Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01212003 - SD2 TO: BOARD of SUPERVISORS . , +I; Contra y. Costa FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR {amo'u'nt �- J DATE: January 21, 2003 SUBJECT: Growth Management Component of the Reauthorized Measure C-88 Transportation Sales Tax Program SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZE, the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter transmitting comments to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on their paper Options for a Growth Management Program(see Exhibit B). FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. The existing sales tax program ties each jurisdiction's share of the sales tax revenue to compliance with the countywide growth management program. An extension of this sales tax may contain a revised growth management program. New requirements in a revised program could affect the County's ability to obtain its share of the sale tax revenue for transportation. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In 2002,the Board referred the reauthorization of Measure C-88 to the Ad Hoc Committee on Smart Growth, and the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee. As part of the reauthorization effort,the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(Authority)circulated the paper Options fora Growth Management Program, to local jurisdictions for comment on October 22, 2002 (see Exhibit A). The Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee completed their review of this paper on December 10, 2002. The Committee requested that staff draft a comment letter based on their discussions and circulate it to the Ad Hoc Committee on Smart Growth for comment before submitting a report the Board of Supervisors. That draft letter is attached as Exhibit B. The members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Smart Growth did not have any changes. The draft comment letter includes a series of tables circulated by Authority staff on January 9, 2003. Authority staff requested each commenting jurisdiction to complete these tables by summarizing the applicable comments and concerns in this table format. These tables were not available when staff reviewed the draft letter with members of the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Smart Growth. The tables reflect the draft response of County staff, based on our understanding of the comments made by these Committee members. Board members should review these tables and include any revisions as appropriate in your transmittal to the Authority.. Please be aware that Authority established December 31, 2002 as the due date for comments. To comply with this schedule,staff submitted this comment letter to the Authority under the signature of the Community Development Director, and indicated that the Board will formally consider the item in January. Exhibit A: October 22, 2002 correspondence from Donald P. Freitas, CCTA Chair Exhibit B: January 21, 2003 draft comment letter to Donald P, Freitas, CCTA Chair CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: —O�/� - L:0.4 RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION;OF BOARD COMITTEE APPROVE OTHER �v ACTION OF BOARD ON January 21, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xy' OTHER x See attached addendum I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT None } BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: Steve Goetz (9251335-1240) ATTESTED January 21, 2003 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Smith, Kempton &Watts, (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Y .. � �..'�' `" �.�.-.. DEPUTY G:1Transt)ortationlStevelbolsent�ompoptions.?.doc B �„=. ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.2 January 21, 2003 On this date, Steven Goetz presented the staff recommendation to consider authorizing the Chair, Board of Supervisors,to sign a letter transmitting comments to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on its paper"Options for a Growth Management Program." The Board of Supervisors discussed the issue at length. Following this discussion,the Board took the following action: It is by the Board ordered that the Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED to revise the comment letter regarding the issue of self-certification on the housing elements; DIRECTED the Community Development staff to SCHEDULE a joint meeting between the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Board of Supervisors to discuss matters relating to issues around Measure C; DIRECTED County Counsel to review the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's January 15th letter and provide an opinion on the Authority's proposed process and state law; RETURN the matter to the January 28, 2003 Board of Supervisors meeting and INVITE the Contra Costa Transportation Authority members to attend the Board meeting. The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the BJohn Clark oard and County Administration Buildings � t County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 t�.lJ Co(925)336-1900 Martinez, Califomia 94553-1293 County ount f John Glola,1st district �/ Gayle B.uilkema,2nd District January 21, 2003 Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnler,4th District Federal D.Mover,5th District ' RSD Honorable Donald P. Freitas, Chair JAN 2 1200; Contra Costa Transportation Authority CLER c BOARD S A coVlSO s 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas, I am writing on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to inform you that the Board is scheduled on Tuesday, January 28, 2043 to review your correspondence to me regarding the Authority's intended process for the extension of the Measure C-88 transportation sales tax (see enclosure). We invite you to attend this meeting to help foster a common understanding between the County and the Authority of the next steps needed for developing a successful ballot measure for the reauthorization of Measure C. I will make sure you have the background material that the Board will receive when we discuss this matter. Please call me if you would like to discuss this matter prior to next Tuesday. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier, Chair Board of Supervisors Enclosure: g:\transportation\steve\letter\sent\freitas2.0l.doe cc: Members,Board of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA TRAASPORTATIONAUTHORIIY January 15,2003 COMMISSIONERS; Supervisor Mark De Saul.Tier,Chair Donald Frmbs Contra Costa County Boa Yd of Supervisors Chair 2423 Bisso Lane,#110 Julie Pierce Concord,CA 94520 Vice-Ciss�r RE: The Authority's Int..nded Process for Extension of the Measure C Transportation Sales Talk JanatAbelwn Dear,Sppervisor De Sault ier. OW*AbWm As you know,the Author;ty has initiated-the process for extension of,the"Measure C transportation salei tax. It is our desire i:o achieve the support of all local jurisdictions for a list of proposed ' '° expquditures for the extet siort that will garnet the necessary support of the electorate at the John G1012 November 2004 general election. { ural o At ids December 18,2002 meeting,the Authority expressed its intent to fallow the process outlined Brad Nit in its underlying statutes, Section 190000 et seq.of the Public Utilities Code. Section 180201 NancyTBterlm specifically authorizes tht..Authority, by a two-thirds vote of our Board, to place ott the ballot extch son/renewal of the ocal sales tax.` Under the law,the Authority envisions developing {Jon 7atzira amehdments to the existing expenditure plan that would utilize the revenues from the extension based on an extensive,of!n and public process. Robert McCleary In veting 9-02 to pursue this coarse of action,the Authority did so on the basis that an extension: Exec"ft Dkoevr (1)iiuilds on the significi.nt success the Authority has shown in implementing the+existing Mm-ure;(2) should have a strong appeal to voters as a continuation of an existing tax;(3)avoids debate over potentially divisive issues such as changing membership an the Board; institutional structure,etc.;and(4)en'ails a straightforward process that allows full focus on the projects and programs to be funded w.th new revenues. The process also readily allows the Authority to fully consider the renewal in tl a context of its overall Countywide Transportation Ilan for Contra Costa, :and integrate the a iditional revenues,within the context of available federal rind state transportation funds it pr sgrams as the Congestion Management Agency for' Contra Costa.- Of Bourse, the Authority will continue our"bottomsjp"process to solicit input and. reedrnmendations from a broad range of locally based sources, including,but not lirnited to:the Regional Transportation -Ilanning Committees(RTPCs);the newly-formed Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee(EFAC);the Bus Transit Coordinating Committee (BTCC); the Technical 34788uskrrkAve. Codrdinating Committee (TCC,comprised of local agency staff); the Citizens Advisory sub?cc Con raittee(CAC); and a I local jurisdictions. At the end of the process,we hope to have a program all local jurisdic:ions will support by resolution of your Board'. Pleasant HN CA 54528 a 'Undei the applicable law,the Board of Supervisors would call for an election for the purpose of voting on the PHONE: sales tai. The election would ice called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct 925/4o7'4s2f of a sftecial election by the cit mty. The Board of Supervisors'duty under the circumstances would be limited PAX. to ordering the special clectio i on the sales tax ordinance,without alteration. 9251407.4128 Commissioners Jahn Gioia s•red Federal Glover were not present at the meeting.. httptlw�rowscta.rtsr Supervisor DeSa!ulnier latiiiory 10,2003 Page 2;of 2 Alternatively, if the Authc.rity detennined to follow a process of creating a new expenditure plan, the new expenditure plan would have to be approved by a tt,ajority of the cities and towns having a majcOty of the populatior in the incorporated area of Contra,Costa,and by the Board of Supemsors,before the ta!:could be placed on the ballot. Starting the process from scratch would potentially raise considemdon of a now institutional framework,and would weaken the linkage to the Authority's overall Countywide Transportation Plan. Placing a new sales tax measure and a new expenditure plan on 1 c,e ballot,rather than a simple extension of the current tax,might also lead to additional confusil m on the part of the voters. The Authority concluded that starting over, without acknowledging tf a benefits of the existing institutional structure, would make consensus- buil4.ing more difficult. L rider the existing,structure that has been developed,the Regional Transportation Planning Committees,the County,and local jurisdictions have worked well together, and them is no a-)parent reason to change the structure. Starting the process from scratch would deprive the Author ty of the iz,heretnt advantages,noted above,a sociated with a straightforward extension and would seriously.tomplicate;cii.scussie s•°about extension,of the tax. We look forward to work,rig with you as we proceed towards extension lof'the Measure C Iran portation sales tax,e;rd believe that we can achieve a broad consensus to continue our colldctive progress on Coatra Costa's transportation system: If you have any questions regarding the r}newal process,plea.,e contact me at 925.778.1 161,or Bob McCleary of our staff at 925.56.4724. S Since ly, i I f. aid P.Freitas g Chairperson r CC. Authority members 3 i s i l t 3 { j j D t 7 I j i 7 I C:NY 1 ocumenrslwPFILESl3-EPC-Exp Plan Comm12C1OMenewal Ur t-OROS LTR-R=jewD1 Jars 15.doc t TOTAL P.03 EXHIBIT A CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION A UTHOR/TY Commissioners October 22, 2002 Donald F.Freitas Chair To; Local Agency Elected Officials, Public Agency Managers, Public Works Julie Pierce Directors, Planning Directors, and Other Interested Parties vice Chair RE Release of Paper on Options for the Growth Management Program ;anet Abelson Charlie Abrams Mario Alegria Dear Sir/Madame- [no Anderson Enclosed you will find a paper that outlines passible options for revising the John @60 Measure C Growth Management Program (GMP). The voters established the GMP when they passed Measure C in 1988. The Authority is beginning the process of Federal Clover defining a new Measure C, including potential refinements to it, that would replace Wade Games the existing measure, which sunsets in 2009. We hope to take the renewal measure Nancy tatarka to the voters in November 2004. Don tonin Much progress has been made since 1988: All of Contra Costa's local jurisdictions are participating in the regional committee forums, where transportation issues are regularly and openly discussed; we have a countywide fee and mitigation program Robert i McCleary that is generating significant funding to mitigate the impacts of local development; Execu#ive Director g g g g g P and we've established a consistent approach for analyzing the traffic impacts of new developments and general pian amendments. But despite our accomplishments, there are many critics who say that the GMP has not accomplished enough, and should be strengthened. Others think it is too bureaucratic, and should be eliminated. What is your point of view? The enclosed options paper describes a wide range of possible options for consideration in designing the next generation GMP for Contra Costa. We hope you can take the time to read through the paper and let us know which options you favor. Please feel free to suggest refinements to the options listed or wholly new approaches that you think will achieve the Authority's vision of a balanced transportation system, cooperative planning, and effective growth management. Nookston Square Comments are due by.December 31, 2002. 3478 Buskirk Avenue Su"rte 100 Peasant hill CA 94523 Our goal is to present the voters with a refined program that represents a consensus 925 407 0121 P among the various interests in Contra Costa while recognizing the diversity found 925 407 0128 F within the county. Wmccto.net 3-1 October 22, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Martin Engelmann at 925.256.4729 (mre a.cctamet), or Brad Beck at 925.256.4726 (bbeck@ccta.net). Sinc rely, Hon. Donald P. Freit Chair File: 01.19.01 \\Jan^\ccta files\1.Authority\2002\10\Transmit GMP Paper Final.doc Options for the Growth Management Program Introduction The Contra Costa Transportation Authority is embarking on a major effort to renew the Measure C half-cent sales tax program, which was approved by the voters of Contra Costa in 1988, and is scheduled to "sunset" in 2009. The renewal effort requires that the Au- thority craft a new Expenditure flan for the estimated $1.6 billion in revenues that a 20- year extension of the sales tax would generate, with the aim of putting the renewal on the November 2004 ballot. The Growth Management Program (the GMP) is an important component of Measure C. It is generally thought that a key reason for voter approval in 1988 was that the Expenditure Plan was.not just about collecting sales tax funds and investing them in transportation, but also about preserving that investment through an effective GMP. A previous half-cent sales tax measure that did not include a GMP failed in 1986. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion about future GMP policies to include in the Expenditure Plan. It is the first in a series of challenging steps intended to lead to a proposed GMP for the Measure C renewal. - Development of the GMP component of the renewal measure is being undertaken in paral- lel with the Authority's development of a list of projects and programs for investing $1.6 billion in multi-modal transportation improvements. The Expenditure Plan's projects and programs, including the proposed GMP, will be documented and analyzed in the 2004 Up- date to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation flan (CTP). So essentially three parallel, and interdependent efforts are underway: the Expenditure Plan Projects and Pro- grams, the GMP, and the CTP. Why o GMP? Depending on whom you ask., the GMP is everything from a huge success to a dismal fail- ure. There are essentially two camps. The first camp would give it a "thumbs up." They will point out how much worse the current planning and traffic environment would be if we didn't have the Measure C GMP. The second camp would say "thumbs down." They believe that the GMP's effect on containing development has been marginal at best. Surprisingly, neither camp appears to support eliminating the GMP entirely. If asked what form the GMP should take in the future, the first camp would probably suggest carrying it forward with some fine-tuning. The second camp, rather than suggesting it (the GMP) be October 21, 2002 Page 1 3 -3 Options for the Growth Management Program done away with, would probably argue for making it more potent. From Camp 2, we usu- ally hear the cry: "Give the Program.some teeth!" Obviously, had the Authority decided beforehand to discontinue the GMP entirely, this pa- per would be unnecessary. And eliminating the GMP is one of the options discussed below. But there are many other options that warrant discussion-= options that build upon what we have learned, options that take advantage of new technologies such as GIs and web in- terfacing, and options that have a proven track record in other fast-growing communities across the country. Fourteen years down the road, it is now time for the-GMP to undergo a very thorough ex- amination. Has it effectively accomplished its overall goals? Has it earned enough respect to have a place in the Measure C Renewal Program? If so, which components are worth keeping? And which ones should be thrown away? Should the requirements of the "keep- ers" be tightened? Or loosened? Overall Strategy The conceptual process for defining a new GMP is as follows: Steps Schedule 1. Define the Options: These range from continuing the existing program,to October—November 2002 expanding it,to eliminating it altogether. This paper is intended to help us define the options. 2. Refine the Options: Following full discussion of the options discussed in this January 2003 paper,we will refine them based upon the input received from all interested parries. Refinement may include adding new options that were overlooked or developing sub- options that fit under more general GMP concepts. 3. Assess the Options: Given how things have changed(or not changed)since 1988, March 2003 _ which of the GMP options hold promise? Which are potentially both effective and proc- ticoi? Each option will be assessed based upon its perceived maths and real-life track record. 4. Develop a Preferred GMP Alternative: After assessing the options,a pre- June 2003 ferred alternative will be developed for review and discussion. 5. Proposed GMP for Measure C Renewal: Based upon input received on the January 2004 - preferred alternative,craft a proposal for the next-generation Measure C for inclusion in the Expenditure Plan that will go before the voters in November 2004. Background The overall goal of the GMP is to "achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the October 22, 2002 Page 2 _L4 Options for the Growth Management Program establishment of performance standards."' Moreover, the GMP was also intended to pro- tect the $1 billion ($2000) in sales tax revenues slated for various transportation invest- ments as specified in the Measure C Expenditure Plan. The GMP architecture was specifi- cally designed to assure that future residential, business, and.commercialgrowth would pay for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth while sales tax revenues would be used to alleviate existing congestion. In other words, let's not allow future development to have a free ride, generating more traffic, and undoing the congestion relief benefits our Measure C highway and transit pro- jects have bought. "WHAT 1S GROWTH MANAGEMENT? One basic definition of "growth management" is the actions that governments take to "an- ticipate and seek to accommodate community development in ways that balance competing land use goals" and align local actions with regional interests.'This definition encompasses a very wide range of techniques to balance development with conservation, new develop- ment with adequate infrastructure, needed new public services with the revenues to finance those services, and economic growth with equity. The following table lists the primary con- cerns of most growth management programs and the techniques often used to address them: concerns Common Techniques identifying preferred locations for accommodating new development ■ Urban growth boundaries Development policy areas(e.g.urban,urbanizing,reserve) ■ Promotion of infill and redevelopment ■ Transit-Oriented Development(TODs) Extra-jurisdictional controls Growth limits,including moratoria Ensuring that adequate facilities and services are.available as de - Functional plans ~- velopment occurs • Adequate public facility ordinances&performance standards ■ Exactions,impact fees and special districts ■ Transportation demand management and congestion man- agement programs Project rating systems i Measure C Expenditure Plan, "Statement of Principles", p. 4.August 1988. Douglas R. Porter,Managing Growth in America's Communities,May 1997: Island Press October 21, 2002 Page 3 Options for the Growth Management Program Concerns _ Common Techniques Maintaining community character and quality of life ■ Design review - ■ Flexible planning and design(e.g.,planned unit develop- ments and overlay districts) 0 Incentive or performance zoning ■ Historic and architectural preservation ■ Neighborhood conservation or revitalization ■ landscape or tree preservation ordinances Preserving resource lands and environmental quality- _-land acquisition ■ limit development in critical areas ■ Mitigation of environmental impacts ■ Agricultural zoning,districts and right-to-farm laws . Environmental thresholds('carrying capacity") Achieving economic development and sodai.equity goals ■ Economic development incentives ■ Economic opportunity program(training,etc.) ■ Inclusionary zoning or linkage programs for affordable hous- ing Providing regional guidance and coordination X Regional plans or goals is Review of developments for regional impacts Growth management programs frequently focus on some combination of these concerns and techniques, depending on the needs and situation of the community and region. The current Measure C Growth Management Program focuses especially on ensuring adequate facilities and providing regional guidance and coordination. It incorporates the techniques of performance standards; exactions and fees; transportation demand management; review of developments for regional impacts; and regional plans. Since the approval of Measure C in 1988, however, other concerns and techniques have come to the fore. The separate "Shaping Our Future" effort is addressing several of these issues including the promotion of infill and redevelopment, urban growth boundaries, and preserving resource lands and environmental quality. A key question we hope readers will consider is whether the Authority should add to the concerns addressed and techniques used in the GMP and, if so, how these should be com- bined into a program that reflects the diversity of Contra Costa and the role and powers that the Authority can wield. October 21, 2002 page 4 Options for the Growth Management Program THE MEASURE C GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The precursor to Measure C, which focused solely on making improvements to the re- gional transportation network, was defeated, at least in part because it did not provide for growth management. Voters made the link between the growth in housing and jobs and the growth in congestion on the roads. Measure C, however, not only provided funds for spe- cific transportation improvements; it also established a growth management program. The overall goal for that program is to "achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishment of performance standards." Measure C specifically set aside 18 percent of sales tax revenues generated locally for juris- dictions that complied with a set of growth management actions. To receive its share of these funds, each local jurisdiction must submit a checklist to the Authority, documenting compliance with the following requirements: 1. Adopt a growth management element as part of its general plan. The element must in- clude items 2 and 3, and comply with numbers 4 through 8, below. 2. Adopt traffic level-of-service standards for non-regional routes within their jurisdic- tions. These standards, which are specified in the measure, are tied to adjoining land uses and must be included in the growth management element. 3. Adopt performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. The standards should reflect local conditions and be included in the growth management element. 4. Adopt a development mitigation program. This program should ensure that each new development is paying its share of the costs associated with that development. S. Participate in cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning to reduce the cumulative re- gional traffic impacts of development. This participation is done through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, and jurisdictions are'expected to implement agreed-upon actions from the Action Plans that the RTPcs develop. 6. Develop and update a five-year capital improvement program to meet and/or maintain traffic service and performance standards (defined in items 2 and 3, above). 7. Address housing options and job opportunities. This requirement can be met by adopt- ing a Housing Element that meets State law, as confirmed by a letter from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Optionally, the Author- ity may allow a jurisdiction to "self-certify" that its Housing Element complies with State law. October 21, 2002 Page 5 _. _ .. Options for the Growth Management Program 8. Adopt a transportation systems management (TSM) ordinance or resolution. This or- dinance or resolution must meet Authority guidelines. ASSESSING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Measure C Growth Management Program has had a real impact in Contra Costa, and has been especially successful in encouraging cooperative planning among jurisdictions and in establishing local and regional mitigation programs. Criticisms, however, have also been leveled about the program. Various commentors have suggested that performance stan- dards are not strict enough and are too easily changed; that local jurisdictions are not doing enough to achieve a better balance between jobs-and housing or to provide affordable housing to those who work in the communities; and that growth is still occurring and traf- fic is getting worse. October 21, 2002 Page 6 Options for the Growth Management Program Options for the Growth Management Program The following section outlines possible ways that the Growth Management Program could be expanded to address some of the concerns and criticisms voiced about it. The discussion of options looks at the overall structure of the growth management program, then at po- tential changes to the specific components that now make up the program, and finally at other supportive actions that the Authority could take. OVERALL OPTIONS FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Currently, each jurisdiction must fill out a biennial checklist to demonstrate its compliance with the eight growth management requirements. If it demonstrates such compliance, it then receives, through two annual payments, its share of the Measure C local street main- tenance and improvement funds. Several options for revising the structure of the Growth Management Program are possible. Continue the Existing System.This option would continue the biennial reporting by each juris- diction and allocation of 28 percent of Measure C funds to those that comply. The Author- ity implemented biennial compliance reporting in 2001 as an amendment to Measure C, replacing the original annual schedule of compliance reporting . Issues: While biennial reporting reduced demands or, local and Authority staff to review compliance, it also has raised concerns about accountability and delayed response time to potential GMP violations. Reinstating annual reporting would increase local efforts needed to complete the checklist, although it would also deal with the con- cerns about accountability and delayed response time that biennial reporting has in- troduced. Provide Rewards for Going Beyond Minimum Requirements. In this option, additional funds would be allocated to jurisdictions that meet additional standards beyond the minimal GMP require- ments. These additional standards could include, for example; ■ Achieving the affordable housing goals established in their Housing Elements (assuming that the jurisdiction has a Housing Element that complies with the requirements of State law) ■ Providing for a minimum density around transit stations in their general plans and zon- ing ordinances • Having an adopted general plan that would accommodate within their jurisdiction the housing and population growth forecast by ABAG. October 21, 2002 Page 7 Options for the Growth Management Program Issues: What standards would be applied to determine whether a jurisdiction has gone be- yond the minimum standards? How would these efforts be remunerated given the limited cash flow that the new measure would generate? Reward Specific Actions Rather than General Compliance.Under this option, the Authority would replace the 18 percent return-to-source program with direct grants to jurisdictions that un- dertake "smart growth" actions. These actions.could include: • Development of higher-density housing around transit stations or key transit lines. ■- Infill development on vacant or underutilized sites, including sites that have some de- velopment issue associated with them such as the teardown of an abandoned factory or other possible "brownfields", or the redevelopment of a shopping center or ether so- called "greyfields". ■ Housing, office, or commercial development that improves the match between em- ployed residents and jobs available within the community or nearby areas that fit the skills of those residents. Issues: Determining the amount of the "reward" would be a challenge, and matching it.to the cash flow generated by the measure would introduce new budgeting issues. Increase Impacts of Edon-Compliance. Currently, if a jurisdiction does not comply with the eight GMP requirements, it cannot receive its share of return-to-source funds. This requirement could be strengthened by, for example, both withholding these funds and removing those regional projects from the Strategic Plan and STIP that would have specifically served a non- comp liant.community's growth. Issues: The Authority, as a special purpose agency, has limited powers, and its key power is the "power of the purse strings". That means that the Authority would encourage compliance by withholding the "carrot" of funding for transportation projects. Withholding money for regional projects, however, could end up harming the whole subarea and region, not.just the jurisdiction that is out of compliance. As an alternative, the GMP could strengthen the performance standards that jurisdictions, must meet. (See the discussion of the individual components of the GMP, below.) Eliminate Some of the Requirements.This option would eliminate some of the existing growth management components. (See the following sections on each existing requirement, each of which includes the option of eliminating the requirement.) Eliminate the Local Compliance Portion of the Growth Management Program Altogether. Under this op- tion, the 18 percent of funds currently set aside could be: October 21, 2002 Page 8 Options for the Growth Management Program ■ Used for general Authority programs and projects; • Shifted to a discretionary local street improvement program of funding for which local jurisdictions would compete; ■ Allocated for local street maintenance based on a counq-wide assessment of mainte- nance needs; or ■ Apportioned to local jurisdictions.using the existing formula of road miles and popula- tion (but without a GMP requirement). The Authority would continue its direct regional planning and growth management efforts, including the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and cooperative transporta- tion studies. Local jurisdictions would no longer be required to comply with the various GMP requirements, and depending upon which of the above options is selected, the 18 per- cent funds would or would not be available to them. The Authority could replace these requirements with "best practices" and recommended performance standards in addition to other support for multi-jurisdictional planning. In addition, it could allocate funds directly to transportation projects that support desired de- velopment, from downtown redevelopment to infill and affordable housing, that promotes "smart growth". _ Issues: One of the advantages of this approach is that it would require the Authority to establish a countywide approach to determining how to allocate the funds currently allocated to individual jurisdictions for maintaining and improving local streets and roads. The Authority could base this countywide approach on a countywide plan for influencing where and when development occurs (perhaps arising from the "Shaping Our Future" or some similar process) or it could base it on the vision, goals, and strategies established and refined through the Countywide Comprehen- sive Transportation Plan. This countywide approach could continue to use current GMP measures such as supporting a better jobs-housing balance or cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning in allocating these funds, thus encouraging jurisdic- tions to continue their growth management efforts. The main disadvantage is that removing the link between GMP compliance and local street funding would remove Measure C's key incentive for localparticipation in the GMP. It would also have two additional disadvantages for local jurisdictions: first, if it required a new application process for administering these funds, more local staff would be needed to prepare, submit, and evaluate the applications; and second, disrupting the annual fund allocation process would introduce budgetary uncertainties for street and road improvements through their CIP'process. It might also worsen the existing maintenance backlogs on local streets and roads. October 21, 2002 Page 9 ':7 _ SE Options for the Growth Management Program OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL GMP COMPONENTS 1.Growth Management Element Currently, each jurisdiction must adopt a growth management element that includes traffic and performance measures and complies with the other GMP requirements. Options could include: Eliminate or Modify Components. Changes to the other components--potential options are out- lined below-- could be incorporated into the growth management element. Include a Plan for Accommodating Forecast Growth and Housing Needs. The GMP could require local jurisdictions to establish policies and implementation strategies in their Growth Manage- ment Elements to accommodate the growth and housing needs forecast by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). This option is similar to the requirements in the State of Oregon that local comprehensive plans provide enough land within the urban growth boundary to accommodate housing needs for 20 years, based on a coordinated population forecast. Local jurisdictions would be responsible for determining how to accommodate forecast growth. The Authority would determine only whether or not the jurisdiction did or did not accommodate this forecast growths jurisdictions that did would continue to re- ceive return-to-source funds. Issues: Two issues stand out. First, whether the possibility of losing the return-to-source funds would be sufficient incentive to encourage local jurisdictions to change their general plans, sometimes significantly, to accommodate forecast growth. Second, while accommodating forecast growth can have clear benefits for the region, the mix of uses that must be accommodated can either help or hinder the achievement of other community goals, including the ability to finance needed services. Eliminate the Growth Management Element Altogether. In this option, local jurisdictions would no longer be required to have a growth management element as part of their general plans, but may or may not be required to comply with the LOS and performance standards in the Measure C GMP. (They could, for example, be included in the circulation and public facili- ties elements instead.) 2.&3.Traffic Level-of-Service and Performance Standards Currently, local jurisdictions must adopt both traffic level-of-service standards for local streets (these standards are established in Measure C) and performance standards for six other public facilities. The GMP has been criticized for not establishing stringent enough standards and for allowing jurisdictions to change the standards----rather than the amount, type or timing of development—when it appears they will not be met. Potential options include: October 21, 2002 nage 10 "J - ! Options for the Growth Management Program Continue Existing Requirements. Local jurisdictions are required to adopt the Measure C traffic level-of-service standards but have flexibility in establishing other performance standards. Issues: Several criticisms have been leveled at the existing LOS and performance standards. Some have noted that the LOS standards, for example, are focused on vehicle rather than person "throughput", and have suggested that, at least in designated districts, standards that measure how many people travel through an intersection—whether on foot, bicycle, or transit or in cars—would be more appropriate than LOS. In ad- dition, the performance standards for public facilities have been criticized for focus- ing only on capital investments, rather than operations, especially for police and fire services, and for allowing different standards in different communities. Allow Different Standards for Pedestrian-or Transit-Oriented Developments.The current LOS require- ments focus on traditional measures of traffic level-of-service, which primarily address the efficiency of vehicular movement, and apply different standards depending on the overall character of adjoining land uses. These standards, however, by encouraging jurisdictions to focus on moving cars rather than people, could discourage more pedestrian-or transit- oriented designs. This option would exempt pedestrian or transit districts from vehicular LOS standards, provided they are designated in a local general plan and meet certain crite- ria. Another option would be to set an alternative standard for these districts. .issues: The primary issue is how to define a pedestrian or transit district. Is there a mini- mum size? Is the policy susceptible to abuse through application to a single intersec- tion with no plans for pedestrian improvements but a looming LOS problem? Must a jurisdiction have adopted plans for snaking pedestrian or transit improvements in the area before or as.part of the designation? Is there a. minimum density? Should approval of the district be tied to adoption of pedestrian or transit-friendly devel- opment standards? If agreement could be reached on how these exemption districts are defined, the designation could help support walking and transit use and economic redevelop- ment of existing neighborhoods and downtowns. Concurrency of Facilities and New Development.Jurisdictions could be required to ensure that ade- quate facilities would be available concurrent with the development and occupancy of new development. The adequacy of facilities would be determined through the development standards adopted as part of each jurisdiction's growth management element. This ap- proach would extend the current GMP requirement for a local mitigation program that en- sures that development is paying its share of the costs associated with that development. Issues. A concurrency ordinance would go beyond current local mitigation programs by requiring each jurisdiction not merely to require fees or exactions on a develop- ment, but also to find that facilities would be adequate by the time that the devel- October 21, 2002 Page I I Options for the Growth.Management Program opment is constructed or in operation, which could delay developments that de- pend on the construction of larger facilities. For example, a subdivision that de- pended on the construction of a new interchange that it generated only part of the need for would need to wait until the responsible agency could fully construct the interchange, even though the subdivision generated only a part of the need. As such, the delays a concurrency ordinance might dictate could add significantly to the cost of new development. It would also, however, ensure that facilities were in place by the time they were needed. Countywide Performance Standards. The Authority could establish minimum performance stan- dards for the six public facilities listed in Measure C--fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control—that all jurisdictions in Contra Costa would be required to main- tain to comply with the GMP. Each jurisdiction would have the flexibility to increase them. This approach would be comparable to that used for traffic standards. As with the traffic level-of-service standards, the performance standards applied could vary by area of the county. The RTPCs could be involved in establishing them initially. Issues: The most difficult issue in developing countywide performance standards would be in defining standards that would work in all the jurisdictions of Contra Costa. Dif- ferent communities have very different levels of funding available, and mixes of uses and residents, resulting in very different demands on services and very differ- ent abilities to fund those services. Any set of countywide performance standards would need to recognize these differences to prevent unintended impairment of a jurisdiction's ability to serve its citizens and businesses. One unintended conse- quence could be adoption of the "lowest common denominator" standard. (See also the discussion of subregional performance standards below.) 4.Development Mitigation Program All jurisdictions have local programs in place that require new development to fund meas- ures needed to mitigate the impacts on local facilities of that development. In addition, all four subareas of Contra Costa have established development mitigation or fee programs to make regional transportation improvements. Continue With Existing Requirements.Under this option, jurisdictions would be required to con- tinue their local mitigation programs and the RTPCs would be required to continue their regional mitigation programs of fees and exactions. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances. To comply with the GMP,a local jurisdiction would need to adopt "adequate public facilities ordinances", which require evidence that the capacity of public facilities are, or will be, adequate before new development is occupied. (Many jurisdictions in California have already adopted such ordinances.) (See the discussion of Concurrency of Facilities and New Development, above.) October 21, 2002 Page 12 Options for the Growth Management Program 5.Cooperative,Multi-Jurisdictional Planning The cooperative planning required by Measure C now focuses on the preparation and im- plementation of the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. Each jurisdiction must work with its RTPC to prepare and maintain these plans. The RTPCs have also pro- vided an important forum for expanding this cooperative planning to address other issues. One of Measure C's successes has been in providing support and a forum for engaging multi-jurisdictional discussions, developing collective approaches to improving transporta- tion facilities, and assessing and managing the impacts of growth. Continue with Existing Requirements. This option would require local jurisdictions to work to- gether to prepare the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance and to work with the Authority and other agencies to prepare the CTP and other transportation studies. Jointly Establish and Comply with Urban limit Lines.As part of the cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning requirement, the GMP could require RTPCs and their member jurisdictions to es- tablish joint urban limit lines and incorporate those boundaries within their general plans. These boundaries should reflect the location of critical resource lands, including wetlands, habitat and agricultural reserves, and adequately accommodate forecast growth. Issues: Urban limit lines have had considerable support and success, but also generate con- siderable controversy. The urban growth boundaries required in Oregon have been frequently blamed f©r higher home prices.and worsened traffic, although studies, like the recent Brookings Institute study by Anthony Downs, found that the UGB surrounding Portland had no significant effect on housing prices; and other studies have shown that the UGB in Portland saved considerable amounts of open space compared to adjoining Clark County in Washington State. Developing a consensus on an urban limit line for Contra Costa and a program for compliance would be difficult, however, and could induce jurisdictions that don't agree with the particular line or program to opt out of the growth management program altogether. In addition, unless there was sufficient land within the urban limit line to accommodate forecast growth, this option could push development to outlying counties and decrease housing affordability. Jointly Establish Subregi©nal Performance Standards.Require that RtPCs establish overall minimum performance standards for police, fire, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control for their area. Local jurisdictions would be required to adopt these standards as part of their general plans and ensure that new development meets these standards prier to occupancy. Issues: As with countywide performance standards, subregional performance standards would need to recognize the different financial and demographic situations that dif- ferent jurisdictions find themselves in. The fear of settling for the "lowest common denominator" also applies here. October 21, 2002 Page 13 Options for the Growth Management Program 6.Five-year Capital Improvement Program Currently, each jurisdiction must adopt and update a capital improvement program (CIP) that lists the projects proposed to meet or maintain the traffic level-of-service and perform- ance standards. The Congestion Management Program also imposes a similar requirement. Continue Existing Requirements.Under this option,jurisdictions would continue to adopt ceps that outline a program of projects to meet or maintain LOS and public service performance standards. Eliminate Requirement. The GMP would rely instead on the "housing and jobs" and "traffic level-of-service" components. Issues: Both the GMP requirement for a cip and the concurrency approach described above are intended to lead to provision of the facilities necessary to serve new develop- ment. The key difference is timing: with the cIp, the facilities would be available within five years,while with concurrency, the facilities would be required prior to occupancy. By eliminating the CIP but adding concurrency or strengthening mitiga- tion programs, the GMP could retain a method for ensuring that facilities are made available to serve new development. Relying on mitigation programs alone could delay the provision of facilities. Relying on concurrency could provide facilities more quickly,but could also delay development. (See the discussion of concurrency above.) - 7.Address Housing Options and Jobs Opportunities Measure C requires each jurisdiction to "develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income groups. Each jurisdiction shall also address land use information as it relates to transportation demand as well as u discussion of each jurisdic- tion's efforts to address housing options,and jobs opportunities on a city, subregional and countywide basis." Currently, a jurisdiction can meet this requirement if it has adopted a Housing Element that HCD confirms meets State law. This requirement has been one of the most controversial component in the GMP. It requires local jurisdictions to have an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income groups and to consider its role in improving the jobs-housing balance within its sphere, its subregion, and the county as a whole. In practice, each jurisdiction must 1) show that it has a housing element in its general plan that meets the requirements of State law, 2) describe the progress it has made in carrying out the implementation program in its housing element, and 3) attest that it has evaluated 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. (This method for determining compliance has been frequently criticized by the CAC and its predecessor, TPAC.) October 21, 2002 page 14 Options for the Growth Management Program Continue Existing Requirements. This option would require local jurisdictions to maintain and implement a Housing Element that complies with State law. It also requires jurisdictions to address housing options and jabs opportunities within both their jurisdiction and the sur- rounding region. Achievement of Housing Element Objectives.This option would require each local jurisdiction to achieve the objectives established in its Housing Element for providing affordable housing in the community. (Alternatively,jurisdictions that meet theseobjectives could be rewarded with additional street maintenance and improvement funds.) Jobs-Housing Balance Policies. For GMP compliance, each Growth Management Element could be required to include policies and strategies for improving the balance between jobs and housing, so that available housing more closely matches the income and needs of the work- ers that will fill those jobs. Require Self-Certification Only. Eliminate the requirement for HCD approval of the Housing Element and rely solely on self-certification. Eliminate the Requirement. This provision could be replaced by new policies in each growth management element for accommodating forecast development. Issues: 'While the requirements for HCD compliance is contentious, improving housing op- portunities and the efficiency of the land use-transportation connection remains a concern in Contra Costa, one that some feel Measure C has not addressed ade- quately. Requiring explicit policies on improving jobs-housing balance would re- quire each jurisdiction to debate this issue and their role in addressing it. Absent an agreed-upon subregional or countywide approach to jabs-housing balance, how- ever, policies in one jurisdiction could be at cross-purposes with those in other ju- risdictions. Replacing this component with a requirement to provide sufficient land in each general plan to accommodate forecast growth could be a more direct method to achieve Measure C's goals. This approach, however, faces several substantial obsta- cles. First, it would require agreement on growth forecasts and what each jurisdic- tion's role in .accommodating those forecasts would be. The ABAG projections could be a starting point but they would not necessarily further the Measure C objective of an efficient land use-transportation connection. In any case, finding consensus on growth forecasts would likely be difficult. Second, while the land'use decisions on how to accommodate growth would remain at the local level,the Authority would be required to evaluate each plan, which would be a new role for the Authority and could require additional staff. October 21, 2002 Page IS Options for the Growth Management Program B.Transportation Systems Management(TSM)Ordinance or Resolution Currently, each jurisdiction must adopt a`I`S7vv 1 ordinance or resolution that complies with the Authority's model. because State law passed after Measure C was adopted limited the ability of governments to implement TSM. programs like the Authority's original model or- dinance, the current model ordinance requires fairly limited efforts by local jurisdictions, and allows substitution of a resolution in place of an ordinance. Continue Existing Requirements. This option would keep in place the requirement to comply with the current model ordinance. Eliminate the Requirement.Under this option, the Authority would rely on subregional and countywide TDM programs and land use changes (outlined in other options) instead of spe- cific TDM efforts by local jurisdictions. Expand the TSM Requirement.Under this option, local jurisdictions would be required to expand their TSM efforts. Issues: Measure C has directly funded and continues to fund a variety of successful TDM programs, which would continue whether the local TSM requirement was elimi- nated or not. Continuing or expanding local efforts that supported the more re- gional TSM programs could increase those programs reach or effectiveness. Additional Components Besides the eight existing GMP components, a revised program could expand to add other requirements. The additional components could be used to determine compliance with the GMP, or to reward jurisdictions that go beyond minimum requirements. These additional components could include: Transit-,Bicycle-and Pedestrian-Friendly Development Standards. The GMP could require each juris� diction to include transit-, bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly standards in its general plan and zoning and subdivision codes. (As with the growth management element, the Authority could prepare a set of model standards to help jurisdictions comply.) Issues: Development standards that provide for the needs of transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians would go a long way towards encouraging more walking, bicycling, and use of transit. The creation of model standards would help achieve a more consis- tent approach to development in the county. One of the difficulties in applying these standards countywide, however, is that conditions vary considerably from ju- risdiction to jurisdiction and even within jurisdictions, making a'single set of stan- dards harder (though not impossible) to formulate. October 21, 2002 .page 16 Options for the Growth Management Program Require higher densities, especially near transit,and infill. As a condition to receive specified fund- ing, the GMP could require every jurisdiction to establish minimum residential or commer- cial zoning densities around certain transit facilities or along major bus routes. The GMP could similarly require the adoption of general transit-supportive regulations in these areas. To help in achieving compliance with this requirement, the Authority could prepare model regulations for local jurisdiction use. Issues: Applying this technique would place the Authority in a land use decision-making role, something it has purposefully avoided. (The original Measure C stressed "maintaining local authority over land use decisions." ') This approach is similar to the option for requiring that jurisdictions accommodate forecast growth and has similar difficulties: 'Would losing return-to-source funds be sufficient incentive to encourage local jurisdictions to change their general plans? How can this approach achieve or balance other community goals? OPTIONS FOR INCREASING LINKS TO THE EPENDITURE PLAN AND OTHER AUTHORITY PROGRAMS In addition to the forgoing options, the Authority could reflect growth management con- ceras in the Expenditure Plan or other parts of the Authority's programs'. The Authority could: Support Infill and Redevelopment.The Authority could focus the projects in the Strategic Plan and the Expenditure Plan to support infill and redevelopment. Subsidize Transportation Needs of Infill,Affordable Housing and Redevelopment.The Authority could, as part of the Expenditure Plan, also fund a program of transportation improvements needed to make projects that provide affordable housing, redevelopment or infill more feasible, or that support jobs in "housing-rich" areas. Investigate Impacts of Land Use Changes.The Authority, through the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan or other process, could investigate, using its travel demand models, potential land use changes in Contra Costa and the region that could reduce demands or improve efficiency on the transportation system, and identify transportation programs and. projects that would support those changes. Improve Fiscal Environment for Increased Cooperative Planning. The Authority could support legisla- tive changes that reduce the need for the "fiscalization" of land use, allow revenue sharing within counties or regions, and provide a stable source of funding for needed local gov- ernment functions. 'Measure C Expenditure Flan, "Statement of Principles", p. 4.August 1988. October 21, 2002 Page 17 EXHIBIT B The Burd of Supervisors Contra. carkoft eBoad Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County John Gioia, 1st District Gayle B.Uilkerna,2nd District E•' i . c� Donna Gerber,3rd District ff. Mark DeSauinier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th Districf. January 21, 2003 Honorable Donald P. Freitas, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas, I am writing on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to respond to the Authority's request for comments on the paper entitled: "Options for a Growth Management Program" (October 21, 200.2). The County understands that this paper is aimed at stimulating discussion about the shape of growth management provisions in the reauthorization of Measure C- 88. Two committees of the Board of Supervisors have reviewed the options paper. On January 21, the Board of Supervisors authorized transmittal of this letter which contains the following comments. 1. Allow alternative Level of Service standards for pedestrian or transit oriented development. On page 11, the paper describes options for the Measure's Traffic Level of Service (LOS) and Performance Standards. The Board of Supervisors supports the option of allowing different standards for pedestrian- or transit-oriented developments. The current standards focus of moving cars rather than people and could discourage more pedestrian- or transit- oriented designs. This problem has recently occurred in Alamo, where the LOS standards prevent redesigning roads to be more pedestrian-friendly. Offering an alternative performance standard that accommodates increased pedestrian activity would give communities more flexibility in achieving the type of community they like. 2. Reauthorization of Measure C-88 should include compliance with the existing Urban Limit Line. On page 13, the paper describes options for Measure C-88's requirement for cooperative, multi jurisdictional planning. One option is to add a requirement to jointly establish and comply with Urban Limit Lines. Rather than have each R'T'PC and their member jurisdictions establish joint urban limit lines, the Board of Supervisors recommends the existing Urban Limit Line. Contrary to what has been suggested in the options paper, the County believes that there is already a consensus around the existing',Urban Limit Line. This consensus was established when a majority of voters countywide approved the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance(Measure C-1990)which contained the Urban Limit Line. Chair Freitas Letter January 21,2003 Page 2 of 2 It is worth noting that when the Board under took a comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2000,which resulted in a unanimous decision(5-0)on boundary modifications that placed approximately 16,400 acres outside the Urban LimitLine, the public's commitment to the Urban Limit Line was reaffirmed. The Year 2000 Urban Limit Line review and boundary modifications were subjected to an Environmental Impact Report and extensive public hearings conducted by the Board of Supervisors. The adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Board's action in Year 2000 was subsequently challenged and then ultimately upheld in court.Additionally,the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission in its public deliberations has adopted',a policy to honor the Urban Limit Line in discouraging sphere of influence (SOI) amendments and annexations 4 beyond the Urban Limit Line(adopted 2/10/99). Consistent with the voters' intent in 1990 and the LAFCO policy, the County believes that the cities should use the existing boundary of the Urban Limit Line as the absolute maximum extent of potential urbanization at least through the Year 2010. We would have no objection to the cities establishing their own Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth Boundary for the purpose of complying with the Growth Management Program so long as it did not extend further than the current Urban Limit Line. Such a provision will ensure that a reauthorized Measure_C-88 will have a meaningful impact on future growth in the County and provide a significant base of voter support. 3e Expenditure Plan investments should support the type of growth that makes our transportation system work better. On page 17, the paper describes options for growth management that increase links to the Expenditure Plan and other Authority programs. The Board favors all of these options,but is particularly supportive of the following four: • Supporting infill and redevelopment; • Subsidizing transportation needs of infill, affordable housing and redevelopment; • Investigating the impacts of land use changes; and • Focusing investments on growth management. In the Board's previous comments to the Authority regarding the reauthorization of Measure C-88, we urged the Authority to allocate funds for planning activities (e.g. planning charrettes) and transportation projects that will support development that is consistent with smart growth principles. Using the reauthorized Measure C-88 funds to support infill, redevelopment and affordable housing would be consistent with this learlier request. Such investments make for efficient use of existing roads and transit service and helps accomplish local planning goals. _ _ Chair Freitas Letter January 21,2403 Page 3 of 3 The Authority is currently involved in evaluating land use changes by participating in the Shapthg Our Future effort. The Authority could use its travel demand model to investigate potential changes in Contra Costa and the region that could reduce demands or improve the efficiency of the transportation system, and allocate transportation funds that would support those changes. This activity would assist localities in matching their land use decisions with transportation investments, and help the Authority realize the vision it adopted as part of its Countywide Transportation Plan. Reauthorization of Measure C-88 would provide $1.6 billion to invest in the County's transportation system. This revenue could significantly influence local land use decisions and the performance of our transportation system. For instance,any sales tax.Lands allocated for future transit extensions should be tied to local efforts to plan for transit-oriented development adjacent to these new services. The State Route 4 East Corridor Transit Study identified the potential for substantial increases in transit ridership if e-BART were accompanied by transit-oriented development around e-BART stations. The reauthorized Measure C-88 funds could be provided to these jurisdictions to fund planning activities around these new stations. Such growth management policies would maximize the Authority's investment in these facilities and encourage the type of growth that snakes the transportation system work better. Enclosed with this letter please find the tables distributed by your staff to commenting jurisdictions on January 9, 2003, which have been completed to reflect the content of this letter. The County appreciates the Authority's interest in our comments on this important effort and we look forward to helping craft a reauthorization measure that will encourage improved coordination between transportation investments and land use decisions. Sincerely yours, Mark DeSaulnier, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors /SGlrnik Enclosure W/o Enclosure cc: Members,Board of Supervisors RTPC's(via CDD) GAAdvance Planning\adv-plan\,Sn-art Growthlfreites leiter version 3.doc Enclosure aD J o CL U7 0 o 0 o 75 0 C:C C) CTM t- Mc - = CL Q (D o'er E ° � � 0E� LU O C 0 0 Z w 0 tv y 0 CO, Chi LU O � ice. U U C tU � E 0 tti U � LUC 0 CL Z .� Cl3 Oa U) +' Ca f y t CFM 'w` U] i6 CS CU 0 0 � m � 0 G N (n � � tII C � � m O � � o0u"(i0Eo -a0 °� � om ° CL Z a> o o ca sL— CL a) a«- to � c rs sU v F- �, +y C to . u7 t!M t 0 0 Cy «� p c L as > o <Ll w: 0 0 CL0 C 0 0 �. Cj t 0 CL to � c tY L c Q � 0 d o sn _ F- Ri -0 C c0 -5L to 2 0 `= m �0 -0o O m 0 0 � � s= � CU m :, � 0 �t d1 ' A= 22 m E caLLI x u � -OO (D 0 _ .EU nc � ' ° HyhC006 �= ' roti c o c too r� �, c L o 0 CJ U vM .' a o p a. 0) t� o m roi� 'uM0) 00c� osnc�. oas� �- � c .� o om0 s. � CO c 0 cM CO W - c> z .0 0 = CL h O .`> C 0 C� v CO / _7 k � � [ A u 3 O � / $ e : % 2 2 ƒ E ` � / � IL § _ � \ 0 a . 0 \ $ $ 2 � � O (L E f w C E CL w � Q 2 CL e s 0 2 5 � 10 k E uj E � _ k z E _ c 2 § o f $ / ® 2 / E ƒ C 0 � E 75 o E \ & o § \ 2 c ■ : ¥ @ m / 0 00 CD t7 / kkk ) k / M / Q / 2g0 � a Za720O ± & E ?.mn \ 2 � kf ƒ / 2 / CL j Q k $ « � ■ LL o \ Q e 2 \ 2 § Q � / / Z © f k § 0CL a. 00$ > � 2 � k � 0 � k k E I / . . . . . z � $ k0— k E E � (D k � . 2 \ 2-0 ki $ � E Z 2 r. o o N @- f / E ƒ e a � m e t o c o e 0 — m ¥ tf 10) / \ 7 � % E � U 22. f m c Q © 3 \ 2 k / / / 2 / � cq � U m _ o o # �m � Q \ U = 7990 & E $ nm U.& mww $ \ � 0 $ � k � L & , 0 $ � 7 � u . CL � c 2 0 0 % 2 I k � 0 a o zE k 2 2 d w _ 7 CL ) x 0 k e O Lu . 0 E m , wCL7 §: 3 § 7E § g 7 ¥ © N e- 2 R [ ƒ � » a $ / § 0 o A E % t © ® c § ° q e ® m n « a > /_ c o § © f f722 ƒ 2 £ E ® 0 z $ « 2 o Q m t %. 2 o n t g « ? » § § 2 � ƒ J 2 » U � / 60QUOu $ 32700 rL ± Eamm �: O.M0)W- 0 �f : k m B k G � [ 72 � kk D ®� � \ k } 0 0 I 0 .k c 15 OM uj 2 CL k D 2 kmk O w ok / k D 0 7E 2- kg 0 - . c $ ul © c � k Q \ E $ T) w \ I £ 0 k k 0LU \ W � � k q � m m � ul � _ c 2 § ■ k $ R § � a o 0 0 0 2 — ■ ® 2 :3 co co CO co a 0 g c o Q I m § *£ & o _ « = m E & « = R w O o £ E 3 § U §� 4) 20 2 2 § 2 § ) k � \ o U -:5.cQQ oc = � » 200 & » \ ± qm Qumww % 3: C: E f � ce- f � _ E e 6 L 2 � m � 2 g I- a. O 2 E @ CL o 2 . w � 2 . q © cr E J 0 A K � d O E 2 a e 5 tu W � , 2 © � ■ $ p Q § \ R /_ \ k / � \k �0) E a. W o w f.Q 3 2 .§ U § % f k 0 w / r- 00 UE / ¢ QUAAA3 Ipo & a. E ± @m Qwnww a� c (D —C '� cr u1 tY c 0 cis Wo cr c� a� v co m m M'T 44 0d tl. � tl> � O O is c c N To 0 Co Ci y w 02 m a0 � � 2 S 0 � c� eco ° CL2 per„ L. o p e' ca u2i O. X 0 X a+ � O 4} V m W O > Y C} Z qty o ddJ L- .��,, o 6 (02 cu W o ma c C-0CL d 42 c) � c c CU 0 c cn D 0 o „ -c 0 2 r CD 0n c cn CL o � c� w 0010 ` = E Z, E s t7 ra � 9 'D c�acEn C .0 C 0 0 N 2 4 M 0 LU co E w Z �. 0 n. ..-% a LULLLI 1 1111 w � E x E M C; C9 CO C Z w y o v c cscncu 0 Q c � gym . N El ccoEU A rL U lCS c c U "> }� m � E ti. w U �” Z Z F- t0J mUU cU (D *C M C) ua Ud UU � awzc © ittii� c.� cucn .' a U .5 0 Ci u Co m y >, 0 a E 0 � VE Ul � UJ ca en vi ow tt3 0 rtca - Zca 0 rn ed 0 'r — . C'3 c EmU 0 cs� c 0 :3 0 � 5 w C z ui t1i caca CL ai 4) O tSCu ( <U M v 0 0 0_ 8} � k" 0 ' Z �U C7 CU C73 C �-+ CSL 0. � !ti l3 C3 = iL1 r- G7 tC tl7 U3 " 3 v C) to cis es s .� c� ns Q Oo ' � t,[ <imUU Udut � � � � Ul� i� O_ Ct. � tA � LJ #il � �- w— c'o c COE 0 > W W C 0 ui L7 t/y L a c � E 0. � ui o o �� o c (D C wro may' c ca a) 0 C `v Z E � 4 o f 0 5, CL0 Ci � om `` ro , � c (D D e ms _ CL cs • c LE ? ` cU tc�= c0t� cn Ecs c, a'= � � oay cU in E � _ ca a z cry d- a Mo � w p � CL-a., ' ' M CL mvE rE p CL � 0 6 ax E m a 4 Cw c C: 0 E W Q E (- O CO amici M C 0 C E0 C to 0 ED w m 0 > E > v dy rU W Cy m W 2 d 0 C) � a ni o 0 c , u y rC C s, 0 < CJ L7 U m 0 (Ma m `ani 0 0 w M J 2, m