HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11191996 - SD5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE :. k.
Costa
DATE: November 12, 1996 Coin.
SUBJECT: REPORT ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CCTA'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report and determine-action as appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT
None directly. Proposed revisions to the Checklist could affect the County's eligibility to receive
Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds which amount to approximately $1 .5 million annually.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In December 1995, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) initiated work to
revise the Measure C Growth Management Program Compliance Checklist (Checklist) which is
used to help determine a jurisdiction's compliance with the growth management requirements.
The intent of this effort is to simplify the Checklist, make the questions more direct, and
improve accountability. On May 23, the Authority transmitted draft revisions to local agency
staff for comment. On July 9, the Board of Supervisors approved comments on revisions to the
Checklist. Authority staff has prepared a recommendation to the Authority on the Checklist.
The recommendations identify the Board's comments as policy issues for the Authority to
consider. The staff report's remarks are as follows:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY DMI STRA R
X RECOMMENDATION OF OA I I C MMI T
_ APPROVE
_ OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): J fS m Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON Nove ber 19, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: I IV V & IINOES: III ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 335-1240 ATTESTED November 19, 1996
Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COU T ADMINISTRATOR
SLG:c:\transconn\rvchklst.bo
'50s
Proposed Revisions to CCTA's Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist
November 4, 1996
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
"Issue No. 1: Equal emphasis on regional mitigation fees, general plan amendment review, and
affordable housing. The County is urging that Question 2.b be strengthened to require completion
of a regional mitigation program by July 1, 1997. Establishing a deadline for completion of the
program is a policy issue that would need to be addressed by the Authority.
Issue No. 2: Requiring re ug lar participation of Board Members in meetings. The County has asked
if a Board member's attendance at Authority meetings alone would satisfactorily meet the multi-
jurisdictional planning requirement. To clarify the question, the phrase 'or other forums established
by the CCTA' has been deleted. Compliance with this element of the program requires regular
attendance by Council/Board members at RTPC meetings. Authority staff interprets this to mean
that occasional absences would not constitute noncompliance. The Authority would need to clarify
whether staff presence alone at RTPC meetings would constitute non-compliance. "
Regarding issue No. 1 , please be aware that TRANSPAC and WCCTAC are likely to adopt regional
mitigation programs in the next several months. This would leave Lamorinda jurisdictions the most
vulnerable of being out of compliance with a July 1 , 1997 deadline for establishing a regional
mitigation program.
Regarding issue No. 2, be aware of the following transportation-related committees that require
attendance of a Board Member. An asterisk signifies committees that require regular attendance by
a Board Member for Measure C growth management compliance purposes. Most all of these
committees meet monthly.
1 . Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2. CCTA's Administration/Projects Committee
3. CCTA's Planning Committee
4. SWAT Committee*
5. TRANSPAC Committee*
6. Transplan Committee*
7. WCCTAC Committee*
8. Tri Valley Transportation Council
9. State Route 4 Bypass Authority
10. East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority
11 . Metropolitan Transportation Committee
12. MTC's Legislation and Public Affairs Committee
13. Board of Supervisors' Transportation Committee
Currently the County satisfies this requirement through a combination of efforts that include
meeting attendance by Board members at the RTPC and Authority levels, reports by staff, and
reports by the Board of Supervisor's Transportation Committee. Schedule conflicts or the absence
of significant agenda items causes some Supervisors to miss certain RTPC meetings. The most
recent changes to Question 6 further narrow the options available to achieve compliance.
a r •
1 ': D. S'
Community Contra Harvey oE.f n
- Development Director of Coommummu nity Development
Department Costa
County Administration Building County
851 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing 5 � �\,
Martinez, California 945530095
Phone: (510) 335-1276October 4 1996
.�
9•T�
Mr. Don Tatzin, Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. Tatzin:
Attached for you information are the County' s comments on the
Authority' s revised Growth Management Program Annual Compliance
Checklist . The Board of Supervisors approved these comments on
July 9, 1996 and directed staff to convey the Board' s specific
concerns on the issue of regular attendance at Authority
meetings .
Question 6 of the revised Checklist addresses participation in
cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning. Compliance is
defined as regular participation by a jurisdiction' s
Council/Board member is meetings of the appropriate Regional
Transportation Planning Committee or other forums established by
the Authority. It is not clear if regular attendance of
Authority meetings alone would satisfy the revised language
proposed in the Checklist .
The Board wishes to highlight our request that the Authority
clarify how compliance with Question No. 6 will be determined.
Currently the County satisfies the requirement for participation
in cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning through a
combination of efforts that include meeting attendance by Board
members at the Regional Committee and Authority levels, reports
by staff, ,and reports by the Board of Supervisor' s Transportation
Committee . The Authority should indicate to the Boardf our
existing practice satisfies the proposed language .
The Board of Supervisors would like to emphasize that there are
certain demands on their schedules that are unique compared to
other local officials . As you tnow, the County is represented of
all four Regional Committees, the Tri Valley Transportation
Council, and all Authority committees. To require regular
participation on these committees, most with fixed-schedules, is
particularly difficult for County Supervisors who have a
considerable calendar of other fixed-meetings as well as ad-hoc
meetings that require their participation.
Mr. Tatzin
October 4 , 1996
Page Two
Our representatives on the Authority, are open to discuss with
other Authority members the County' s current practices as well as
other options to satisfy our growth management requirements for
participation in cooperative, multi-jurisdictional transportation
planning.
Sin e ,
vey Bragdon,
ommunit Development Director
HEB/slg:\tpc\tatzin.tl0
attachment
CC: w/ attachment
Members, Board of Supervisors
V. Alexeeff, GMEDA Director
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ccs;;-a coSIA Contra
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: June 17, 1996
45 JUL 22 PN 2=59 CWy
1o
DEVELOPMENT DEPT
SUBJECT: APPROVE REPORT ON THE CCTA'S DRAFT REVISED GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report on the draft revised Measure C•1988 Growth Management Program Annual
Compliance Checklist and request the following:
• include July 1, 1997 as the deadline for adopting regional transportation mitigation
programs, and
the Authority should clarify if the County's current practices comply with the proposed
revisions concerning participation in cooperative multi-jurisdictional planning.
FISCAL IMPACT
None directly. Proposed revisions to the Checklist could affect the County's eligibility to receive
Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds which amount to approximately $1.5 million annually.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In December 1995, the Authority initiated work to revise the Checklist used to measure a
jurisdiction's compliance with the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program. The intent of
this effort is to simplify the Checklist, make the questions more direct, and improve
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
_RECOMMENDATION OF UN M ISTRATOR
Z( RECOMMENDATION 0 M X:=7
T04LqA
APPROVE
_OTHER /0 M
SIGNATURE(S): J ith Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON 1 .1uii 9. 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED :x OTHER x
The Board APPROVED the recommendations as listed above and additionally REQUESTED that the Board of Supervisors'
CCTA representatives convey the Board's concerns to the OCTA about the issue of regular attendance at CCTA
meetings.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
01, 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT — - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact Person, Steven Goetz,335.1240 ATTESTED July 9. 1996
Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Chair Tatzin, CCTA (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Supervisor Bishopp AND C ADMINIST OR
Supervisor Toriakson
SLG:c Atranscom\rvchklst.bo
5
Draft Revised Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist
,Dyne 17, 1996
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
accountability: On May 23, the Authority transmitted draft revisions to local agency staff for
comment (see Exhibit A). The Transportation Committee has prepared this report describing the
most significant issues concerning the revised Checklist. Comments should be submitted to the
Authority by September 20, 1996.
Issue No. 1: Ecual emphasis on regional mitigation fees. general plan amendment review. and
affordable housing. In November 1995, the Authority adopted Resolution 95-05-G resolving that
each jurisdiction is expected to satisfactorily address the following three key elements for
compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program— implementing a CEQA-based
general plan amendment review process, establishing a regional transportation mitigation program,
and addressing housing options and job opportunities. The intent of the revised Checklist is to
place equal emphasis on these key elements. Question 1 requires each jurisdiction to implement
the specific general plan amendment review process described in Resolution 95-06-G. Question 2
requires each jurisdiction to work to develop and/or implement a regional transportation mitigation
program. Question 3 requires each jurisdiction to adopt a Housing Element consistent with state
law.
Working to develop and or implement a regionsV transportation mitigation program is not as
definitive as complying with Resolution 95-06-Gi or adopting a Housing Element. The CCTA should
establish July 1, 1997, as a deadline for completing all regional transportation mitigation programs
in the county. Failure to meet the deadline, could be a basis for finding a jurisdiction out of
compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program. The Transportation Committee
believes that nine years is more than adequate time to satisfy this critical component of the
Measure C ballot measure, which was approved in 1988.
Issue No. 2: Reguiring regular participation of Board Members in meetings. Question 6 addresses
participation in cooperative, multi-jurisdictional (planning. Compliance is defined as regular
participation by a jurisdiction's Council/Board member in meetings of the appropriate Regional
Transportation Planning Committee or other forums established by the CCTA. The existing
Checklist asks if a jurisdiction has regularly participated, but it does not specifically reference a
jurisdiction's Council/Board member. Failure of a Board member to regularly attend the meetings of
each Regional Committee may be a basis for finding the County out of compliance with the
Measure C Growth Management Program. Although the County is the only jurisdiction guaranteed
representation on the Authority, it is not clear if regular attendance of Authority meetings alone
would satisfy the revised language proposed in the Checklist.
Currently the County satisfies this requirement through a combination of efforts that include
meeting attendance by Board members at the Regional Committee and Authority levels, reports by
staff, and reports by the Board of Supervisor's Transportation Committee. Schedule conflicts or the
absence of significant agenda items causes some Supervisors to miss certain Regional Committee
meetings. The Authority should indicate to the Board if our existing practice satisfies the proposed
language.
EXHIBIT A
MAY 26 PH 2: 27
CONTRA COSTA
DENS Ci-XENT DEPT
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
VOMMISSIONERS:
Don Tsizin TO: CONTRA COSTA CITY MANAGERS,PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORS,AND
Chair PLANNING DIRECTORS
Cathie Kosel
Vice Chair FROM: MARTIN R. ENGELMANN,P.E.
riayle Bishop Deputy Director,Planning
MW Greenberg
j3erba»Use DATE: May 23, 1996
John E.Marquez SUBXCT: TRANSMITTAL OF THE DRAFT REVISED GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Allen Payton PROGRAM ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST FOR FISCAL YEAR
Julie Pierce (FY) 1996-1997 LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT
Oren Regalia FUNDS
Tom Torlskson
Hamann Wetm Attached for your review is the Draft Revised Growth Management Program Annual
'Robert K.McCleary Compliance Checklist for FY 1996-97 funds allocation. In December the Authority directed its
Executive Director Technical Coordinating Committee to work on revisions that would simplify the Checklist,make
the questions more direct,and improve accountability. While the funds allocated will be from
FY 1996-97 revenues,the checklist will cover calendar year 1996 compliance.
The first Annual Compliance Checklist was adopted by the Authority as part of the
Implementation Documents in December 1990. The questions on that checklist paralleled the
eight key elements listed in the Growth Management Program of Measure C(1988). The
Authority's adoption of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan in July 1995 placed
renewed emphasis on three key elements of the Measure C Program—establishing the regional
mitigation/fee program,implementing a CEQA-based general plan amendment review process,
and addressing housing optionsrob opportunities. Also,in the course of reviewing local
jurisdictions' checklist submittals, issues such as clarity,accountability,self-certification,and
the TPAC review process were on occasion raised and discussed at the PGA and Authority
meetings. All of these considerations led to the decision to revise the Checklist.
A workshop may be held in June or July to discuss the proposed revisions. Comments
should be submitted to the Authority by September 20, 1996.
Attachment
1340 Treat Boulevard
Suite ISO
Walnut Creek
CA 04596
'+HONE:
Jl"38.3970
'A1C
3101938.3993
1
S.
DRAFT CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTA77ON AUTHORITY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST -
FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 ALLOCATION OF 18% LOCAL
STREET MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
REPORTING PERIOD: CALENDAR YEAR 1996
BACKGROUND
To receive their 18%Local Street Maintenance and Improvement fimds,Measure C requires each
jurisdiction in Contra Costa County to take several actions. These actions include adopting a Growth
Management Element that sets traffic Level-of-service and facility performance standards,adopting both a
development mitigation program and a transportation systems management ordinance,participating in
cooperative planning to reduce traffic impacts,developing a five-year capital improvement program,and
addressing housing options and job opportunities.
Each jurisdiction should use the attached checklist to demonstrate how it complies with the requirements of
Measure C. In addition to filling out the checklist,the jurisdiction must attach the detailed information that
is requested in the attachments section. A completed compliance checklist and attachments with supporting
documentation must be submitted by the jurisdiction,then reviewed and approved by the Authority. Upon
approval of a jurisdiction's checklist,the Authority will allocate fiords by formula in accordance with the
attached table. In Fiscal Year 1996-97,approximately$8.1 million will be available to be allocated.
Each year,the Authority will distribute the checklist by January 31 following the end of the calendar year
which the checklist covers. Jurisdictions are eligible to received 18 percent funds on April 1 of each fiscal
year,provided they can demonstrate program compliance four the previous calendar year. If the jurisdiction
cannot certify that it meets all of the program requirements by June 30 of the year following the year that the
checklist is issued,it should prepare a"Statement of Progress"outlining how it is working to meet those
requirements.
Some important reference documents that the Authority has adopted and that local staff should have on hand
when completing the Checklist are:
1) Growth Mmagement Implementation D=wnents:,1mplernentatfon Guide, Model Growth
Management Element,and Administranve Procedures Manual,December 1990; -
2) Guide to Local Planning and Growth Management,October 1990;
3) Technical Procedures,adopted August 199:1;and
arfl
May 16. 1996 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS
PAGE 1
4) Countywide Comprehensive D-ansportation Plat,Exhibits.4 through E, Excerpts from
Action Plats for Routes of Regional Signifteance—Loeal.hvisdietions'Responsibilities for
Compliance with the Cooperative,Multi jurisdictional Planting Process to Reduce the
Cumulative Regional Dl q is Impacts of Development,adopted July 19, 1995. _
All of these documents are available through the Authority offices at no expense. Should you need a copy,
please call us at 256-4720.
MEASURE C REQUIREMENTS
The following describes in greater detail the requirements of the Measure C Growth Management Program
(GMP)as they relate to each section of the Checklist. These requirements were broadly defined in the
Measure C Expenditure Plan that was approved by the voters of Contra Costa in November 1988. The
Growth Management Implementation Documents,adopted by the Authority in December 1990,elaborate
on the technical and procedural requirements of the GMP. The compliance requirements listed below
constitute a synopsis of both the Measure C Expenditure Plan GMP and the Implementation Documents.
The jurisdiction should respond`yes"or"no"to each question depending upon whether it has fulfilled the
requirements. For certain questions,the"Not Applicable"response is appropriate.
1. Action Plans. Measure C requires local jurisdictions to implement the actions,measures,and programs
agreed upon in the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance as adopted by the jurisdiction's
Regional Committee and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The question has three parts. Parts b
and c concern procedural requirements for general plan amendments.A`W response is appropriate if the
jurisdiction has complied with these requirements by following the procedure. Or,if no general plan
amendments were considered during the reporting period,a`yes"response is also appropriate.
Part a asks if the jurisdiction has taken steps to implement the actions,programs,and measures
identified in its subarea Action Plan. Detailed information on steps taken needs to be attached.
Jurisdictions should work with their RTPC managers to obtain formatting and reporting guidance on
providing the information requested;
Pan b is a three part question that relates to procedural requirements in the Action Plan:
i. Circulation of environmental documents is required under Authority Resolution 92-
03-G adopted in March 1992(attached).For projects and general plan amendments
that generate more than 100 peak4wut~trips,jurisdictions must circulate Notices of
Preparation '* d Notices of Availability t�all Regional Committees.
�_
ii. The jurisdiction must analyse the impacts of proposed General Plan Amendments
C1 WPD
May 16, 1996 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS
PAGE 2
1
-and determine if the amendment would violate action plan policies or the ability to
meet Traffic Service Objectives. Ile jurisdiction may propose changes to the
Action Plan for consideration by its Regional Committee to assure that the general
pian amendment does not adversely affect the regional transportation network. ..
iii. The jurisdiction should review its subarea Action Plan to determine if any
conditions exist for the approval off projects. For example,the East County Action
Plan includes.specific project evaluation responsibilities of local jurisdictions and a
Mitigation Toolbox that jurisdictions are to use and report on in their environmental
documents.
Part c relates to Authority Resolution 95-06-G.adopted by the Authority in July 1995 along with
the Countywide Comprehensive 7Yansporlation Plim. Attachment B to the resolution is a flow chart
illustrating the CEQA-Based Multijurisdictional Review Process for General Plan Amendments.
When preparing General Plan Amendments,jurisdictions must follow this procedure in order to be
found in compliance with the GMP.
2. Regional Traffic Mitigation Program. Measure C requires local jurisdictions to adopt a development
mitigation program to ensure that development pays its fair share of the costs associated with that
development and to ensure that no funds from the Measure will be used to replace private developer funding
that has been or will be committed to any project(Part a). Pari b relates to the jurisdiction's participation in
the Authority's efforts to develop,through the regional committees, a regional transportation mitigation
program, including fees,assessments,or other mitigation.
3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities. Measure C requires each jurisdiction to develop an
implementation program,built on its capital improvement program and housing element,that creates
housing opportunities for all income levels.Each jurisdiction must also address land use information as it
relates to transportation demand,and discuss its efforts to address housing options and job opportunities on a
city,subregional and countywide basis.
4. Growth Management Element:Performance Standards. Measure C requires that each jurisdiction
adopt a Growth Management Element that establishes performance standards for fire,police,parks,sanitary
facilities,water and flood control. The standards are to be applied in the development review process.These
standards are to be maintained through capital projects and should take fiscal constraints into account.
Jurisdictions may review their performance standards on an annual basis,in conjunction with Special -
Districts where appropriate,and may elect to modify the standards. The Implementation Documents include
a Model Growth Management Element with reqs~iced and optional subsections to which the jurisdiction's
.Growth Management Element should conform.
.WFD
May 16, 1996 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS
PAGE 3
4.
S. Growth Management Element:Traffic Level-0f-Service Standards. Measure C requires each
jurisdiction to adopt and comply with traffic Level of Service(IAS)standards keyed to types of land use.
Where intersections exceed these standards,the Authority may establish mitigation measures,jointly with
local jurisdictions,or make a Finding of d)veckd Cir wnstances.Intersections that exceed standards but that .will be brought into compliance through implementation of the current five-year capital improvement
program are considered to be in compliance. The Measure C Growth Management Program also requires
that jurisdictions prepare traffic studies for projects that generate more than 100 peak hour trips. No
development project expected to ffenemkjover 100 peak-hour vehicle trips may be approved unless the
jurisdiction has made a findings of Consis�ic:ance,
y ' regard to LOS standards,consistency with adopted
Action Plans for Routes of Region�a igni and compliange with Performance Standards for public
services. Jurisdictions that approve a project without making(F:i;�in gsof Consistency would be out of
compliance with the GMP. _ --
6. Participation in Cooperative,Multi-Jurisdictional Planning. The Growth Management Program
requires the Authority to establish a forum far jurisdictions to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts.
This is accomplished through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees supported by an ongoing
countywide comprehensive transportation planning process in which all jurisdictions participate.
7. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. To meet and maintain adopted traffic service and
performance standards,Measure C requires local jurisdictions to develop a five-year capital improvement
program.The capital improvement program must include approved projects,their estimated costs and a
financial plan for providing the improvements. The CIP should be amended annually,taking into account
changes in project cost,funding sources,project development,and timing. If funds allocated to any project
for the previous year were not spent during the year,and the funds will be needed in the future,that should
be reflected in the CEP update. (See reference document No.2,page 49).
S. Transportation Systems Management Program. Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt a
transportation systems management ordinance or alternative mitigation program.
9. Maintenance of Effort. Section 6 of Measure C requires each jurisdiction to maintain a minimum level
of local street and road expenditures.This minimum level of funding must be the amount spent by the
jurisdiction in fiscal year 1986-1987.If the jurisdiction received extraordinary funds during that period, it
may use the average of transportation funding during the three-year period ending in fiscal year 1986-1987
or the amount of transportation funding less any extraordinary funding,or it may apply for special
consideration to establish a new minimum level of transportation funding.
10.Posting of Signs. Each jurisdiction must post signs meeting Authority specifications for all projects
exceeding$250,000 that are funded,in whole or in part,with Measure C funds.
r
11.Other Considerations. The jurisdiction has the opportunity to explain the reasons for noncompliance
or the rational for using other methods to meet the requirements and the intent of Measure C.
c. WrD
May 16, 1996 CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS
PAGE 4
(r 6
1
�t.
DRAFT CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
Jurisdiction:
FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 ALLOCAtION OF 18% LOCAL
STREET MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
REPORTING PERIOD: CALENDAR YEAR 1996
1. AcrION PLANS YES NO
a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the applicable Action Plan ❑ ❑
for Routes of Regional Significance for all designated Regional Routes within the
jurisdiction?
b. Has the jurisdiction implemented the following procedures as outlined in the ❑ ❑
applicable Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance?
i. Circulation of environmental documents, ❑ ❑
ii. Analysis of the impacts of proposed General Plan Amendments and
recommendation of changes to Action Plans,and El 0
iii. Conditioning the approval of projects consistent with Action Plan ❑ []
policies?
c. Has the jurisdiction followed the procedures for RTPC review of General Plan 1-10
Amendments as called for in the attached flow chart?(Attachment B to Authority
Resolution No.95-06-G,adopted July 19, 1995).
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM YES NO
a. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a development mitigation program to
ensure that new development pays its fair share of the impact mitigation costs
associated with that development?
b. Is the jurisdiction working to develop and/or implement a regional mitigation0 11
program,including regional traffic mitigation fees,assessments,or other mitigation
as appropriate?
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
PAGE 1
•
DRAFT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction:
Fiscal Year. 1996-1997
Reporting Period: Calendar 1996
3. MOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES YES NO
a_ Has the jurisdiction adopted a Housing Element that has been certified by the State ❑ ❑
Department of Housing and Community Development to comply with State Law?
b. Has the jurisdiction adopted a Housing Element that complies with the requirements
of§65583 et seq. of the Government Code,by:
• Identifying local responsibilities for meeting regional housing needs,
• EstabIishing goals and policies for meeting those needs,and ❑ ❑
• Outlining a 5-year program of actions to implement the Housing Element? ❑ ❑
c. Does the jurisdiction's General Plan—or other adopted policy document or report— ❑ ❑
evaluate the effects of planned land uses on local,subregional and regional travel
patterns and propose land use policies and a pattern of land uses that would promote
more efficient use of the transportation system?
4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT:PERFORMANCE STANDARDS YES NO
a. As part of its General Plan,has the jurisdiction adopted a Growth Management ❑ ❑
Element which is in substantial compliance with the Authority's Model Growth
Management Element?
b. Does the jurisdiction now comply with adopted performance standards,or expect to ❑ ❑
comply with the standards within the next five years through implementation of its
Capital Improvement Program?
5. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: TRAFFIC LEVEL-OF-
SERVICE STANDARDS
YES NO N/A
a. Using the Authority's procedures,have traffic impact studies been conducted as part
of development review for all projects estimated to generate more than 100 ❑ ❑ ❑
peak-hour vehicle trips? YES NO
b. Does the jurisdiction maintain a list of Reporting Intersections on non-regional ❑ ❑
routes,and measure the level of service at those intersections annually?
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
PAGE 2
'DRAFT COMPUANCE CHECKUST Judsdiction:
Fiscol Year. 1996-1997
Reporting Period: Colendor 1996
S. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: TRAFFIC LEVEL-OF-
SERVICE STANDARDS
YES NO
c. Do all Reporting Intersections meet LOS standards through actual measurement,or ❑ ❑
after assuming implementation of five-year capital improvement program and
accounting for changes in travel demand?
d. D6es a request for Findings of Special Circumstances for those intersections that do ❑ E3not and will not meet LOS standards,accompany this checklist?
e. Has the jurisdiction ever been granted a Findings of Special Circumstances by the ❑ ❑
Authority?
6. PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE, MULTI-
JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING YES NO
a. Over the past year,has the jurisdiction's CounciOBoard member regularly ❑ ❑
participated in meetings of the appropriate Regional'Transportation Planning
Committee or other forums established by the CCTA,and have the jurisdiction's
local representatives to the Regional Transportation]Planning Committee regularly
reported on the activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or
board?
b. As needed,has the jurisdiction made available,as input into the countywide ❑ ❑
transportation computer model,data on land use and traffic patterns?
7. FWE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YES NO
Does the jurisdiction have an adopted five-year capital improvement program(CIP) ❑ ❑
that estimates project costs and includes a plan that outlines general mechanisms for
financing transportation and public facilities,including fire,police,parks,sanitary
facilities,water and flood control?
8.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM YES N O
To Be Revised following discussion of the implementation of SB 437 ❑ ❑
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
PAGE 3
0 I •
DRAFT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction:
Fiscal Year. 1996-1997
Reporting Period: Calendar 1996
9. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT YES NO
Has the jurisdiction met the maintenance of effort requirements of Measure C as ❑ ❑
stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth
Management Ordinance?
10. POSTING OF SIGNS YES NO N/A
Has the jurisdiction posted signs meeting Authority specifications for all projects ❑ ❑ ❑
eicceeding 5250,000 that are funded,in whole or in part,with Measure C funds?
11. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS YES N/A
If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C have been satisfied in ❑ ❑
a way not indicated on this checklist,please attach an explanation.
12. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CHECKLIST
This checklist was prepared by:
Signature: Date:
Name and Title:
Phone:
The council/board of[ J has reviewed the completed checklist and found that the
policies and programs of the jurisdiction as reported herein conform to the requirements for
compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program.
Certified Signature: Date:
Name and Title:
Attest Signature: Date:
City/Town/County Clerk
Name: •
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
PAGE 4
a s •
DRAFT
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ATTACHMENTS TO COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
Note:This form is available in electronic rnedia on WordPerfect or Word.
QUESTION INFORMATION REQUESTED
REFERENCE
1. ACTION PLANS
a. Please summarize steps taken during last yeas to implement the actions,programs, and
measures called for in the applicable Action Plans Jor Routes ofRegional Significance:
C. Attach, list and briefly describe any General Plan Amendments that were approved during
the reporting period. Please specify which amendments affected abilityto meet the standar
in the Growth Management Element wuVor affected ability to implement Action Plan polici
or meet 7�q$Sc Service Objectives. Indicate if amendmena were forwarded to the
jurisdiction's RTPC for review, and describe the results of thx review relative to Action PI
implementation:
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM
b. Describe progress on development and/or implementation of the regional mitigation
program if voider development, what is the anticipated date of adoption of the program?
CHECKLIST ATTACHMENTS
PAGE 1
1 S'8 5--
DRAFT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Jurisdiction:
Fiscal Year. 1996-1997
Reporting Period:Calendar 1996
QUESTION INFORMATION REQUESTED _
REFERENCE
3. HOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES
a Please list the date of State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)
certification of the jurisdiction's Housing Element and attach the HCD letter:
b. If the Housing Element is not certified,please list the date of adoption and resolution numbe
of the jurisdiction's resolution finding that the Housing Element complies with State law.
Also state what actions have been taken during the reporting period to contribute toward
achieving the housing allocations established byABAGfor all income levels.
4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
b. If the jurisdiction does not currently meet its adopted performance standards,please
describe what actions the jurisdiction intends to take to bring it into compliance within the
next five years, including actions contained in the adopted five year capital improvement
program:
5. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: TRAFFIC LEVEL OF
SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS
a Please list projects that generate more thm 1,00 peak how lripfor avhich tra, c impact
studies were conducted and indicate a Findings of Consistency with Standards was
made:
CHECKLIST ATTACHMENTS
PAGE 2
a r •
1 +'
DRAFT COMPLIANCE CNECKUST Jurisdiction:
Fiscal Year: 1996-1997
Reporting Period: Calendar 1996
QUESTION INFORMATION REQUESTED
REFERENCE
S. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: TRAFFIC LEVEL OF
SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS (continued)
b. Please list Reporting JWersections,dates ofcounts and LOS monitoring results. Also attach
_ LOS calculations. Explain reasons for any LAS exc redances and proposed mitigation
through implementation of the 5-.year CLP or other mechanism.
e. Please list intersections for which the Authority has adopted Findings of Special
Circumstances and describe actions taken over the past year to caray out required conditionS
of compliance:
7. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Please list resolution number and date of adoption of most recent five year CLP. Cite any
performance standards for which CLP implementation is required to meet standards, and
state the number of years for which this condition has prevailed.
8. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(To be completed following discussion of the implications of SB 43 7)
11. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Please spew any alternative methods of achieving compliance for any components for the
Measure C Growth Management Pppgrarm.
CNECKUST ATTACHMENTS
PAGE 3
�a r • rC..J
• i.: S"
LIST OF EXHIIBITS
1) Allocations of Local Street Maintenance Funds for 1996.
2) Authority Resolution 92-03-0 regarding circulation of environmental documents(pertains to
question l.b.i).
3) Authority Resolution 94-02-G regarding allocation of 18%funds and treatment of fiords
withheld from jurisdictions for noncompliance.
4) Authority Resolution 95-06-G regarding the general plan review process(pertains to question
l.c). This resolution includes a flow chart depicting the general plan review process adopted
by the Authority in July 1995.
r
CHECKLIST EXHISMS
PAGE 1
l •
i
S.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
GMP Growth Management Plan
HCD Housing and Community Development
LOS (Traffic)]Level of Service
RTPC Regional Transportation Planning Committee
0
CHECKLIST EXHIBITS
PAGE 2
•
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
RESOLIMON NO. 92-03-G
RE: Policy for notification of Regional Transportation Planning Committees of proposed
projects and General Plan amendments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips.
WIUREAS the Authority'sGrowth Management Program has been defined in the
Implementation Docwnents published in December 1990; and
WREREAS the Implem imdon Documents describe the contents and requirements of Action .
Plans for Routes of Regional Significance to establish and achieve traffic.service objectives
on Regional Routes; and
WHEREAS the Action Plans shall establish a process for the circulation and review of
Environmental Documents such as Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact
Reports/Stateinents; and
WHEREAS as an interim measure, the Authority wishes to facilitate notification of affected
jurisdictions of the preparation of environmental documents for proposed projects or General
Plan amendments that generate more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips so that affected
jurisdictions may comment on draft environmental documents; and
W MMEAS the Authority has brought this issue to its Technical Coordinating Committee,
and the committee has forwarded a recommendation to the Planning and Governmental
Affairs Committee for consideration by the Authority.
NOW, TEDEREFORE
(1) BE IT RESOLVED THAT for any proposed project or General Plan amendment that
generates more than 100 trips during the peak hour.for which an environmental document
(either a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/EIS)) is
being prepared, the Lead Agency shall notify all Regional Transportation Planning
Committee Chairs or designated Staff Person; and
Resolution 92-03 Page i of 2
3.t 8', 1992
S,
(Z) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT notification shall be made at the following two
l critical junctures:
` a) upon issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue a Negative Declaration or a Notice
of Preparation for an ERIEIS; and
b) upon completion of a Negative Declaration or a Dian E UMS (Notice of
Completion); and
(3) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Regional Committees shall in turn notify
jurisdictions within its subarea as appropriate so that affected jurisdictions may comment on
proposed projects;.and
(4) $E IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT pursuant to this resolution and in accordance
with the Impknwuarion Docwne>ut, the Regional Committees shall adopt as part of the
Anion Plans procedures for the review and circulation of environmental documents. These
procedures will supplement the requirements for circulation of environmental documents set
forth herein.
This resolution was entered into at a
regular meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority held WIA"A— t8; 1992 in Walnut Creek, CA.
c
44, air Attest: M Cleary
Executive hector
.r.
r Resolution 92-03- Page 2 of 2
1992
a •
i
:.y:.[•:iry:inw)SC;:r y.)i:<ri L+:.�r,.;.+'?T!<::_:::.:.:.......xy,:.,:♦;iY......;±.�i.:.;n;n err:::::::{: :::''.:�::::::....:....::.
'iii::i'i..wr.♦{04K4i:4i..Jw.:.viriv:•n ♦ n.♦nvww:W/h.C•w M•.:'Jvw•i...n ...n.i
(REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEES)
tWCCTAC(West C6untvl-M_eefs Wst Fiid"ay.of Month
(West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee)
Chair: Irma Anderson Staff: Lisa Hogeboom
5016 Nunn Street One Alvarado Square
Richmond, CA 94804 San Pablo,CA 94806
235-9288 Fax:235-6288 215-3044 Fax: 235-7059
I- RANSPAC(Central County)Meets lif and 3rd Thursday'
(Transportation Partnership and Cooperation)
Chair: Bill McManigal Staff: Barbara Neustadter
1460 Washington Blvd. Ste. B-102 City of Pleasant Hill
Concord, CA 94521 100 Gregory Ln.
672-1932 Fax: 672-1885 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523
671-5250 Fax:208-3614
TRANSPLAN(East County) Meets 2nd Ttiuitsday
Chair: Allen Payton Staff: Patrick Roche
P.O.Box 1968 CCC Community Dev.
Antioch, CA 94509 .651 Pine St.4th Fir.,N.Wing
753-1994 (vm)Fax: 754-5587 Martinez,CA 94553
335-1242 Fax: 335-1299
SWAT(Southwesf C6untyl Meets lit Monday NOTE:_CHAIR 6 MONTH ROTATION
(Southwest Area Transportation Committee)
Chair: Hermann Welm Staff: Karen Stein
City of San Ramon Town of Moraga
2222 Camino Ramon P.O. Box 188
San Ramon,CA 94583 Moraga, CA 94556
275-2342 Fax: 866-1236 376-2522 Fax: 376-2034
'VTC' i3-Vsllev Tr9nDortatio"n Counc'i1)Meets 4th'Wedd94y—
Chair: Tom Reitter Staff: Bill van Gelder
1052 S.Livermore Ave. P.O.Box 520
Livermore, CA 94550 Pleasanton,CA 94566-0802
422-1468 (work) • 484-8257 Fax: 484-8291
KLD- Revised May 24, 1996
S.
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (CCTA)
RESOLUTION 094-02-G
RE: Authority pollcy regarding allocation of Measure C Local Street
Maintenance and Improvement finds (18 percent) and treatment of funds
withheld from jurisdictions found to The out of compliance with the Growth •-
Management Program
WHEREAS, the voters of Contra Costa approved the Measure C Transportation
Improvement and Growth Management Program in November 1988; and
WHEREAS, Measure C includes a Local Suw Maintenance and Improvements Program
where funds are returned to local jurisdictions on a formula basis for local, subregional and •
ieegional transportation projects'as determined by cities and the county, including street and
road maintenance and/or transit improvements; and . .
WHEREAS, Measure C Local Street Maintenance and Improvements funds shall be
allocated annually to each jurisdiction, provided that the CCTA finds the jurisdiction to be in
compliance with the Growth Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the CCTA adopted the Growth Management Implementation Documents in
December 1990 which included an annual eompliancx:checklist for the determination of local
jurisdiction compliance with the Growth Management Program; and
WHEREAS, Measure C states that 'Bemuse of the great variations among the jurisdictions,
it is expected that the Authority will need some flexibility in determining compliance with the
Growth Management Program. Generally this flexibility may take the form of the Authority
setting deadlines for achieving one or more requirements as a condition of MWIving local
street maintenance and improvement funds;' and
WHEREAS, due to the lower than forecast revenue.; accruing to the Measure C Program to
date, and resulting financial forecasts;'the Authority's 1993 Strategic Plan projects that most
project categories will have a shortfall and be funded at no more than 90 percent of the
originally anticipated levels;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the CCTA hereby adopts the following
Policies for the allocation of Measure C Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and the
treatment of funds withheld from jurisdictions found to be out of compliance with the Growth
Management Program: _
(1) The Authority will distribute the Growth Management Checklist by January 31 of
each fiscal year. Jurisdictions are eligible to receive 18 percent funds on April 1 of
each fiscal year and the CCTA retains the funds until a jurisdiction comes into
compliance with the Growth Management Program. To comply with the Growth
Management Prograt a jurisdiction must submit a compliance checklist and the
Authority must approve that checklist.
Resolution X94-02-G
October 19, 1994
Page 2
(2) Jurisdictions will be given until June 30th of the year following the year that the
checklist is issued to submit their completed checklist or a Statement of Progress to
the CCTA. If a jurisdiction has not submitted their checklist or a Statement of --
Progress by that date, they will be found out of compliance. For jurisdictions that do
submit their checklist and are found out of compliance, the CCTA would issue a
Findings of Noncompliance stating the reason for noncompliance and the deadline for
curing the defects in the jurisdictions checklist. If a jurisdiction submits their
checklist in advance of the June 30th date and is found out of compliance, in no case
shall the deadline for compliance be before the June 30th date. A Statement of
Progress shall consist of a letter approved by the jurisdiction's Council/Board
.including: a) progress made on compliance with the Growth Management Program;
and b) a proposed schedule for submittal of a completed Growth Management
Checklist. The Authority will respond in writing to each Statement of Progress,
indicating approval or the need for revision. The Authority may reject a Statement of
Progress and set deadlines for a jurisdiction's Checklist submittal. It is the intent of
the CCTA to have all checklists approved within one year following the initial June
30th deadline.
(3) After FY 1991-92 annual gaps in compliance would be permissible; however,
jurisdictions would not be eligible to receive 18 percent funds for years that they are
not found in compliance with the Growth Management Program.
(4) After expiration of a compliance deadline, a noncomplying jurisdiction's 18 percent
funds will revert to the CCTA for allocation to* projects contained in Measure C that
are not fully funded, are of high priority, and are of broader regional significance.
(5) No interest will be accrued to local jurisdictions on behalf of their unallocated funds.
(6) When a response on a formerly approved checklist is discovered which would have
led to a Findings on Noncompliance, and that condition continues, the CCTA will
issue a Findings of Noncomplia= for the current fiscal year, and current and future
year allocations will be withheld until the condition is corrected. No retroactive
action will be taken.
This RESOLUTION was entered into aj a
meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation cel Keller, Chair
Authority held October 19, 1994 in
Walnut Creek, California
Attest: axxzt K LAI
Robert cCl ecutive D' r
Resolution 94-02-G
S, �. 5" •
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Resolution 95•-06-G
RE: APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN7 REVIEW PROCESS
FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEI UNT PROGRAM .-
1) WE MAS, Measure C requires the Authority 'to establish a forum to cooperate in
easing cumulative traffic impacts. Thu will be accomplished through the Regional
Transportation Planning Committees . . .;'' and
2) MrBERFAS, Measure C also stated that 'Use of the Countywide transportation computer
model provides an opportunity to test General Play(s) transportation and land use
alternatives, and to assist cities and the county in determining the impact of major
development projects proposed for General Plan Amendments. This would provide a
quantitative basis for inter jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic
impacts;"' and
3) «70-EAS, Measure C further requires that 'The Authority, jointly, with affected local
jurisdictions, shall determine and periodically review the application of Traffic Service
Standards on routes of regional significance. The review will take into account traffic
originating outside of the county or jurisdiction, and environmental and financial
Considerations. Local jurisdictions, through the forum provided by the Authority, shall
jointly determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic
_ impacts. (See Section 5)';' and
4) WHEREAS, in response to these mandates the Authority adopted in December, 1990
Implementation Documents, specifying that the Action Plan process, the establishment of
Traffic Service Objectives and Actions, the General Plan Amendment Review process, and
the Conflict Resolution process would be used to meet the requirements outlined above; and
5) «REAS, the Authority will separately approve the details of the Conflict Resolution
process to be used in the event of disputes between jurisdictions; and
6) WHEREAS, to recognize the differences between jurisdictions, and the flexibility
provided to it within Measure C to judge compliance with the Growth Management Program,
the Authority has agreed to ultimately evaluate compliance with Measure C. as it relates to
review and negotiation of proposed General Plan Amendments, on the basis of 'good faith;'
'The 1988 Measure C Expenditure Plan, Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and
Growth Management Program, p. 11, Paragraph 5. (Adopted August 1988)
'I=, p. 10. -
s.
Resolution 95-06-G
July 19, 1995
Page 2
the Authority has agreed to ultimately evaluate compliance with Measure C, as it relates to
review and negotiation of proposed General Plan Amendments, on the basis of 'good. faith;'
1) NOW, TARE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Authority hereby adopts the
attached summary (Attachment A) and flow chart (Attachment B) to serve as the General
Plan Amendment Review process required by Measure C; and
2) BE IT FUR'IEOER RESOLVED, that in so doing, the Authority will evaluate the
compliance of individual jurisdictions at the time of its review of the Annual Compliance
Checklist submittal by the jurisdiction; and
3) BE rr FURTEOER RESOLVED, that the Authority will review each Agency's 'good
faith' participation in the Growth Management Program during its annual review of the
Compliance Checklists. Good faith participation will be evaluated in consideration of the
following factors:
3.1 Analysis - Was the Countywide (or Regional) traffic model used to evaluate
projects with the potential to impact Routes ofrRegional Significance?
3.2 Evaluation -Were impacts to Routes of Regional Significance identified and
appropriate and feasible mitigations defined?
3.3 Notification - Were all affected agencies properly notified?
3.4 Meet and Confer - Did the Agency meet and confer with neighboring
jurisdictions, RTPCs and other who expressed interest in and/or concerns about
proposed projects?
3.5 Responsiveness to concerns/comments - Did the Agency agree to evaluate
specific concerns and project impacts? Were they responsive and did they attempt
to resolve and work out issues and concerns? Did the Agency propose to and/or
agree to participate in conflict resolution? (Attachment C includes examples of
'good faith' which the Authority may use, but is not limited to, individually or in
combination, in its assessment of a jurisdiction's responsiveness to concerns and
attempts to resolve issues, including its proposed mitigation of impacts.) and
4) BE IT FURTSER RESOLVED, that the Authority shall consider the concerns-of both
the jurisdictions generating traffic as a result of a General Plan Amendment, and those of the
recipient(s) of such traffic, equally, in making its evaluation of 'good faith.'
a t s]
r �Y•
x,
Resolution 95-06-G
July 19, 1995
Page 3
Jule Pierce, Chair
This RESOLUTION was entered into at a
meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority held July 19, 1995 in
Walnut Creek, California
Attest:
Robert-IC-. Cl Executive hector
rl:cresol auucrer95-O5.fal
1
' Resolution 95-06-G
July 19, 1995
Page A-1 AT'TACBMENT A
OVERVIEW OF THE
GENMRAL PLAN AMIr UMNT REVIEW PROCESS
1. The process shall be concurrent with the CEQA time line for preparation.of a _
Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. It is recognized that Conflict -
Resolution could extend the process beyond the date of expected CEQA certification
and corresponding approval of the project. However, every effort should be made by
both the project sponsor and by concerned jurisdictions to address potential issues of
conflict within the time frame provided under CEQA. Early identification of
problems and consultation with affected jurisdictions is recommended. All affected
jurisdictions shall participate in =Conflict Resolution process, if necessary, for
each General Plan Amendment.
2. The process requires that a jurisdiction study the impacts of a proposed GPA on the
Action Plan when the size of the GPA exceeds the threshold size established by the
RTPC in its Action Plan; or 500 peak hour trips if such threshold has not been
established.
3. The GPA sponsor may approve the GPA without consequence M. (1) the GPA does
not adversely affect the ability of local jurisdictions to meet the Traffic Service
Objectives ('ISOs) or to implement the agreed-upon actions in the Action Plans; or (2)
the GPA and/or Action Plan have been amended to mitigate the impact on the
regional system relative to TSOs and actions, to the satisfaction of the affected RTPC;
or (3) the affected RTPC has agreed to amend the Action Plan; or (4) the Conflict
Resolution process has been otherwise successful. When any of these conditions is
satisfied, the sponsor and the local RTPC shall advise the Authority. Failure to
satisfy one of these conditions could result in a finding of non-compliance by the
Authority, unless the Authority finds the jurisdiction has acted in good faith to
negotiate resolution of conflicts.
Sponsoring jurisdictions must work in 'good faith' to address all concerns raised
during the CEQA review process for proposed GPAs. The Authority's evaluation of
'good faith' will consider the factors detailed in Item 6 below, and the sponsoring
Agency's responsiveness to concerns raised by other RTPCs and other Agencies.
4. The jurisdiction preparing the GPA should notify all impacted RTPC(s) and-
jurisdictions as early as possible of potential impacts with respect to previously
approved TSOs and actions. Concerned jurisdictions may voice concerns to the GPA
sponsor, the RTPC, and the Authority regarding impact on TSOs by commenting: on
the Notice of Preparation; on the draft Negative Declaration or EIR and/or prior to
project approval.
5. If a conflict shoul4 arise during review by the affected RTPC(s) and or during CEQA
reviews of proposed GPA proposals, any party to the conflict may call for initiation
of conflict resolution. The parties may utilize the Authority's conflict resolution
process, or an alternative process, as long as it is acceptable to the parties to the
conflict. The Authority, during its annual review of the Compliance Checklists, will
s-D-�' "
Resolution 95-06-G
July 19, 1995
Page A-2 ATTACEENMgT A .
evaluate each party's •good faith• efforts to resolve conflicts. Failure to participate
in conflict resolution could be the basis for a finding of non-compliance.
6. Good faith participation in the Measure C program will be evaluated annually in
consideration of the following factors:
6.1 Analysis -Was the Countywide (or Regional) traffic model used to evaluate
projects with the potential to impact Routes of Regional Significance?
6.2 Evaluation -Were impacts to Routes of Regional Significance identified and
appropriate and feasible mitigations defined?
6.3 Notification -Were all affected Agencies properly notified?
6.4 Meet and Confer - Did the Agency meet and confer with neighboring
jurisdictions, RTPC(s) and others who expressed interest in and/or concerns
about proposed projects? ;
6.5 Responsiveness.to concerns/comments -Did the Agency agree to evaluate
specific concerns and project impacts? Were they responsive and did they
attempt to resolve and work out issues and concerns? Did the Agency propose
to and/or agree to participate in conflict resolution? (Attachment C includes
examples of 'good faith' which the Authority may.use, but is not limited to,
individually or in combination, in its assessment of a jurisdiction's
responsiveness to concerns and attempts to resolve issues, including its
proposed mitigation of impacts.)
r
�1p2aa1ifsm951esi9S06t.ata
� • S, Ds—
Resolution 95-06-G
July 19, 1995
Page C-1 Attachment C
EXAMPLES OF •GOOD FAITH"
PARTICIPATION IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS
Formal written documentation verifying that some of the following or similar proposals have
been offered to resolve conflicts in the conflict resolution process:
General Plan Amendments
1. For the jurisdiction proposing development as sponsor of the GPA:
0 Reduce development densities;
• Phase in development based on measurement of TSO(s), with development
stopping if TSO(s) are exceeded;
• Revise the mix of land use to encourage more internal trips, or more balance
between internal and external trips;.
• Identified project mitigations which can be demonstrated to meet TSO(s), and
offered to defray the cost of those improvements which are proportionately
attributable to the development;
• If no project improvements have been identified by the adjacent jurisdicdon(s),
offer to transfer funds to the adjacent jurisdiction(s) for mitigation which will be
identified in the future, consistent with AB 1600 requirements;
• Offer to accept metering on roadways in adjacent communities, and build
'reservoir' capacity within the development;
• Revise the urban design to encourage local trips for shopping, recreation, and
non-commute purposes, including consideration of facilitating pedestrian, bicycle
and/or transit trips;
• Offer to pay for peak hour transit services connecting to major transit hubs, for an
extended period of time;
• Include fiber-optics cables for communications, and work with telephone and cable
providers to provide ISDN and other high-capaaty electronic capabilities to serve
bomes and businesses. •-
2. For a 'downstream'jurisdiction receiving traffic from a new development: -
• Agree to accept capacity improvements to local arterials and highways which are
not in fundamental conflict with the jurisdiction's socio-economic character,
• Consider non-physical improvements or minor physical modifications to enhance
carrying capacity of local streets and roads, and freeways, such as: signal
interconnections; auxiliary and turning lanes; signalized pedestrian crossings;
1
8 p •O NG.. p r
uj
=; 3 �i� •' o i � 'e
._
ice ;aim If _ ° t
os� 1T2
1 IVI
t <L---- ------1 c 1 1 .
1 •- pA
1—•�-----�•— ------------------1 � �+ Q
1 I t
Iw4a•peal) I c
r r r r r r r r
w 1 11131 •1 ttowy I
t 1>fIBO •1 pwuwoa
/puodow IfiH!1pa—
v b
49
O
uj
o
W
Z
I 1 I€t
L---------
all
1 I ��
� 1 I
1 1 O
t
i 1 O1 I don Imo •1 1
61-3 UIV
— — ---------------- —
{CCN •L IIMa
1 -
apya+ Vila i 1 o
< 11
I {
• � I awnuwoa 40H 01
,ull— a --------------- —
t u
€€� 1------------------------------�
V EQ
Resolution 95-06-G
July 19, 1995
Page C-2 Attachment C
pedestrian overaossings; frontage roads to limit access to major facilities;
revisions to parldng to add lanes; etc. .'
• Accept additional transit service provided by the new development;
• Accept work associated with necessary utility upgrades to provide enhanced
electronic communications;
• Consider supporting project alternatives which would serve the new development
that do not significantly impact the downstream jurisdiction, in pursuit of funding
resources external to the affected jurisdictions.
• Support park and ride lots and intermodal transit facilities that could consolidate
trips and reduce through traffic which would otherwise utilize affected roads.
3. In each case of conflict, 'good faith" would of course also be assessed within the
context of pre-existing legal agreements and understandings between the jurisdictions,
and any other relevant information.
TSO Adoption
1. Jurisdiction within which the facility is located, if it is a traffic recipient:
• Proposes TSO(s) that are no more stringent than evidenced by traffic in 1990;
• Shows flexibility in considering alternative TSOs that would not dramatically
worsen the character of the jurisdiction if implemented;
• Considers how facility improvements could accomplish desired TSO(s), without
rejecting them "out of hand."
2. Jurisdiction which is a traffic generator:
• Proposes TSO(s) that are meaningful, and not "whatever is needed to satisfy the
development.'
• Proposes alternative TSO(s) if necessary to promote continued dialogue and
discussion.
• Recognizes the socio-economic character of the recipient jurisdiction in proposing
any TSO(s) and capital projects to accomplish them deemed necessary to
accommodate the development.
p3aa�95ptan�rei95-06.atc �