of
units. Conduct
tenant education.
On-going
Housing Production
Name of Program Program Goal
Key Five-year
Objective(s)
Deadline in
Housing
Element Status
10. New Construction of
Affordable Housing
Increase the supply
of affordable
housing.
Assist in the
financing and
development of
650 affordable
units.
Ongoing Habitat for Humanity East Bay
completed and sold nine affordable
units in Bay Point. The County
closed loans on 3 projects with 160
units for seniors in 3 cities. The
County has financed an additional
170 units in the cities.
11. Inclusionary Housing Integrate
affordable housing
within market-rate
developments.
Continue to
implement
ordinance.
Ongoing In response to the Palmer decision,
the County reduced the rental in-
lieu fee to $0. One application for
for-sale housing would require 1
affd units.
12. Acquisition/
Rehabilitation
Improve existing
housing and
increase supply of
affordable housing.
Assist in the
acquisition and
rehabilitation of
50 affordable
units.
Ongoing CDBG funds support Habitat for
Humanity’s 8 unit scattered site
acquisition and rehabilitation
programs. Neighborhood
Stabilization Program funds have
support the acquisition and
rehabilitation of 16 single family
homes.
13. Second Units Facilitate the
development of
second units.
Continue
program
implementation.
Ongoing On 3/15/11, the B/S amended the
2nd unit ordinance to facilitate
approval of 2nd unit applications.
Special Needs Housing
14. Special Needs
Housing
Increase the supply
of special needs
housing.
Provide financial
and other
incentives for the
development of
housing for
special needs
populations.
Ongoing The County provided CDBG funds to
rehabilitate Moraga House in
Lafayette, which will house 3 adults
with developmental disabilities. The
County provided funds to the Health
Services Department to develop
“Synergy House”, which will house
12 homeless adults who are
recovering from substance abuse.
The County provided CDBG funds to
Garden Park Apt to improve security
and energy efficiency. Garden Park
Apt provides permanent supportive
housing to homeless families.
15. Accessible Housing Increase the supply
of accessible
housing.
Require inclusion
of accessible
units in all new
County-funded
construction
projects.
Ongoing The County continues to require
accessible units in all new
construction projects that receive
HOME or CDBG funding. Accessible
units are included in rehabilitation
projects when feasible.
15a. Reasonable
Accommodation
Increase the supply
of special needs
and accessible
housing.
Document
County’s
reasonable
accommodation
activities as
written
procedures.
June 2011 On 7/26/11, the Board of
Supervisors approved a land use
permit for Bonita House to operate a
adult residential care facility for 10
adults in Knightsen.
16. Contra Costa
Interagency Council
on Homelessness
Meet the housing &
supportive services
needs of the
homeless
Support
development of
permanent
supportive
housing.
Ongoing CCICH continues to support the
development of permanent
supportive housing.
Housing Affordability
Name of Program Program Goal
Key Five-year
Objective(s)
Deadline in
Housing
Element Status
17. First-Time
Homebuyer
Opportunities
Provide additional
homeownership
opportunities.
Assist 50 low and
moderate income
first-time
homebuyers.
Ongoing The County provided 32
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
loans to low, moderate, and middle
income homebuyers.
18. 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.
The Housing Authority continues to
prepare its annual Action Plan and
provide Section 8 housing vouchers.
However, Sequestration will limit
the number of vouchers that the
Housing Authority can provide.
19. Home Sharing
Program
Provide for home
sharing
opportunities.
Support
appropriate
agencies offering
shared housing
opportunities.
Ongoing No new activities to report in 2012.
19a. Extremely Low
Income Housing
Promote
development of
housing affordable
to extremely low
income households.
Continue
applying for
funding that
supports housing
for extremely low
income
households.
Promote funding
assistance to
profit and non-
profit builders
develop for
extremely low
income housing
projects.
Ongoing The County continues to provide
funding preferences to developers
who include units that are affordable
to extremely-low income
households.
Provision of Adequate Housing Sites
20. Sites Inventory Provide for
adequate housing
sites, including ‘as-
right development’
sites for homeless
facilities
Adopt revised
zoning text.
Maintain sites
inventory.
June 2010 for
zoning
changes.
Ongoing
maintenance
of site
inventory.
The County uses Accela to track
permits and development activity.
21. Mixed-Use
Developments
Encourage mixed-
use developments.
Pursuant to El
Sobrante MAC’s
recommendation
s, establish
mixed use
designations
under the
General Plan for
sections San
Pablo Dam Road
and Appian Way
in El Sobrante.
Ongoing Downtown El Sobrante General Plan
Amendment (County File: GP#02-
0003) was approved June 28, 2011,
which established mixed use
designations along San Pablo Dam
Road and Appian Way corridors. P-1
(Planned Unit) District zoning now in
progress.
22. Density Bonus &
Other Development
Incentives
Support affordable
housing
development.
Offer density
bonuses and
other incentives
for affordable
housing.
Ongoing
Name of Program Program Goal
Key Five-year
Objective(s)
Deadline in
Housing
Element Status
23. Infill Development Facilitate infill
development.
Identify small
vacant multi-
family lots with
potential for lot
consolidation.
Ongoing GIS based land use inventory
system has been developed to
identify lots zoned for residential
use that are suitable for lot
consolidation to improve
development footprint.
23a. North Richmond
Specific Plan
Prepare and
process Specific
Plan to convert a
100 (+/-) acre
industrial area in
North Richmond to
new residential
neighborhood with
potentially 2100
new dwelling units.
Meet and
coordinate plan
preparation with
stakeholders.
Complete EIR
under CEQA.
Conduct public
hearings.
Board adoption.
December
2010
All work on the North Richmond
Specific Plan was suspended
indefinitely. The preparation of the
North Richmond Specific Plan was
being funded by the County
Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
Additionally, the Specific Plan had
assumed that the financing and
construction of backbone
infrastructure needed for the 200+
acre Specific Plan area was to be
substantially funded through the
RDA. Since the RDA no longer
exists, no entity (public or private)
has come forward to assume the
applicant role as the replacement for
the RDA.
Removal of Governmental Constraints
24. Planned Unit District Provide flexibility in
design for
residential projects.
Encourage
rezoning to P-1
District in
unincorporated
areas, where
appropriate.
Consider
elimination of 5-
acre minimum
parcel size.
Ongoing A P-1 District re-zone for El
Sobrante will be considered by the
County Planning Commission.
25. Planning Fees Reduce the cost of
development.
Offer fee
deferrals,
reduction, or
waivers to
developers of
affordable
housing.
Ongoing The County offered fee deferrals
from December 2009 until
December 31, 2011. No developers
took advantage of the program.
26. Streamlining of
Permit Processing
Expedite review of
residential projects.
Consider only
Zoning
Administrator’s
review of
projects with
<100 units.
Expedite permit
processing.
Ongoing
Name of Program Program Goal
Key Five-year
Objective(s)
Deadline in
Housing
Element Status
27. Review of Zoning &
Subdivision
Ordinance
Ensure County
regulations do not
unnecessarily
constrain housing
development.
Revise Zoning
Code to allow
emergency
homeless
shelters by right,
define
transitional and
supportive
housing as
residential uses,
allow agricultural
worker housing,
and provide SRO
development
standards.
Periodically
review Planning
and Zoning Code.
a) June 2010
b) Ongoing
Draft ordinance will be reviewed by
the Planning Commission in 2013.
Equal Housing Opportunity
28. Anti-Discrimination
Program
Promote fair
housing.
Support local
non-profits
offering fair
housing
counseling and
legal services.
Carry out AI
recommendation
s.
Complete
update to the
AI by 2010
and ongoing
provision of
services.
The Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice was by the Board of
Supervisors on 5/25/2010.
29. Residential
Displacement
Program
Limit number of
households being
displaced or
relocated.
Continue to
implement
program.
Ongoing The County strives to limit
displacement or relocation.
Compliance Checklist
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Attachment D
1
EXHIBIT B
Contra Costa County
Development Mitigation Program
2014 - 2020
Capital Improvement Program for
Parks and Sheriff Facilities
Prepared by
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development
January 2014
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, 2014-2020 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, 2014-2020. 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 2014.
3
TABLE 1
PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA
AREA 1991-2014 2014-2020
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 2012. This
evaluation is based on population growth for the 1991 - 2013 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 $3,955 to $7,238 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 145 acres of new park facilities that
meet the neighborhood park classification. Actual park construction exceeded the growth
management standard by 48 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 2013
REQUIRED FACILITIES FACILITIES OPENED SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)
97 acres 145 acres 48 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 2013. The evaluation is based
on population growth for 1991-2013 time period and the square footage of Sheriff Facilities
opened as of 2013. The population growth between 1991 and 2013 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 2013
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 2014-2020 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 2014-2020 time period. A total of nearly 28 acres of
neighborhood parks are programmed for construction during that time period. As of 2013, the
County maintains a surplus of 48 acres (as previously shown in Table 2).
By adding the total acreage from Table 4 to the current surplus of 48 acres, the County would
maintain a 12 acre park facilities surplus by 2020.1
Sheriff Facilities: The projected growth during the 2014-2020 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 2013 is 16,041 sq. ft. This “surplus”
of facility capacity is sufficient to serve all growth projected to occur in the unincorporated area
by 2020, with approximately 14,158 sq. ft. of capacity remaining by that time. The formula
utilized to evaluate this need for facilities in 2020 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 2020 is detailed in Table 5.
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
4,500 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 6 Park Location Park Type Region Of County Total Acreage Acreage for Growth Mgmt. Compliance North Richmond Neighborhood West 0.3 0.3El Sobrante Neighborhood West 5.0 5.0Iron Horse Trail Pocket Parks Pocket Central 0.3 0.3Pacheco Community Park Community Central 5.0 5.0Vine Hill Park Neighborhood Central 2.0 2.0Big Oak Tree Park Neighborhood Central 0.1 0.1Bay Point Shoreline Ballfields Community East 5.0 5.0Byron Community Park Community East 5.0 5.0Bethel Island Park Community East 5.0 5.0Total (rounded) 27.6 (28) 27.6 (28) TABLE 5 EVALUATION OF THE NEED FOR FACILITIES IN 2020 Projected Population Growth 2014-2020 Park Acres Required 2014 - 2020 (3 Acres/1000 people) Park Acres to be Constructed 2014-2020 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres from 1991-2014 Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres by 2020 12,150 36 28 (8) 48 40 Sheriff Facilities Required 2014 - 2020 (155 sq.ft./1000 people) Sheriff Facilities to be Constructed 2014-2020 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. from 1991-2014 Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. by 2020 12,150 1,883 0 (1,883) 16,041 14,158
7
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX AParkLocationAreaType of ParkTotal AcresAcres for Growth ManagementCompletion DateMontalvin ParkDenise DrMontalvin Manor/San PabloNeighborhood7.07.01991MonTaraBay Community Center and Ball Fields (Rehab)Tara Hills DrTara Hills/San Pablo Community Facility 4.04.01991California Pacific WaterwaysPorthole/FoghornByronNeighborhood5.25.21992Alamo Elementary School Park Livorna/WilsonAlamoNeighborhood3.12.51992Clyde ParkNorman/SussexClydeNeighborhood2.02.01992Fox Creek Park (Pleasant Hill BART) Las Juntas WayPleasant Hill Neighborhood0.50.31992Cornell ParkDisco Bay Blvd/Willow LakeDiscovery Bay Neighborhood10.010.01992Boeger ParkCaskey StBay PointNeighborhood0.60.51992Old Tassajara SchoolCamino Tassajara/Finley RdTassajaraCommunity Facility 1.01.01992Marie Porter ParkKilburn StreetClydeNeighborhood0.20.51992Rancho LagunaKnoll Dr/Camino PabloMoragaNeighborhood8.18.11993Brentwood Ball Fields (3)Sunset RdBrentwoodNeighborhoodn/an/a 1993Bettencourt RanchCamino Tassajara DanvilleNeighborhood6.02.51994El Sobrante Open SpaceCastro Ranch RdEl Sobrante Regional100.0n/a 1994Hap Magee Ranch Park (City/County) Camille AveAlamoNeighborhood17.28.01994North Richmond Ball Field3rd and Walnut CreekNorth Richmond Community Facility 8.04.01994Lefty Gomez Community Center and BallfieldsParker AvenueRodeoCommunity Facility 11.011.01995Diablo Vista ParkCrow Canyon/Tassajara RanchTown of Danville Neighborhood2.00.71996Marie Murphy SchoolValley ViewEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Olinda SchoolOlinda RdEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Valley View SchoolMaywood/MeadowbrookEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Sheldon SchoolMay/LaurelEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996El Sobrante ElementaryManor/MitchellEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996De Anza High SchoolValley View RdEl Sobrante Neighborhood4.02.01996Tradewinds Court ParkTradewinds CourtBay PointNeighborhood0.70.71996Livorna ParkLivorna/MirandaAlamoNeighborhood4.44.41997Laurel ParkLaurel Rd Detention BasinOakleyNeighborhood14.414.41998Rodeo Creek TrailWillow Ave/Parker AveRodeoNeighborhood1.02.51998Rancho Romero SchoolHemme AveAlamoNeighborhood5.45.42000Country Placen/an/aNeighborhood2.52.52000Andrew H. Young Danville Blvd/JacksonAlamoNeighborhood0.20.22000Maybeck ParkAmy LaneClydeNeighborhood0.10.22000Discovery Bay Westn/aDiscovery Bay (Rec Center)2.42.42002Discovery Bay WestLakeshore CircleDiscovery Bay Neighborhood4.04.02002Del Hombre RespiteTreat BlvdPleasant Hill Neighborhood0.70.72002Regatta Park (Tyler Memorial Park) n/aDiscovery Bay Neighborhood4.84.82002Silfer ParkNewport DrDiscovery Bay Neighborhood5.85.82002Viewpoint Park (aka Lehman) Sea Cliff PlaceBay PointNeighborhood0.10.12002Ravenswood ParkDiscovery Bay Neighborhood2004Diablo Vista Middle School Sports FieldCamino Tassajara/MonterossoDanvilleSchool15.015.02005Spears Circle ParkSpears CircleNorth Richmond Neighborhood0.50.52007Big Oak Tree ParkKilburn StreetClydeNeighborhood0.10.12008El Sobrante Children's Reading GardenAppian AvenueEl Sobrante Community Facility 0.20.22008Parkway Estates (Tot Lot)Malcom DriveNorth Richmond Neighborhood0.30.32011Pacheco Creekside ParkAspen DrivePachecoNeighborhood1.61.62011Clyde Pedestrian TrailNorman AvenueClydeNeighborhood0.53.82011Lynbrook ParkKevin Drive and Port Chicago HwyBay PointNeighborhood4.134.132013Hickory MeadowsWinterbrook and Summerfield DrBay PointNeighborhood0.370.372013Total261.7144.98
APPENDIX Bn/a 0 3,000 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 700n/a 0 n/a 1,100 1,1004,50025,53921,039Grand 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 ActivitiesBethel Island, 5993 Bethel Island Rd, Suite B Danville, 1092 Eagle Nest Pl - Patrol SubstationTotalGrand TotalTotalTotalByron, 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 FacilitiesMartinez, 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)Martinez, 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 - RecordsMartinez, 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)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 1/1/91As of 12/31/13AmountofSq 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
Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County
For Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2012 & 2013
Attachment E
CORRESPONDENCE TABLE BETWEEN MEASURE J ‐ MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) AND COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Contra Costa residents extended the Measure C (1988) transportation sales tax and growth management program when they approved Measure J in 2004. Measure J changes the specific requirements for the growth management program from those set in Measure C, eliminating two requirements, adding one and clarifying or refining others. County growth management policies and programs developed to comply with Measure C are not inherently in conflict with Measure J growth management requirements as is demonstrated by this correspondence table. The one growth management requirement added by Measure J, a voter‐approved urban limit line, was already part of the County General Plan in 1991. In response to a Measure J refinement to the Measure C Housing Options requirement, the General Plan was amended in 2008 to include adoption of policies and standards into the development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments. The Measure J Model Growth Management Element requires local jurisdictions to provide a correspondence table that clearly identifies which sections of the Plan constitute each required Element. The County growth management policies and programs described in this table restate text in the County General Plan in the format required by the Measure J Model Growth Management Element. MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Growth Management Element (GME) to the General Plan is to establish the goals, policies and implementation programs that are intended to manage and mitigate the impacts of future growth and development within [the local jurisdiction]. This element is also intended to comply with the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP). Planned Levels of Development; The Urban Limit Line and Land Uses (Land Use Element §3.6, pg. #3‐8) Introduction (Growth Management Element §4.1, pg. #4‐1) Introduction (Housing Element §6.1, pg. #6‐1) 1.2 Background 2 The Measure J GMP, adopted by the voters of Contra Costa in November 2004, requires each local jurisdiction to meet the six following requirements: • Adopt a development mitigation program; • Address Housing Options; • Participate in an Ongoing Cooperative, Multi‐Jurisdictional Planning Process; Public Participation through Voting Process (Introduction §1.3, pg. #1‐2 through 1‐3) Introduction (Growth Management Element §4.1, pg. #4‐1) 1 Local Growth Management Elements must substantially comply with the intent of this model element, but need not reflect its exact language or organization. Applicable policies that are contained in other elements of the jurisdiction’s General Plan should also be referenced here within the Growth Management Element. 2 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Ordinance 06‐02 Amending and Restating the Measure C Transportation Expenditure Plan to Make Non‐substantive Changes and insert Specific Provisions Moved from Ordinance 88‐01.
- 2 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS • Adopt an Urban Limit Line (ULL); • Develop a five‐year capital improvement program; and • Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance or Resolution. Measure J (2004) is a 25‐year extension of the previous Measure C Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program approve by the voters in 1988. Both programs include a ½ percent transportation and retail transactions and use tax intended to address existing major regional transportation problems. The Growth Management component is intended to assure that future residential business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. Compliance with the GMP is linked to receipt of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and Transportation for Livable Community funds from the Transportation Authority. The Growth Management Program defined by the original Ordinance 88‐01 continues in effect along with its linkage to Local Street maintenance and improvement funds through March 31, 2009. Beginning on April 1, 2009, the Measure J GMP requirements take effect. Measure J eliminates the previous Measure C requirements for local performance standards and level‐of‐service standards for non‐regional routes. Measure J also adds the requirement for adoption of a voter‐approved ULL. 1.3 Intent By adopting and implementing this Element, the jurisdiction intends to establish a comprehensive, long‐range program that will match the demands for multi‐modal transportation facilities and services generated by new development with plans, capital improvement programs and development mitigation programs. The Urban Limit Line is intended to promote compact urban development patterns and restrict the extension of infrastructure into areas where urban development is not planned. Introduction (Growth Management Element §4.1, pg. #4‐1)
- 3 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 1.4 Authority The GME is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to local jurisdictions by Section 65303 of the Government Code of the State of California which states: The general plan may include any other elements or address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city. The GME also is consistent with the requirements of Contra Costa’s Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (Measure J), approved by Contra Costa County voters in 2004, and as amended by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Introduction (Growth Management Element §4.1, pg. #4‐1) 1.5 Relation to Other General Plan Elements [Refer to other elements.] Relationship to Other General Plan Elements (Land Use Element §3.2, pg #3‐2) Relationship to Other General Plan Elements (Growth Management Element §4.2, pg. #4‐2) Relationship to Other Elements (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.2, pg. #5‐1 through 5‐2) Relationship to the General Plan (Housing Element §6.1E Table 6‐1, pg. #6‐6 through 6‐7) 1.6 Organization of Element The GME establishes goals, and policies in Section 2 and sets forth corresponding implementation programs in Section 3. All sections are numbered sequentially, with the first number referring to the section and the second number to the subsection. 1.7 Definition of Maps, Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures (Introduction, pgs. #1‐5 through 1‐7) 2 GOALS AND POLICIES 2.1 Introduction The introductory text should (I) describe the relationship of the goals and policies in the GME to the other elements of the General Plan, especially the policies in the Circulation and Land Use element, (1) Relationship to Other General Plan Elements (Land Use Element §3.2, pg #3‐2) (See Relationship to Other General Plan Elements (Growth Management Element §4.2, pg. #4‐2) under 1.5 Relation to Other
- 4 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS (2) define terms such as Action Plans, Routes of Regional Significance and Urban Limit Line, or refer to definitions in other parts of the Plan, and (3) present a general discussion of how the jurisdiction will comply with Measure J. Text may also be included that discusses the roles of other agencies in the attainment of standards, or other factors that relate to the success of the programs included in the Section. General Plan Elements in the MGME) Relationship to Other Elements (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.2, pgs. 5‐1 through 5‐2) (2) Land Use Definitions (The Text of Measure C‐1988 and Measure C‐1990 §1.11, pg. #1‐16) (3) 4.1 Introduction (Growth Management Element, pg. #4‐1) Growth Management Program (Housing Element §6.3, pg. #6‐49 through 6‐51) 2.2 Goals (Examples based on Measure J) Assure that new residential, business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. Support cooperative transportation and land use planning in Contra Costa County. Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system, consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions. Support infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfield areas. Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐32 and pg. #3‐33 Goal 3‐K) Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐4) (See Table 6‐1, Goal 6 and 7 under 1.5 Relation to Other General Plan Elements in the MGME) 2.3 Policies Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐34 through 3‐37)
- 5 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pgs. #4‐4 through 4‐8) Roadways and Transit Policies (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.6, pg. #5‐15 and 5‐16) Housing Goals and Policies (Housing Element §6.6, pg. #6‐89 through 6‐91 – only certain policies cited) The local jurisdiction intends to comply with the Measure J GMP. The following policies are intended to implement Measure J and achieve the goals of this element: 2.3.1 Development Mitigation Program: Adopt and maintain in place a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth. 2.3.1.1 Local Mitigation Program: The local jurisdiction shall adopt a local program to mitigate development impacts on non‐regional routes and other facilities. Revenue provided from this program shall not be used to replace private developer funding of any required improvements that have or would have been committed to any project. 2.3.1.2 Regional Mitigation Program: The local jurisdiction shall participate in a regional development mitigation program to establish fees, exactions, assessments or other mitigation measures to fund regional or subregional transportation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast development on the regional transportation system. (See Policies 3‐5 through 3‐7, 4‐1 through 4‐4, and 5‐4 and 5‐21 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (See Policies 3‐5 through 3‐7, 4‐1 through 4‐4, and 5‐4 and 5‐21 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (See Policies 4‐3 and 4‐4 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) 2.3.2 Address Housing Options: Demonstrate reasonable progress in provide housing opportunities for all income levels and demonstrate reasonable progress in meeting housing goals. 2.3.2.1 Periodic Reports. Prepare periodic reports to the Contra Costa Transportation (See Housing Element: §6.6 – Housing Plan (pg. #6‐88 through 6‐92 – only certain policies cited) under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) Housing Plan (Housing Element Appendix B,
- 6 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS Authority to demonstrate reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels. 2.3.2.2 Impacts on Transportation. Consider the impacts that the local jurisdiction’s land use development policies have on the local, regional, and countywide transportation system, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided. 2.3.2.3 Incorporation into Development Approval Process. Incorporate policies and standards into the development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments. pg. #6‐1B, Table B‐1, “Program Implementation Status”) (Periodic Reports are provided to CCTA via the Biennial Compliance Checklist) (See Policies 4‐3 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (See Policies 4‐1 and 5‐21 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) 2.3.3 Participate in On‐Going Multi‐Jurisdictional Planning: Participation in an on‐going multi‐jurisdictional planning process with other jurisdictions and agencies, the RTPC, and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to crate a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation system and to manage the impacts of growth. 2.3.3.1 Action Plans. Work with the RTPC to develop and update Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. For the network of designated Routes of Regional Significance, set Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) for those routes, and identify actions for achieving the MTSOs. The Action Plans also include a process for monitoring and review of the traffic impacts of proposed new developments. 2.3.3.2 Travel Demand Model. Apply the Authority’s travel demand forecasting 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 the Action Plan MTSOs. 2.3.3.3 Interagency Consultation. Circulate traffic impact analyses to affected jurisdictions and to the RTPC for review and comment. 2.3.3.4 Mitigation Program. Work with the appropriate RTPCs to develop the mitigation (See Policies 4‐4 and 5‐1 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (see previous) (None) (See Policies 4‐4 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (See Policy 4‐3 under 2.3 Policies in the
- 7 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS program outlined in Section 2.3.1.2 above. 2.3.3.5 Countywide Transportation Plan. Participate in the preparation of the Authority’s Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the ongoing countywide transportation planning process. 2.3.3.6 Travel Model Support. Help maintain the Authority’s travel demand modeling system by providing information on proposed land use developments and transportation projects, including those projects that the jurisdiction has adopted as part of its five‐year CIP. MGME) (None) (See 2.3.3 Participate in On‐Going Multi‐Jurisdictional Planning and 2.3.3.2 Travel Demand Model in the MGME) 2.3.4 Adopt an Urban Limit Line (ULL): The local jurisdiction shall adopt a ULL that has been approved by the majority of the voters within the local jurisdiction. The ULL may be either a MAC‐ULL, a County ULL, or a Local Voter ULL as defined in the Principles of Agreement (Attachment A) to the Measure J GMP (as amended). Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures §3.8, pg. #3‐34, Policies 3‐5, 3‐10 and 3‐11) 2.3.4.1 Applicability. A complying ULL shall be in place through March 31, 2034, which is the end of the Measure J sales tax extension (See 2.3.4 Adopt an Urban Limit Line in the MGME) 2.3.4.2 Policies. The ULL includes the following policy provisions: [List applicable policies here] (See 2.3.4 Adopt an Urban Limit Line in the MGME) 2.3.5 Develop a Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Annually or biennially, prepare and maintain a capital improvement program that outlines the capital projects needed to implement the goals, policies, and programs of this General Plan for the next five years. The CIP shall include approved projects and an analysis of the costs of the proposed projects as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements. (See Policies 3‐7 and 4‐1 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) 2.3.6 Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance or Resolution: To promote carpools, vanpools, and park and ride lots, the local jurisdiction shall maintain in place an ordinance or resolution that conforms to the model TSM ordinance or resolution that the Authority has drafted and adopted. (See Policy 5‐24 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) 3. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS 3.1 Development Mitigation Program. The jurisdiction will adopt and implement a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth. This program shall consist of both a local program to mitigate impacts on local streets and other facilities and a regional program to fund regional and subregional transportation projects, consistent with Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #4‐9) Goals Policies and Implementation Measures
- 8 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐9, Measure 4‐g) 3.1.1 Local Mitigation Program – Required Mitigation or Fees. The jurisdiction will require development projects to provide local mitigation or fees as established for proposed new development. Goals Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐11, Measure 4‐m and 4‐n) Roadway and Transit Implementation Measures (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.6, pg. #5‐17, Measure 5‐e) 3.1.2 Regional Mitigation Program – Required Fees and Exemptions. The jurisdiction will require development projects to pay regional development mitigation fees established by the RTPC in accordance with the RTPC’s adopted program. [List specific RTMP requirements here] Goals Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pgs. #4‐8 and 4‐9, Measures 4‐b and 4‐d) Roadway and Transit Implementation Measures (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.6, pg. #5‐17, Measure 5‐f) 3.1.3 Analyze the impacts of land use policies and future development on the transportation system by evaluating General Plan Amendments and requiring preparation of traffic impact reports for projects that generate in excess of a specified traffic threshold. The General Plan Amendment Process (Introduction §1.10, pg. #1‐9) Goal, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pgs. #4‐8 and 4‐9, Measures 4‐c through 4‐e) Contra Costa County Guidelines for Administering the California Environmental Quality Act (2010), Appendix M 3.1.4 Use of Measure J Funds. Measure J transportation improvement funds, including the 18% Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds, may be used for any eligible transportation purpose. In no case, however, will those funds replace private developer funding for transportation projects determined to be required for new growth to mitigate the impacts it creates. Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐9, 4‐d)
- 9 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 3.2 Address Housing Options. To achieve reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels, the local jurisdiction will: [List specific implementation programs here, or reference programs located in the Housing Element] Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐39, Measures 3‐ab) Housing Plan (Housing Element Appendix B, pg. #6‐1B, Table B‐1, “Program Implementation Status”) (Periodic Reports are provided to CCTA via the Biennial Compliance Checklist) 3.2.1 Prepare a biennial report on the implementation of actions outlined in the local jurisdictions Housing Element, for submittal to CCTA as part of the biennial GMP Compliance Checklist. The report will demonstrate reasonable progress using one of the following three options: Housing Plan (Housing Element Appendix B, pg. #6‐1B, Table B‐1, “Program Implementation Status”) (Periodic Reports are provided to CCTA via the Biennial Compliance Checklist) 3.2.1.1 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 jurisdictions Housing Element; or 3.2.1.2 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 3.2.1.3 Illustrating how a jurisdiction’s General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate the improvement and development of sufficient housing to meet those objectives. Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pgs. #4‐11 through 4‐12, “Land Supply/Development Monitoring Analysis”) (See 3.2.1.1 in the MGME) (See 3.2.1.1 in the MGME) 3.2.2 As part of the development review process, support the accommodation of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access for new development. [List specific procedures] Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐39 through 3‐40, Measures 3‐al through 3‐ao) Goals Policies and Implementation Measures
- 10 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐9, Measure 4‐j) Roadway and Transit Implementation Measures (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.6, pg. #5‐18 through 5‐23 (certain Measures only) 3.3 Multi‐Jurisdictional Transportation Planning. The jurisdiction will participate in multi‐jurisdictional transportation planning by participating in activities of the RTPC including development of Regional Route Action Plans and cooperating in the assessment and mitigation of traffic impacts in neighboring jurisdictions when it is believed that local actions contribute to conditions at such intersections. 3.3.1 Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. The map/list on page ( ) shows Routes of Regional Significance that have been designated by the local jurisdiction in cooperation with the RTPC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The jurisdiction will participate with both agencies in developing and implementing Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element, §4.4 pg. #4‐8, Measure 4‐b) (See Measure 4‐b under 3.3 Multi‐Jurisdictional Transportation Planning in the MGME) 3.3.2 Travel Demand Modeling. The jurisdiction will apply the Authority’s travel demand model for analysis of General Plan amendments affecting land use or circulation and development projects that generate more than a specified threshold of peak hour trips to determine the effects on the regional transportation system and compliance with the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives established in the Action Plan applicable to the jurisdiction’s planning area. The jurisdiction also will help maintain the Authority’s travel demand modeling system by providing information on proposed improvements to the transportation system, planned and approved development within the jurisdiction, and long‐rang plans relative to ABAG’s projections for households and jobs within the local jurisdiction. Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐38, Measure 3‐o) 3.3.3 Other Planning and Implementation Programs. The jurisdiction will work with the RTPC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to help develop other plans, programs and studies to address transportation and growth management issues. (None)
- 11 - MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 3.3.4 Conflict Resolution. The jurisdiction will participate in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s established conflict resolution process as needed to resolve disputes related to the development and implementation of Actions Plans and other programs described in this Element. Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐9, Measure 4‐h) 3.4 Urban Limit Line (ULL). The jurisdiction will adopt either a Mutually Agreed‐Upon Countywide ULL, a County ULL, or Local Voter ULL consistent with the requirements of the Measure J GMP (as amended by Authority Ordinance 06‐04). Urban development is allowed within the line, subject to the policies and standards of the Land Use Element: The ULL can only be amended by a subsequent vote of the electorate; minor adjustments of less than 30 acres may be approved by a majority vote of the local jurisdiction‘s legislative body. Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures §3.8, pg. #3‐38, Measures 3‐p through 3‐s) 3.5 Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program. Capital projects sponsored by the local jurisdiction and necessary to maintain and improve traffic operations will be included in the five‐ year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding sources for such projects as well as intended project phasing will be generally identified in the CIP. (See Measure 4‐g under 3.1 Development Mitigation Program in the MGME) 3.6 Transportation Systems Management. As part of this growth management program, the jurisdiction will adopt and implement [a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ordinance] or [a TSM Resolution] or [an alternative mitigation program]. (See Measure 4‐j under 3.2.2 in the MGME) GLOSSARY (See Land Use Definitions under 2.1 Introduction in the MGME) G:\Transportation\Measure J Tracking\Measure J Tracking 2010‐2011\comparison.ModelGME2007.CCCGPGME 6‐11‐12_MK.doc
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
G:\Transportation\Measure J Tracking\Measure J Tracking 2012-2013\CIP_CEQA_2014.doc
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 2014-2020 Contra Costa County Development
Mitigation Program: Capital Improvement Program for Parks and
Sheriff Facilities
PREPARED BY: Jamar Stamps DATE: February 11, 2014
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: February 11, 2014 Reviewed by:
Conservation and Development Department Representative