Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10282008 - C.36 TO: Board of Supervisors .. �..;.� ;. Contra FROM: . Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee r Costa (Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema; Chair) Count Y DATE: October 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Measure J Growth Management Plan Workshop SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT Report on the Measure J Growth Management Program Workshop; and AUTHORIZE the Chair to sign a letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority regarding the workshop as recommended by the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. Changes to the Measure J Growth Management Program may affect the County's eligibility for Measure J return-to-source revenue and Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC). The eventual changes are unknown at this time. These funds are used to maintain and improve transportation facilities in the unincorporated area. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMM N OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER r SIGNATURES : Sup isor Gay Uilkemau isorhary N. Pie ho ACTION OF BOARD ON O 2 o APPROV8D RECOMMENDED k OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED Contact: Steven Goetz (925/335-1240) DAv OF cc: Department of Conservation & Development THE A, CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Department THE ND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR qB , DEPUTY G:\Transportation\Committees\TWIC\200B\Board Orders\gmp workshop bo.doc Measure J Growth Management Program October 20, 2008 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On September 16, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved this Committee's recommendation to transmit a letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority)on the subject item. The letter declared the Board's support for a workshop on the Action Plan Update requirements and requested the workshop include discussion of the following concerns: • Ensure that Action Plan requirements for traffic studies are consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and • Ensure that Action Plan requirements allow local jurisdictions to balance the goal of minimizing traffic regional congestion with other planning goals without putting their eligibility for Measure J revenue at risk. The letter concluded by suggesting that the above issues could be addressed through review of the growth management policies adopted by the Authority, rather than changes to voter-approved language in Measure J. On September 17,the Authority agreed to hold a workshop to discuss possible changes to the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP). On October 1, the Authority's Planning Committee met to discuss the concerns that need to be addressed at the workshop. At that meeting, the Planning Committee reviewed each element of the GMP. Their recommendations are summarized in the following table. Topics for the Workshop on the Measure J Growth Management Program Growth Management Planning Committee Recommendation Program Element 1. Growth Management Element Remain as part of the GMP 2. Development Mitigation Program Remain as part of the GMP 3. Housing Options Consider streamlining or refocus 4. Cooperative, Multi-jurisdictional Planning Consider streamlining or refocus 5. Urban Limit Line Remain as part of the GMP 6. Capital Improvement Program Remain as art of the GMP 7. Transportation System Management Consider streamlining or refocus Please be aware that the concerns expressed by the Board of Supervisors up to this point have been limited to the Action Plan requirements, which are a component of the cooperative multi-jurisdictional planning element of the GMP. The Planning Committee is willing to consider streamlining several more elements to the GMP. Subsequent to the Planning Committee meeting,Authority staff has indicated that "...several members of the Authority are interested in greatly simplifying the GMP requirements." The Committee reviewed background material including an October 16"Overview"of the GMP prepared for the Authority's Technical Coordinating Committee on the planned workshop.The Overview describes comments received by the Authority on the GMP and provides a more detailed description of the GMP. The Transportation Water & Infrastructure Committee had concerns about how the Board's formal comments on the GMP were incorporated into the Overview.We recommend that the Board send a letter to the Chair of the Authority identifying areas of the Overview that should be revised to reflect the Board's concerns as reflected in our September 16,2008 correspondence.A draft letter is attached as Exhibit A to this Committee report for the Board's consideration.This letter includes as an enclosure the Overview of the GMP prepared by the Authority. Attachment-Exhibit A: Draft October 28, 2008 correspondence to the Chair of the Authority with enclosure EXHIBIT A The Board of Supervisors Contra Costa David Twa County Administration Building Costa Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street,Room 106 and Martinez,California 94553 County County Administrator "J (925)335-1900 John Gioia,1"District Gayle B.Uilkema,2'District Mary N.Piepho,3"District Susan A.Bonilla,4'District Federal D.Glover,5'District October 28, 2008 Honorable Dave Hudson, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Honorable Chair Hudson, On October 28, 2008, the Board of Supervisors authorized me to sign this letter of comment on the Measure J Growth Management Program workshop being planned by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority). The letter was prepared following a review of the "Overview" of the Measure J Growth Management Program, which we understand to be a discussion paper used by the Authority to prepare for the workshop. A copy of this discussion paper is enclosed with this letter. The Board unanimously believes it is important that any discussion paper used by the Authority for the workshop include a reasonably accurate reflection of the written comments of the Board. The Board's concerns at this point, as described in our September 16th correspondence to you, focus on the traffic study and Action Plan requirements of the Cooperative Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process, which is one element of the Growth Management Program. However, the discussion paper's review of the Cooperative Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process on page 7 does not acknowledge the formal comments received from the Board of Supervisors. We believe the September 16th comment letter justifies some reference here which could be summarized as follows: The Board of Supervisors suggested that this planning process be modified to allow local jurisdictions to balance the goal of mitigating regional traffic congestion with other competing planning goals when reviewing General Plan Amendments without risking their eligibility for Measure J revenue. Furthermore, they requested that any traffic study requirements in the Growth Management Program be consistent with the traffic studies local jurisdictions must prepare to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The discussion paper's review of the Urban Limit Line on page 8 indicates County staff has commented on this element. Please be aware that no written staff reports to the Board during the last several months on the Growth Management Program have included such a comment by County staff. Certainly there is no concern with the Urban Limit Line expressed in the Board's comment letter to the Authority. The Board has no interest in modifying the Urban Limit Line element of the Growth Management Program. Measure J Growth Management Program October 28, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Finally, on page 2 of the discussion paper, it claims that the County believes "the GMP focuses too much on roadway congestion which they contend is no longer the concern it was in 1988." Please be aware that nothing in our September 16th correspondence to you makes such an argument. The Board of Supervisors is very concerned about regional traffic congestion. The circumstance that has changed from 1988 is that we have fewer opportunities to fully mitigate regional traffic impacts. In some cases full mitigation, as currently required by Authority Resolution 95-06-G for General Plan Amendments, may not be achievable without significantly altering a project to the detriment of other planning objectives or project benefits, or without making the project economically infeasible. The Board requests that the County's association to the referenced sentence on page 2 be stricken from the discussion paper. The Board of Supervisors looks forward to participating in the Authority's workshop on the Measure J Growth Management Program. Feel free to contact County staff (Steven Goetz at 335-1240) if you or Authority staff has any question on the Board's comments or the facts that support these comments. Sincerely, Federal D. Glover, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors enclosure FDG\SG c: Supervisor Gayle B.Uilkema, Chair, Southwest Area Transportation Mayor Will Casey,Chair,Transplan Councilmember David Durant, Chair, Transpac Mayor Sharon J. Brown,Chair, West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Zs MEASURE J GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Overview Measure C, approved by Contra Costa voters in 1988, succeeded where the first attempt to establish a sales tax-funded transportation program in Contra Costa failed. There is general agreement that two factors made the difference: 1. Measure C spelled out clearly how the sales tax revenues would be spent,identi- fying particular projects and programs, and 2. The measure included a program for addressing the impacts of growth in Contra Costa. Significant public concernabout managing the impacts of growth made the growth management program (GMP)an essential component of the success of Measure C at the polls. Contra Costa had added about 700,000 people since 1940— a 700 percent increase — and voters saw the impacts of that growth in more congestion and reduced public services. Measure.0 was seen as a way to fund remedies to existing problems and, through the growth management program, to get new growth to pay its way. These concerns were reflected in the two principles that underlay the Measure C GMP: 1. Local jurisdictions must work collaboratively to manage growth 2. New growth must pay for facilities needed to meet the demands it creates;sales tax revenues from Measure C would fund projects to remedy existing problems, while fees and exactions on new development would fund projects to remedy impacts from new development. In 2004, the Authority — working with stakeholders throughout Contra Costa and through comprehensive analyses and robust debates — developed Measure J, the suc- cessor to Measure C. As with the original measure, Measure J included both a detailed program of investments and a GMP.Voters approved the new measure in November 2004. 1 While growth had slowed since 1988 when Measure C was adopted,it hadn't stopped. Contra Costa's population increased by almost 20 percent in the decade following Measure C's adoption: in other words,every sixth person in the county was a new resi- dent. And forecasts showed this growth continuing into the future,leading to increasing demands on our transportation system. Measure J kept the basic principles of Measure C's GMP, sharpening them into four ob- jectives: . 1. Assure that new residential, business and commercial growth pays for the facili- ties required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. 2. Require cooperative transportation and land use planning among Contra Costa County,cities, towns, and transportation agencies. 3. Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of the transportation system, consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions. 4. Support infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfield areas. Besides reworking the GMP principles,Measure J made some significant changes to the previous GMP — removing the requirement for local performance standards (though encouraging their continued use)and adding a new requirement for an urban limit line (ULL)that is approved by local voters — but keeping, with some modifications,most of the Measure C components. Most of the modifications either clarified what was in Measure C or reflected the more detailed GMP processes established in the Measure C Implementation Documents and various Authority resolutions. The Authority has received two sets of formal comments on the GMP — one from TRANSPAC and the other from Contra Costa County — raised in response to the updat- ing of the Action Plans. These comment letters identify both general and specific issues with the GMP. Both TRANSPAC and the County state that the GMP focuses too much on roadway congestion, which they contend is no longer the concern it was in 1988 when Measure C was put together. Both suggest that the GMP needs to allow jurisdic- tions more flexibility in balancing transportation with other community concerns. TRANSPAC also thinks that the GMP has become too complex and too concerned with process rather than outcome. 2 Specific concerns were focused on the General Plan Amendment and major develop- ment review process and the use of Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives. Some of the suggested changes would require amending Measure J itself while others might be dealt with through the Implementation Guide, Technical Procedures or other Au- thority resolutions or policies. REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL GMP COMPONENTS For the purposes of stimulating discussion, staff has outlined each GMP component as follows: 1. Growth Management Element This component of the GMP requires each jurisdiction to adopt a General Plan element that outlines its goals and policies for managing growth and that demonstrates how the jurisdiction meets the various requirements of the Measure J GMP. Intent The Growth Management Element is intended to ensure that each jurisdiction has incorporated its approach to Measure J in particular and growth management in general in a way that is consistent with the other parts of the jurisdiction's General Plan. (Internal consistency is a fundamental requirement for General Plans in State law.) Changes from No substantial differences. The new measure does, however, en- Measure C courage jurisdictions to include their own locally developed standards in the element. Status The Authority approved a Model Growth Management Element for use by local jurisdictions in June 2007. Comments Received None Discussion NA 3 2. Development Mitigation Program As with the Measure C program, this component requires jurisdictions to both adopt a local mitigation program and join with adjoining jurisdictions in a regional mitigation program that funds regionally important projects. Intent This GMP component follows directly from one of the GMP's key objectives,namely to ensure that "new residential,business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth." This requirement is truly one of the most successful parts of the GMP,providing funding for both local improvements and regionally significant projects. Changes from The key change from Measure C is a new link to the Action Measure C Plans. Measure)requires each RTPC to "tak[e] account of planned and forecast growth [in its region] and the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives and actions to achieve them established in the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Signific- ance." Status Each RTPC has adopted a regional mitigation program for its region and each jurisdiction has adopted a local program. West and East County have updated their-programs within the last two years and Tri-Valley is close to an update of theirs. All pro- grams assess fees on new development except Central County which relies on the CEQA review process for major projects. Comments Received No formal comments received. Discussion The Regional Transportation Mitigation Program has, to date, generated about$243 million for various regional projects. Cen- tral County's mitigation program has funded additional projects whose need was generated by specific development projects. 4 3. Address Housing Options This component of the GMP addresses provisions for the creation of housing for all in- come levels, and analysis of the impact of land use decisions on the transportation sys- tem. Intent This component, despite its name,has three separate parts. First, it asks jurisdictions to report on their efforts to achieve the hous- ing goals and complete the implementation tasks in their Hous- ing Elements. Second, it requires jurisdictions analyze how their land use and development policies affect the "local,regional and countywide transportation system." Finally,it requires jurisdic- tions to include standards and guidelines in their development review process that support transit,bicycle and pedestrian access. Changes from While similar in intent, this component is significantly changed. Measure C The most discussed changes are that Measure J focuses its hous- ing questions more directly on local efforts to implement their Housing Element and gives jurisdictions more options to comp- ly. The second part is a clarification of Measure C intent.The re- quirement for consideration of transit,bicycle and pedestrian access is new but flows from Strategy 3.3 of the CTP. Status Questions on this component will be included in the Measure J compliance checklist to be developed over the next six months. Comments Received No formal comments received. Discussion This component of the GMP received some of the greatest scruti- ny,focused almost entirely on implementation of local housing elements. The revised GMP gives local jurisdictions three options for reporting on completion of the actions in their housing ele- ments,including using the required HCD report. The original reason for this part of the GMP was to encourage both the devel- opment of more affordable in Contra Costa and a better balance 5 between jobs and housing. While Measure J continues to encour- age a land use pattern that makes the most efficient use of the transportation system, a closer balance between jobs and housing within particular jurisdictions is less emphasized. The other parts of this component — the analysis of local plans on the transportation system and the incorporation of transit-, bicycle-and pedestrian-supportive standards in development review — did not receive nearly the same level of discussion. The impact analysis is part of the GMP's ongoing cooperative plan- ning component and is required, to a limited extent,by CEQA. Local adoption of transit-,bicycle-and pedestrian-supportive standards, which reflects other Measure J policies, will also help local agencies meet MTC's new routine accommodation re- quirements. 4. Participate In an Ongoing Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process The cooperative,multi-jurisdictional planning required by Measure C is generally rec- ognized as one of the successes of the current GMP. Measure C supported the institu- tional framework of the RTPCs and the ongoing, cooperative planning that the RTPCs, separately or with other RTPCs or counties,foster. Intent This component recognizes that effective planning requires good coordination and communication among local jurisdictions. Changes from The Measure C GMP required two basic actions: cooperatively Measure C developing a program for addressing transportation issues af- fecting the subregion and county, and assessing the impacts of new development on the transportation system. The Measure C language, which was fairly general, was fleshed out through sev- eral resolutions and documents, including the Implementation Documents and the Technical Procedures. The Measure J GMP clari- fied the Measure C language by explicitly including the Action 6 Plan process, and development review, and the General Plan Amendment review procedure. Status A second draft of the revised Implementation Guide is currently under review. The Technical Procedures will be updated once the Implementation Guide is completed. Comments Received TRANSPAC has raised concerns regarding the usefulness of hav- ing measurable performance standards for regional routes when such routes are heavily congested, and stressed that congestion- based measures may no longer be beneficial. It has also raised issues regarding the general plan amendment(GPA)review process, and its link to the MTSOs. Some Authority members have questioned the usefulness of the conflict resolution process currently required for addressing compliance. Discussion Although the RTPCs have completed, or made significant progress towards completing, their 2008 Action Plans, the specif- ic requirements for MTSOs have come into question. The Au- thority may wish to review the procedures for GPA review, the need for MTSOs, and the process for resolving conflicts among jurisdictions and RTPCs. For example, the application of quan- titative.performance measures without setting specific numerical targets for achievement, could still help decision makers gauge the impacts of their land use decisions on regional routes. Do hard targets make sense, given the difficulty of establishing base- lines and formulating 30-year predictions? 5. Adopt an Urban Limit Line This component of the GMP, which was not in the Measure C program, requires each jurisdiction to establish a voter-approved Urban Limit Line. This ULL can be approved 7 either specifically by voters in the jurisdiction or countywide(as long as it passes within the jurisdiction as well). Intent The ULL is meant to preserve open space within Contra Costa and constrain urban development to the areas within that line Changes from This is a new component Measure C Status Most jurisdictions have either adopted the County's ULL or their voters have approved a "jurisdiction-specific"one Comments Received County staff contends that the ULL is an adequate GMP mechan- ism and obviates the need for the GPA/major development re- view process (see#4) Discussion An urban limit line (sometimes called an "urban growth boun- dary")is a well established and useful growth management tool for "identifying preferred locations for accommodating new de- velopment." (See Appendix A.)It is not a sufficient tool,howev- er,for preventing sprawl,encouraging infill, supporting transit- or pedestrian-oriented development, or creating the transporta- tion-efficient land use pattern called for in Measure J.1 Staff be- lieves the ULL requirement was so critical to the passage of Measure J that it is not a candidate for revision. 6. Develop a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program This component of the GMP requires local jurisdictions to adopt a five-year capital im- provement program that outlines the projects (including transportation projects)that the jurisdiction is proposing to develop and how and when those projects would be funded. 1 "For most communities,it appears that boundaries have been fairly effective in reducing scat- tered development in rural areas but not successful at curbing sprawl in urbanizing areas." Porter,Douglas,Managing Growth in America's Communities,p.67. Island Press,1997 8 This component also requires local jurisdictions to forward the list of transportation projects in the CIP to the Authority for incorporation into the countywide travel demand model. Intent Requiring the CIP itself is primarily a "good government" action, although letting the Authority know what local plans are is es- sential to keep the Countywide Model up-to-date and accurate. Changes from The Measure C GMP required local jurisdictions to use the CIP to Measure C identify the projects that would help meet the level-of-service and performance standards for local streets and roads estab- lished in their Growth Management Element. Since Measure J eliminated the LOS and performance standards,this component now focuses on simple adoption of the CIP and assistance in maintaining the Authority's travel demand model. Status Jurisdictions have adopted and updated CIPS to comply with the Measure C GMP Comments Received None Discussion Adoption of CIPS per se may not be necessary to achieve the ob- jectives of the GMP. Ensuring that the Countywide Model in- cludes the transportation projects that local agencies are plan- ning,however, is essential to keep the model up-to-date and as useful as possible. 7. Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordin- ance or Resolution This component of the GMP requires each jurisdiction to adopt a local ordinance or reso- lution that complies with the Authority's model ordinance. Because State law passed after Measure C was adopted limited the ability of governments to implement 15M pro- grams like the Authority's original model ordinance, the current model ordinance re- quires fairly limited efforts by local jurisdictions. 9 Intent Both Measure C and Measure J state that this GMP component is meant to "promote carpools, vanpools and park and ride lots." Changes from Changed only to reflect the fact that the Authority has already Measure C prepared a model TSM ordinance Status All jurisdictions have adopted a local ordinance or resolution that complies with the Authority's model Comments Received None Discussion Measure C funds and Measure J will fund TSM programs, and these.efforts will continue whether the local TSM requirement is eliminated or not. The Measure J Expenditure Plan sets aside one percent of revenues for "Commute Alternatives", that is, for pro- viding and promoting"alternatives to commuting in single- occupant vehicles, including carpools,vanpools and transit."The Authority's model TSM ordinance originally required more subs- tantive efforts but State law limited what local agencies(and the CMP as well)could require which reduced the rationale for this component. 10 APPENDIX A: What Is Growth Management? One basic definition of"growth management".is the actions that governments take to. "anticipate and seek to accommodate community development in ways that balance competing land use goals and coordinate local with regional interests."' This definition encompasses a very wide range of techniques to balance development with conserva- tion,new development 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 concerns of most growth management programs and the tech- niques often used to address them: Concerns Common Techniques Identifying preferred locations for ■ Urban growth boundaries accommodating new development ■ Development policy areas(e.g.urban, urbanizing, reserve) ■ Promotion of infill and redevelopment ■ Transit-Oriented Development ■ Extra jurisdictional controls ■ Growth limits, including moratoria Ensuring that adequate facilities and ■ Functional plans services are available as development . Adequate public facility ordinances&perfor- occurs mance standards ■ Exactions,impact fees and special districts ■ Transportation demand management and con- gestion management programs Project rating systems Maintaining community character ■ Design review and quality of life ■ Flexible planning and design (PUDs and overlay districts) ■ Incentive or performance zoning . Historic and architectural preservation ■ Neighborhood conservation or revitalization ■ Landscape or tree preservation ordinances '-Douglas R.Porter,Managing Growth in America's Communities,May 1997:Island Press 11 Concerns Common Techniques Preserving resource lands and envi- ■ Land acquisition ronmental quality ■ Limit development in critical areas ■ Mitigation of environmental impacts ■ Agricultural zoning,districts and right-to-farm laws ■ Environmental thresholds("carrying capacity") Achieving economic development ■ Economic development incentives and social equity goals ■ Economic opportunity programs(training,etc.) ■ Inclusionary zoning or linkage programs for af- fordable housing Providing regional guidance and ■ Regional plans or goals coordination ■ 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 ade- quate facilities and providing regional guidance and coordination. It incorporates the techniques of performance standards; exactions and fees; transportation demand man- agement;review of developments for regional impacts;and regional plans. 12 APPENDIX B: Measure C and Measure J GMPs Compared t fru' mwra r + fr ��Fst . n+ R Exfsting Measure C GMP z ✓af 'f'rr New Measure J GMP ,nose j ✓� 1 t' W 1 `d5} `' fie' 'd e /s1x Goals and Objectives . �' 11x,e,iS. }e' ss°!t`d �#?ryW`., ' k . 'IConsistentwith antl�rn furtherance of its role as theme The overall goal of the Growth Management > ao �d`nS'il'�£✓u 9 t e"w'S'�,naa w m*-s w iCa R;dt'e"�'�k a'a�,�d countys designated CongestronrManagement fr Program is to preserve and enhance the quality of n r x u r"mss s"'3^ r" x>xxxfi ^ *Via+ .r v ra a •�d•'rJas`'xy�^. Program Agency'whrle$ening suhrole thee,° �,° life and promote a healthy,strong economy to overall goallofithe Growth Management Program+s benefit the people and areas of Contra Costa Nt nagementieveacon�a otur�tyvadebasGro ?W through a wliileho � formanagnggrowthewhilelmaintaininglocaocess 7 i mamtarnrng local authority overland use decrsrons authority over land use decisions.[Foorn�oTE:The NCs `m""da ,ran .,�wkLM,uw'�% ex`a✓+�%"E M a ti a�H ��tF 1S. rand Aneestabh`shment of performance standards a%,. Authority shall,to the extent possible,attempt to " �" �' "� harmonize the Growth Management and fThe Growth Managemtl ent and�Congestaons�.w � � g a5�s^P'§" pn�e �u r aux � ✓k ' ManagementProgramsfunctlons shall;to the# 2 Congestion Management Programs.To the extent extent poss bte be,harmonrzedTothe extentthey� they conflict,Congestion Management Program ronfl ct CoRgestian Management grogram a y_gg� activities shall take precedence over Growth sactruit es shalt take precedence overrpwftM� � Management Program activities.] The objectives of the Growth Management The transportatwn'retailtransactron antl use taxis Program are to: $ -intend .$ i S, a5.3 �+<s- intended to alleviate existing major regional , AransportatiowproblemsSGrowth management is ,W Assure that new residential,business and '+% Ak ' il a7s,f zse c.w y s ?. ✓g ea,3 e � neededtoassurethatfuturexesidentialbus�ness�, ��. commercial growth pays for the facilities required r e giand,commercial g growth pays for the facrhtres 1g�' to meet the demands resulting from that growth. ";. ito meet the demands resulting from that ' z Require cooperative transportation and land use q � 4 sm4:;f r ik planning among Contra Costa County,cities, alt is the intent oftheT,ransportation Authortysta towns,and transportation agencies. a process+that results m the maintenance of therequtred createqualrty ofhfei ri`Contra CoSYa'� �° k Support land use patterns within Contra Costa ia, +*9 k1°P aF±# "x Y 4 Sti F'ir�� 3.y`53.*ask,�,✓ewy>sxM u: �� ��s��u„��f�t ��' ,�„ �- �r✓ y�; ��,� that make more efficient use of the transportation system,consistent with the General Plans of local aFr m ,7✓ vs �m'~K�( '� e gcu Amy �e„;•s � rrc v m'y ` jurisdictions. `✓„ � w Support infill and redevelopment in existing urban � r r +YA'✓.MS 3 �.' �i����� "`�,✓ �,� r�� �a �;A ee ` � and brownfield areas. Adopt"aeGrow#htManagement Element� `t ?� Adopt k�'✓Esa`-kc.i�h�,S`'�ijd�<u`7�`"`"y vf'�°tr2 �a^�'�'4a'lu,':�r`a�'",, � m Y,�Y"i't��'rW.'✓s.;"(ad'v"*a,�y ,��a}£s��r�tY'*a c4 Ado t a Growth Managementement Element Lq, ristli Each jurisdiction must adopt a Growth t�Mariagement Element ofi its GeneralPlantobe Management Element as part of its General Plan applikec r±n the,clevelopment review prcicess They t that outlines thejurisdiction's goals and policies >�-4element must include s4 1-ections<2,and,3 below and for managing growth and requirements for junsdicUons mustcomply wrth sectwns 4 8nbelow i achieving those goals.The Growth Management b The Au tharrtyxand�the Regional sTransportatlon Y Element must show how thejurisdiction will k Planning Commit#eestshall'jorntly prepere a model comply with sections 2-7 below.The Authority element and adrnrnistratrve{procedures taguidex shall refine its model Growth Management o-,the Local junsdlctions LocaljunsdlcUonssholl Element and administrative procedures in 13 �.`�s> � o �.� t n f 0�.✓M r 13 t� r a s Extsrm�'rNleasure;CGMP „” NewMeasure)GMP develop their GrawthManageniert Hement w�thrn consultation with the Regional Transportation ;Mone year after4receipt of the Authority s model^ Planning Committees to reflect the revised �3 element ` r f o k n s6r � � �s k Growth Management Program. e ,a+ ��'✓5�.+�"�h g� J��,u'#�a>''�.R i3r����Y: `�k3"+f�'"z'��a"�'3A��e}�a✓v,�s�' �'�.u�s ' - Q Each jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate other standards and procedures into its Growth Management Element to support the objectives and required components of this Growth Management Program L e Afe"3.,pet�t .S 1sM i1 f,� M AdoptfiraffrctevelOfServrce,{LOS)Standards [not included in Measure J] �"'�j� {,4;a,A� , 3, C8sK•�-way��a,'�'f�¢s���r�s�`��� �? �ea�:0t�. �.'�5'�'a yJ m 'a'4s*FS"«s �3+.r `"`s""h° '`Y"�s�5.j�yz`� '3� K�b J�abe fiaxw•+Yupr +�� �''"� �,�11•"�`�r��rt�`�;avg 2 x�.i`k�ie s ✓' �9''a��,„'s�.���'''s-d'+�'.": ''� s�U17U,r)•,tan�L'OStIOw©k`b�i.�'?'=¢ ^a"z � �h �:ea z n"�' Cental Business�rstrrct LQS low E5���T4��. c���e &�Basec3 TMon,the categories estaf?lis hedxabove�ea�h��m �,junsdret�on shalhdecermrne how the Traffic Sermce� �r "3"r r prrry�r��&zv tri e r l standardsare.fo"beapplled�totheirGeneralPlan , land use and circulation elements and the land areas to be defiined as Rural;Semr'RuraI.Sukiurban„ t?;r`e mi¢rmi �R �°iJrban and CentrahBus Hess Drstr flct�;(as�ysuggested �m the Guidelines rnYAppendrXA) Each}urrsdretion�� =shalt comply.Mvuith�the adopted standards����re� � �Junsdretronsemay adopt more'strr agent staridards�� Level of Service(LOS)v✓ouldbe rraeasuretl'f>y� s� Circular,21 r tkie method descrrbed�rn the most fiUN, ux t� vt �e sb commonly}used version of the4Hrghway Cajacrty M ; a uM ,�c.y,yv E s} s '> eF^r wa{Yk'NxFW Manual Any issues with respect to the application k a � a s a l �spen of thr ;Highway Capacity Manual ar measurem, ents & KgofHlevel df serviceME shall bye referred{to the "' Authorrty;s Technical Coardrnating Cornmrttee fors x�nvk9 �. ,,,re �revrew and recomrnendatran�ta�the Author(ty In��'�� y k"a 3a�Hp+Na a �r M,uj n '� '�w 1 srweryyys fM ,+ } ;the event,that'an mterse� ion(s)exceeds the�,�4 applicable Traffic Service standard the Authonty�`, ? Z"" ��shall,�}orntly,wrth local}unsdretrons,estabsh�y���� (appropnatemltrgatron mea�sures,orpdeterriir11111111 ne that i,green=intersection rs 5ub}ect to a�fmdrng of specialll� Any rritersecion that presently exceeds t1ieTraffic eO ( 'rat4"' 4 k .t"v 3Y 1 I#'„} ServFcelstandard and wliich�wrlllbe brought into�,���� camplrance rn the most current Five Year Capital a 14 n Exut�ng Measure CGMP= � f� New Measure J GMP limprovemen#Program{see sec �onx7,)shalt be G' considered to^be{n compl{ancewith the apptwable "43 pkv h� 4( ��.W `F� K�w " h' .d�:Y.YY ¢.�! ��v A �✓Y �si&dh w 6�ww a^�st y it Arch 4 ✓' e R nn The Authority]omtly w{th affected locai.x� ,_ r'{¢_ �;� _ _ {ons2W,", lzv b]unsd ctstall determine and per{od{callyz rev{ew the appl{catton af�Traffic Serv{ce Standards ion routes of reg{onai srgnrficance The`rev�eww{II, takea{n#o account xrafftc orig{nat{ng outs{de'of them: k r .v�SF F 4 W° \phi i x .yi U'N �vl yf4l ' county orlurrsd{ct{on;grad env{ronmen#a! �finanual�cons{derat{ons Locailunsdretaons,`t ;=h�„,� ev'§tl�niy�a,�" through theforum prov{ded by the A}uthontyshatll i jo{ntl�determtne�the appropriate measures and{ '�� programs for rn{Ugat{on of reg{onat traffic{rnpactsb A.Pita!proaects necessary to meef and/or�mamta{n tte Traffic Service standa dds are to be={nctudedn thecequired=F{veYear,Caprtal,lmptovament�Rv k�9=,�'"*��" n.y=7✓+,Vr� �> � �'YroE �."� � s� �c wt k�ye � vA'dopt Performance Standards`ina{nta{ried�����'�� [not included in Measure J]' through#cap{talprotects for thefatlow{ng{iems+ , ir, ��based On lOCdl'Criterid x y�� A' g�� ��'"s��s�� asp" �Xv �r xi f flood iontro! rvf ,� at r Jurrsd{ct{onsmay�have;already adapted, � � performance standardsxfor some or�all"of`#hese ��r>F �Performance standards shall be adopted for�� yr =� ± {nclus{on,{n each locaigurisdict{on s GeneralrPlan�`�'��w` +==u?aro ,� rr= xeifuaa� gtach]unsd{ct{on shall comply with thesadopted'VIN" standards-me Rerformance S#andardsstioutd taker kin � E r t t'k':8d 7 •" T^:"' k A A = vlt v"�,�° rnto'account fiscal constraints andshaw the o a standards areo be appt{ed{n=eachxtur{sd{ciion'sr deveiopment'rewe+ni process'To ensuie they m x Svwr 3 + wy�a „acfl r continued appl{cab{htyof these standards each 0wh� e�unsarcUon may,annuaity rev{ewand mad{fythe{r tadopted standards {n ctinsultatton wrth;spec{al '" 9d{stricts here,a and pr"ov{de ani * ,OppOj#Uh{ty fOY pubtlC COmment.'43'^o-r,a'Ms PtrsE 7"s ,�. wa��Mm,9 "'Cap exclusive of operating bud"gets,,to ahie ad/oFFinaintain�Perfor�mance Standards are to be included{nthe requiredF{veYear Capital # 15 ¢ F sung Measure C GMP a i New Measure J GMP Improvement Program,(see"Section AtloptaDevelopmentMitgationProgramto�t y" Adopt a Development Mitigation Program ensure that new growth is paying its share of,the r,cos`ts=associated with that growth"row �f Each jurisdiction must adopt,or maintain in lace, u,.v2'lCcr 'x a zw =fixi, s<`R y„rs,�`myE4� .reaer 52'� �'6's p P .. � � � �,a,q a development mitigation program to ensure that i Local-lunsdictions for the most part atready r• new growth is paying its share of the costs l impose fees fore a varietyof purposes including site associated with that growth.This program shall specific traffc,improvements�O�rily,a fewlunsdic consist of both a local program to mitigate tionsNimpose fees for r6giohaiEtraffic�mi'ti'g"'ationI impacts on local streets and other facilities and a x t a. a T �. regional program to fund regional and mts of t To meet theuireenhis Sect on;eachY; u t subregional transportation projects,consistent jure diction shallx�N� ya,� with the Countywide Comprehensive " a X¢s�r �- �`',�" �t a ; A3. '4'j Transportation Plan. �w1) ,Ensure thetrrevenue�prowded;from this �,,�'�« ' y,,.r � r v �S }measure°shaHnnotbeused'ttoreplace�pnvatea The jurisdiction's local development mitigation s developer funding which has,Leen or will be f " program shall ensure that revenue provided from 1 committed for any'proledn F 3 this measure shall not be used to replace private > i '51W, developer funding that has or would have been i 41. 2),!,Ael60t a development mitigation program tq rr V committed to any project. ensure thaf development is paying its share of the costs associated,with�that development s °. The regional development mitigation program R#M_IN11V ., �s� W shall establish fees,exactions,assessments or i —47 N r `."i ^4, � r3 �rh �' u�l In addition,the Authority =,J other mitigation measures to fund regional or s a ; r � "* � r � y subregional transportation improvements needed 1) Develop a program of regional traffic mitigation to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast 2xx,4 ':wY,3� a RT3,fq'axi ✓+r =_,,,`�'�'°�'Jb a fees assessments or other on mitigatis'asp, afr b; development.Regional mitigation programs may tappropriate,to fund regional an _µsubregional adjust such.fees,exactions,assessments or other transportation projects.as determined in=the t < mitigation measures when developments are reherisive,Trans ortation;plan of they, , within walking distance of frequent transit service AiathorRy "4 RA9�` 9or are part of a mixed-use development of s v „� 4 a Rt ij sufficient density and with necessary facilities to _ 2) Cdhsider`sueh issues as jobs/housing,balance support greater levels of walking and bicycling. ' carpoolzand vanpool programs and proximity��I Each Regional Transportation Planning n 9 n1 ✓ SxR �.& t E to transit service in the establishment of they„ <, Committee shall develop the regional �regional traffic mitigation program r 'J development mitigation program for its region, c *4 r'iry`', j ,kris R9at�� �yi x �€ w t � 1, 4 � �� taking account of planned and forecast growth 3),�T6e{development mrtigatirogram willibe ,- and the Multimodal Transportation Service _ implemented with the particiObjectives and actions to achieve them , concurrence ofslocal lunsdictionsn y�� ',3 established in the Action Plans for Routes of determinYngrthexmostfeaible`methods ofi11 x} Regional Significance.Regional Transportation mm igatmg;regional traffcl- a'ctssExlstmg Planning Committees may use existing regional regionaV traffic impact fees shall be taken into,< j mitigation programs,if consistent with this Caccount,by'tlie Authority u a a a ,Rx section,to comply with the Growth Management h'X+?vpN'i�+.tae+k m ✓ �"x v T FW e, =�,M'frE"��" ^ '� ^�'-0 42„o��t+} 4 x��"��"1k`�-r"�v°a a�3'�.,`��U�/` t.��"�u�P`v ���a �"�d �"✓ '�k"�k^C"�}'y, x' PfOgrdm. ri,articipate`in a Cooperehve,=Multi ; r , : Participate In an Ongoing Cooperative,Multi- � NrJurisdictwnalPlannmg Process to Reduce Jurisdictional Planning Process Cumulative Regional Traffic pacts of Y De elopgme t; � ^ Each� Jurisdiction snail participate ongoing process withothejursdctinsand agencies, he mgstablishaforum Regional Transportation Planning Committees _ 16 '��•=n'ax'�� .a�'GYY�u'r�r44�'���?J �;i�iw4 �� e..me �� �,`�M�S�'t " Exrsimg=Measure�CGMP � ,�� � b„r New Measure J GMP e�Jur�sdictions to'cooperafe m=easrhg cumula#roe; and the Authority to create a balanced,safe and V BT A,iH Y'h0 ` +�0. 4 rx' is c s Ysa w is Iraffic!mpacts?T;his Wi he accomplished through efficient transportation system and to manage the thelRegionzilAransportatiortPlamm�g Committees,;{ impacts of growth.Jurisdictions shall work with �° arC'�` x w' c . a � �{� r� f and be supported by an ongamg countywide 5 the Regional Transportation Planning Committees �,�cr,RP ”-. .✓at zbi Ksr�SV` 'W',A' ^s sr cv r y .<, yy compren&sivgAransportatian planning processhn to: yvd @which,azll Junsdretions shall partiapate=" .��r > a t3�+a`tYh�p em,a4z,Y r"`FCrN`ht5 A. Identify Routes of Regional Significance, '+4�`saedr'x3§ v��F Aspart�of thts,process,a°umforrn database on � a and establish Multimodal Transportation Service K,traffit impacts wrH�be�created,kbased on Lhe� ;�� � Objectives for those routes and actions for X+'uM✓s'+'.1Mi �.. s, ,ty , sW � ,countywide transportation computermodel achieving those objectives. MU{se of,the�cauntywide transports#ton computer B. Apply the Authority's travel demand model provid es an opp�artumtyo;tesfi Generals, J model and technical procedures to the analysis of x S SkrN' �:'§a �n a L. ,e +tF`wYn�h'3 3 M Plan(s){transportation and land use alternatives,r,x General Plan Amendments(GPAs)and db� d,(^ry� vr NF ra'�„'iP'alYU ,k' u:» andFfa assistcities and he coxunty 1n determining�� l developments exceeding specified thresholds for the'�rrtpact of,ma}or�developrrien protects W§``" their effect on the regional transportation system, ,W s.✓ 5r$' a 4`4�.j 'V proposed for GeneralaPlan Amendments This 4 including on Action Plan objectives. ,�✓ >?P "a�Ysr,�a+, ?. �,°a'*nd aur would provide a quaMrtative,basisafor inter Y W Juns€tctional negotiation to mrtgate cumulative h C. Create the development mitigation regional traffic�rripaets Inputfor[ha model shall programs outlined in section 2 above. include each:Jur sdiction s`Five Yea Caprtai ImA -provemem Program oftranspa�taUon p�roJects{see , D. Help develop other plans,programs and Section 7F}and the prgJects o,i ederai state'and # studies to address other transportation and s 'a I X regianal agencies such asYCaltrans,trans�t4, � � growth management issues. ftsMtitkh.',,,=«r�,r operators theJMetropolitan Transportation " rr UI x�§�� f ti ;t + z .. f u ,r^.v r Commission,etc In`addrtion the"computer; In consultation with the Regional Transportation ,�% 3i ks'aue t+ s*� 1t database will mciude'each local unsdictions Planning Committees,each jurisdiction shall use antrcipatd land useevelopmenY p oJects , the travel demand model to evaluate changes to expected to be constructed w�thmwthe,nexffive local General Plans and the impacts of major development projects for their effects on the local and regional transportation system and the ability to achieve the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives established in the Action Plans. } y ���N M��`�k✓� i 4'ki+ } ,,,,tri A'FN'CN' b'f Yfi "`4 fl Y � Jurisdictions shall also participate in the �4 Authority's ongoing countywide comprehensive transportation planning process.As part of this process,the Authority shall support countywide and subre ional planning efforts,including the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, fya x Ys trx� � and shall maintain a travel demand model. u k f5rJK � Jurisdictions shall help maintain the Authority's travel demand modeling system by providing information on proposed improvements to the transportation system and planned and approved development within the jurisdiction. - Address Houstn O tions And Job a�a Address Housing Options Opportuntt►es ,t 6 a Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate reasonable As,partof�ts,F�yeY,ear�Cap�tal I�mprovemen '; °°'4 progress in providing housing opportunities for all Program,and pursuant to thestate mandatetl ;` income levels as part of a report on the 17 "7171 WIF, 4Ist►n9 MeasurKGMPv f :� �, New MeasureJ GMP s*' `')c?t. '."{ ;housing element of+ts,GeneralP,lan� each ux + implementation of the actions outlined in its �)unsdiction shall develop an implementation ; �. adopted Housing Element.The report will 4 program that creates housing opportunit+es,for ally demonstratero ress b comparing rrq .inX 4rlevels A C!"W"¢9y"'�i IW p g y(1) the e a � A.,incoma number of housing units approved,constructed or 14, vv k � � occupied within thejurisdiction over the Eachunsd+ct+on shall also adtlres/s,ya land use ', preceding five years with the number of units v�+f',a'£6 f FP dY+•kbf`A)'4v? 5s35tk.�e'r �• Nhformatiom:as iVreI tes,to transportation demand Y? needed on average each year to meet the housing as well as a Aiscussion ofeaeh)uristlictior :effortsr objectives established in the jurisdiction's Housing d Y to address;housing options and fob,opportuI Element;or(2)illustrating how the jurisdiction has r." z r � t 9 v'S e�!" P orna.ycity,subregioanal aFndicountywide basis €�� adequately planned to meet the existing and # V � PY4 � li'i5`� Y✓eA.e I AUWV• �"L'A=c(� 'r � ? projected housing needs through the adoption of ' y v�v a fps la v me lans and regulatory which Pode opportunities for, do not unduly constrain,housing development;or(3)illustrating how a jurisdiction's General Plan and zoning S'd V✓ Y•f k 5 U5:6u{�� ki'yy �A f � regulations facilitate the improvement and development of sufficient housing to meet those r .;�'v.,. �...t vim• '.s '' r,s3 0 objectives. v�` horn€ e d �ygak�i... '�,Cyd w r��gTi�C: A •$p •. `".w.r ��r fes•.'"F '� �, ` u, �" � �. .,� �; In addition,each jurisdiction shall consider the impacts that its land use and development p have on local, policies hthe regional and ,5�;`^��,+• � � �"•4ti r�d�� huu b"_^d S",, a�"+�y $fit�Ky ° countywide transportation system,including the •i y,.�'vS ,�» r ro.-.na+iC}s*=Y.` t.a aB.p+'F - 1 .�i? level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided,and shall incorporate NO policies and standards into its development r ; q'��* 3;')'�r '"•� approval process that support transit,bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments. -'{� �" �' �3(Y �� 'r�tj� ✓1 y '"�'+vt'�LRf' r"�M"tit''��u1b4� 'a'1 e Deevelop A Five Year Capitahlmprovement z ( Develop a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program`,to meet g and/or maintain Traffic Service Pro ram m Y vp� S Alit°ova rC ,and'Perforahce Standardsr(defined+n 5edwns 2� c4a.s # a ca w„ry az a -p vu a t ) mb9+r 1 and53) mss. �,, k Each jurisdiction shall prepare and maintain a capital improvement��Each�ur d"coon sh I deYe mine'Yhe cap+tali" A capital projects needed program outlines o implement the goals projects needed to�meet and/or mainntaam bothks, and policies of the jurisdiction's General Plan for at adopted TrafFc Serwce and Performance ,; .jam yk^, least the following five-year period.The Capital Stantlards Capita,firianc+al;prby`rammmg�will bb.Q' Improvement Program shall include approved based on,development,to belconstructed dunng" , projects and an analysis of the costs of the (at� mihimum)the�following five yearperiodT�he� proposed projects as well as a financial plan for taprtalilmprovement Pogmshall include" providing the improvements.Thejurisdiction shall approved ptects anikan analysisof the costsof rAi forward the transportation component of its thePproposed protects as well as a:financ+al plan for capital improvement program to the Authority for prouidng themprovemets � amMa p incorporation into the Authority's database of transportation projects.`Adopt aTransportation Systerris Management Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM)Ordinance or=alternative mrtigation X " }; (TSM)Ordinance or Resolution "b'�+��mc'aroe`eb'�y�chY. a, s A"i'oa€ ita'+ cc+✓ e�ym"y�n e. � �1 Y'�.'E1 To,proarpooIs gvaanpooIsand park and ode To promote carpools,vanpools and park and ride lots�the Trans'portationAuthority"will drlots,each jurisdiction shall adopt a local ordinance ,adop't a Model?ransportation_Systems »;-:' P _, or resolution that conforms to the model 18 Extsttng Measure C GMP a New Meas ure J GMP Management.Ordmancesforiuse biyjlocal } Transportation Systems Management Ordinance 'Uri sdictionsrm�developiogtlocaf ordinances;)forn� that the Transportation Authority has drafted and �{`'u �'� adoption and implementation nUpon approval adopted.Upon approval of the Authority,cities the Authority c�ties.With a smalbemployment>baseM'�� with a small employment base may adopt al- a s„ Cf,iNr i r " 'Se.,iti as r d.kaF"y'eu� L,may4adopt alternative mmgation=measuresy�n heu � ternative mitigation measures in lieu of a TSM wpti `J 7t't4a q ofatlotmgaTSMOrdmance� ordinance or resolution. t a r[notindudedmMeasureC] v� er9r" Adopt an Urban Limit Line Each jurisdiction must continuously comply with " M xav frx-e w ¢ either a new"Countywide mutually agreed upon `x` *=�ry-u � ex ��,�� voter approved ULL"or the"local jurisdiction's �, f � voter approved ULL"before that jurisdiction would be eligible to receive the 18%return to ,� 1p_p ter_ source funds or the 5%TLC funds.In the absence a rY �k s ` �� t� �� of a new local voter approved ULL,submittal of an annexation request to LAFCO outside the countywide voter approved ULL will constitute non-compliance with the Measure C Growth F {' Management Plan. The new ULL will be developed and maintained consistent with the"Principles of Agreement'in Attachment A,incorporated herein by reference. �' .tG �inst;:e`,v� '`` d jt' a+ x`✓ ;: ,^`n a„Y ` ^I 19 TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County 2300 Contra Costa Boulevard,Ste.360,Pleasant HK California 94523.(925)969-0841 The Honorable Dave Hudson, Chair September 17, 2008 Contra Costa Transportation Authority D n u 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100. t1 Pleasant Hill, California 94523 SEP 19 2008 Dear Chair Hudson: By TRANSPAC has reviewed the Proposal for Adoption of the Draft Implementation.Guide for Measure J issued by the Transportation Authority on July 24, 2008, and offers the following comments. 1. The Growth Management Program was revised slightly for Measure J. However, in our view, it remains a relic of the mid-1980s mindset,from when Measure C was approved by the voters. Today, traffic congestion is not necessarily a top concern of all jurisdictions. As a result, the Measure C approach does not reflect today's reality. Rather than using an outdated program filled with congestion-related busywork (and "tweaking" it a bit); TRANSPAC suggests that it would be more useful to rethink and revamp the entire growth management program so that it addresses today's needs and issues. 2. In our view, the program is too complex, as evidenced by the fact that the Implementation Guide is 116 pages long -- far too long to be useful. Programs this complex inevitably end up being all process,with no meaningful outcomes-- assuming that people try-to follow them at all. 3. If CCTA is to have a meaningful growth management program, the focus should be on people and communities, not on roads. Currently, the program (the Action Plans, the General Plan Amendment review process, etc.) focuses on Routes of Regional Significance (page 17 states "Contra Costa's network of freeways and major arterials continue to be the focus of the growth management effort..."). Developments, GPAs, etc., all must be reviewed for impacts on regional routes. We suggest CCTA and the jurisdictions take all the time necessary to rethink the entire process, so that it focuses on what is most important --.people and communities. For example, a community cannot have a successful downtown without congestion. And, today, we know that traffic congestion is an inevitable sign of a thriving economy. 4. Related to the comments above, TRANSPAC already has expressed reservations about the specific numerical goals required for traffic flow in the future (multi-modal transportation service objectives, or MTSOs). We reiterate our view that MTSOs do not help improve our communities or our transportation system. The MTSO process forces us to "pick a number"just for the sake of picking a number, or, alternatively, to establish and accept objectives that feel meaningless in light of today's challenges and realities. We see no value in analyzing how a given general plan amendment or development proposal will impact an arbitrary indicator such as level of service ten or twenty years from now. Such indicators are subject to many forces beyond our knowledge or control. Nor do we see any value in designating a specific "attainment year" for when the region will reach these MTSOs on its regional routes. We believe that we cannot reasonably imply to the public and to decision-makers that we can predict future traffic conditions with any precision beyond a year or two (and, given the current fluctuations in gas prices, we are not sure we can aptly forecast accurately for one year into the future). it is our strongly held view that our growth management program should not.be based on such speculative and unreliable concepts. 5. Chapter 4 of the Implementation Guide discusses the process for evaluating impacts of new development and General Plan Amendments over a certain size. As we have suggested, this analysis should not be necessary because it is based on MTSOs and therefore does not provide useful information. We already have to perform traffic analysis required by CEQA, which is more useful because it analyzes a project's actual impacts. There is no need for an additional "Measure C" type traffic analysis, because it simply adds process (and potential lawsuits and unnecessary slow-downs in getting projects completed) without improving outcomes. It is particularly unnecessary if the General Plan Amendment or development is within the Urban Limit Line. The purpose of the Urban Limit Line is to demarcate the area where urban growth is acceptable and to limit growth to that area. No Growth Management Program analysis should be necessary under these circumstances. Specific comments 6. Page 4 -- Regional Routes -- The paragraph quotes from Resolution 95-06-G but does it incorrectly. We would modify the sentence to read: "Finally, they may approve a General Plan amendment without consequence only if. . ." 7. Page 9— Section 1.2— The only reference in this entire section to a requirement to assess the impacts on transportation is in the Address Housing Options subsection.This implies that studies are not necessary for commercial development. 8. Page 9—3rd paragraph... to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth...What does the word "costs" refer to? We believe this is specifically transportation costs,but it should be clarified. 9. Page 12 — top of page — delete the words, "relying instead on other ways of correlating the circulation element with the land use element of the General Plan". This-statement has nothing to do with Measure J. It is a State requirement on a General Plan, 10. Page 13—top of page, add"voter approved"in front of Urban Limit Line. 11. Page 15—second bullet near bottom of page. Change"circulation"to"notification." 12. Page 20—After the fourth bullet under No. 1, change"Authority"to"RTPC". 13. Page 37 -The new language exempts a development from a traffic study as long as it shows it is part of the land use assumptions of the General Plan. However, the third paragraph requires a detailed review of the model's land use assumptions to "determine whether the forecast for the adopted Action Plan included the proposed project or GPA". This review cannot be performed, because one cannot"find"specific development proposals in the model's land use assumptions. In both local general plans and ABAG projections, the growth (land use) assumptions are not based on specific development proposals; rather, these assumptions are based on general factors such as the capacity of available buildable land in each area and policy decisions on how much growth should be allowed. Nor do our land use assumptions include future General Plan Amendments (if they did, we wouldn't need the General Plan Amendments). In the case of a very large or significant development proposal which is known at the time a General Plan is created, that project may be assumed as part of the General Plan traffic analysis, but it may not end up actually being built in the same traffic analysis zone that was assumed in the General Plan; it could be in the zone next door. Though we can see the argument to the contrary, it seems to us that as long as the jurisdiction states the development proposal is consistent with the General Plan, then there is no need for the detailed analysis of land use and traffic zones that CCTA proposes. We believe it is important to refrain from compounding the Growth Management Program with even more technical analysis than is already required. The draft TRANSPAC Action Plan includes the following language. "All current adopted General Plans are assumed to be included in the CCTA 2030 model and do not require any additional MTSO analysis; only CEQA traffic analysis requirements apply. The CEQA document for a given project needs to reference the Action Plan/CCTA model to establish that the MTSO analysis has been performed. In addition, TRANSPAC TAC members are working with the CCTA Growth Management Plan Task Force to incorporate the June 4, 2008 Planning Committee direction that one CEQA traffic study should suffice for an MTSO traffic analysis. 14. Page 37—The third paragraph also states the Authority"will update the modeling every four years to assess the cumulative impacts of growth on MTSO performance." The meaning of this statement is not clear. Does it mean the model will be relied upon to periodically assess the cumulative impacts of growth that has occurred, or that CCTA will update its model every four years? The intent of this statement needs to be clarified. If it is intended that the model will be used to periodically assess the cumulative impacts of growth that has occurred, we suggest this be done through actual counts and measurements rather than model runs, since the model's margin of error is too great for this purpose. 15. Page 38 — In the top paragraph "major development" is defined as generating 100 peak hour trips. But on page 53 in table 5, projects that generate 100 trips are defined as "fast food restaurant"", very small center," "small office building". These definitions do not jive with "major developments". In addition, in the current version of the Technical Procedures, an intersection is exempt from analysis if it is impacted by less than 50 trips. Trips distributed from a development that generates 100 trips will likely be less than 50 trips once the trips pass through two signalized intersections. This is hardly a regional impact. TRANSPAC again suggests that the 100 trip threshold be increased. 16. Page 38 — bottom of first paragraph, a "jurisdiction must notify RTPCs, prepare a traffic study and ....." It is our understanding of the process in this Guide and the Technical Procedures that rather than prepare a traffic study, the jurisdiction must determine if a traffic study is necessary. It may be exempt under the previous General Plan analysis or it doesn't generate enough trips to trigger the 50 trips at the intersection. The organization of this section needs to be reconsidered. 17. Page 39 — first full paragraph — It is our understanding that the CMP requirement can be satisfied by the periodic updates to the Countywide Model and does not need to be project specific. 18. Page 39—Section 4.1 —The Implementation Guide refers to the Technical Procedures for the details of requirements of traffic studies. The Technical Procedures require a traffic study to use CCTALOS for local streets. Measure J specifically does not set standards for local street operation. The CCTALOS requirement creates "quasi" countywide local intersection LOS standards which is exactly what was eliminated by Measure J. The references to CCTALOS should be removed in The Implementation Guide and Technical Procedures. 19. Page 42 — First line amend to read, "may approve a General Plan amendment without. consequences,-only if..." 20. Page 42 — First bullet — Because the requirement is the effect on MTSOs, GMP required General Plan amendment traffic studies should not have to include any local street analysis. 21. Page 43 —Second paragraph in section 4.4. We don't see the value in sending a notice at the . time of completion of the environmental document. We suggest revising Resolution 92-03-G. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Implementation Guide for Measure J. Please do not hesitate to consult with the TRANSPAC TAC and staff if you have questions regarding our comments. Sincerely, David E. Durant TRANSPAC Chair cc: TRANSPAC Representatives (packet mailing) TRANSPAC TAC and staff Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair, SWAT Will Casey, Chair,TRANSPLAN Sharon Brown, Chair,WCCTAC Robert McCleary,Paul Maxwell,Martin Engelmann, Arielle Bourgart, Peter Engel, Hisham Noeimi, Danice Rosenbohm,CCTA Christina Atienza, Executive Director,WCCTAC John Cunningham,TRANSPLAN Andy Dillard, SWAT Steve Wallace, City of Pleasant Hill Implementation Guide comments TRS app'vd 9 1108 final d The Board of Supervisors Contra Attachment B David Twa County Administration Building - Costa Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street,Room 106 and Martinez,California 945 y 53 CountCounty Administrator "J (925)335-1900 John Gioia,I"'District - Gayle B. [Jilkemn.2"."District Mare N.Piepho,3"District Susan A.Bonilla,40'District Federal D.Glover,5"'District . September 16, 2008 Honorable Dave Hudson, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Honorable Chair Hudson, On September 16, 2008, the Board of Supervisors authorized me to sign this letter of comment on the Action Plan Updates that are being prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority as part of the Measure J Growth Management Program. The letter was prepared following discussion by the Board of a variety of issues emerging from the Action Plan Update process. It is our understanding that the Authority is considering sponsoring a workshop on the Action Plan Updates to address concerns raised by the representatives of the County and others. The Board of Supervisors supports such a workshop and requests it include discussion of the following issues: • Ensure Action Plan requirements for traffic studies are consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that local jurisdictions must follow in their review of the potential traffic impacts from development projects. Concerns have been raised regarding the application of "gateway constraints" in the travel forecasts prepared for Regional Routes. The application of this methodology needs to be sufficiently evaluated to determine if its use can be defended in environmental studies. Without consistent requirements, local jurisdictions may end up preparing one traffic study to comply with the Authority's Growth Management Program and another traffic study to.comply with their obligations under CEQA and local planning regulations. • Ensure that the Action Plan requirements provide sufficient flexibility for local jurisdictions to balance the goals of minimizing traffic congestion on Regional Routes with other planning goals such as community preservation, redevelopment, and support of the urban limit line policies. The long range travel forecasts for year 2030 show growth in traffic volumes on regional routes well beyond the forecasts used in earlier Action Plans, and there are fewer transportation projects planned that will significantly increase the capacity on these regional routes. In some communities, further efforts to reduce traffic congestion would bring about unwanted road expansion projects. In other communities, further efforts to reduce traffic congestion may conflict with policies to accommodate growth without .expanding urban limit lines or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Authority's Growth Management Program should encourage local jurisdictions to fairly and openly balance competing planning objectives when evaluating development projects without putting their eligibility for Measure J revenue at risk. Action Plan Update Letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority September 16, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The Board of Supervisors believes that Measure J as approved by the voters provides the Authority with sufficient flexibility to address these issues. Solutions can be developed through careful review of the growth management policies adopted by the Authority, rather than changes to Measure J itself. The Board of Supervisors offer the County's cooperation in working with your commissioners to ensure Measure J provides not only effective growth management but also enhances and adds value to the planning efforts of local jurisdictions. Sincerely, F eral D. Glover, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors FDG\SG G`,Transportation\Committees\TwIC\2008\Board Ordm\action plan exhibit A.doc