Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05251993 - 1.64 � 64- 14` = Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C )sta FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, County Director of Community Development DATE: May 25, 1993 SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Checklist and Capital Improvement Program for Measure C - 1988 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the proposed 1993-1998 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Exhibit A) ; 2. Adopt the 1993-1998 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B) ; 3. Adopt a resolution (see Exhibit C) requesting the Southwest Area Transportation Committee designate San Pablo Dam Road, north of the Camino Pablo/Bear Creek/Wildcat Canyon Road intersection, as a Route of Regional Significance pursuant to Measure C-1988 ; and 4 . Approve the completed Annual Compliance Checklist (see Exhibit D) and find that the County's policies and programs conform to the requirements for compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the Capital Improvement Program, designation of San Pablo Dam Road as a Route of Regional Significance, and approval CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE I RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) ACTION OF BOARD ON . ��/-� APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF.:THE BOARD OF SUPERVTPORS ON,THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED o l Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 6-2131 cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Community Development Director THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Director AND COUNTY DMINISTRATOR GMEDA Sheriff BY , DEPUTY I y Annual Compliance Checklist and CIP for .,easure C-1988 May 25, 1993 Page Two of the Annual Compliance Checklist qualifies the County to receive its Fiscal Year 1993 allocation of Measure C-1988 "return to source" revenues, estimated at $1,412 , 300. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The County must annually submit a compliance checklist to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) to receive the County's portion of the 18 percent of sales tax funds available for local street maintenance and improvements. Of the estimated $6,934 , 500 in "return-to-source" funds available county-wide for Fiscal Year 1993, the County is eligible to receive $1,412, 300. f". Three related actions must precede completion and submittal of the Checklist: 1) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed 1993- 1998 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities; 2) adoption of this CIP; and 3) designation of San Pablo Dam Road by the :'southwest Area Transportation , Committee as a Route of Regional Significance. To comply with CEQA, the Community Development Department staff has found, pursuant to adopted County CEQA ,Guidelines, that the 1993-1998 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not a.pproject subject to CEQA (see Exhibit A) . This follows from the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a �significant adverse effect on the environment. No significant physical change in the environment will result from the adoption of the CIP: all capital facilities programmed are either fully committed, constructed, awaiting occupancy, or undergoing separate environmental review. Projects that may be funded in the future consistent with the CIP which are as yet undefined will be subject to separate environmental review. Under the provisior of Section 15061 (b) (3) , of the State and County CEQA Guidelines, it can '�:e seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of this CIP could have a significant effect on the environment. The 1993-1998 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B) was prepared as part of theJDepartment's Development Mitigation Program. This CIP is authorized by Implementation Measure 4-n of the 1991 County General Plan. Any capital projects sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain adopted levels of performance must be identified in a five-year CIP. Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvements, and phasing, if any, must also be identified in he CIP. This CIP demonstrates that development anticipated between 1993 and 1998 will satisfy the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. Compliance with traffic performance standards is described in the 1`992/93 - 1998/99 County Road Improvement Program adopted by the Board on August 4 , 1992 . Compliance with performance standards for fire, water, flood control, and sanitary facilities must be demonstrated by the developer prior to granting final discretionary approvals of such development. r The intersection of' San Pablo Dam Road with Camino Pablo, at Bear Creek and Wildcat Canyon roads, does not meet the Level of Service standard designated for Basic Routes in! rural areas as shown in the Growth Management Element of the County General 'Plan, and will not meet this standards following implementation of the County's adopted CIP. Failure to meet the Level of Service standard ori any Basic Route in the unincorporated area prevents the County from complying with the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program. A Route of Regional Significance designation for the San Pablo Dam Road portion of this intersection, which is within the unincorporated area, will allow the County to be in compliance with Measure C-1988. This action is consistent with Policy 4-3 of: the County General Plan. The Authority's procedures delegate Route of Regional Significance designations to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees. The County requested San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo be designated as Routes of Regional Significance in Resolution 89/786. The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee has so designated their portion of San Annual Compliance Checklist and CIP for Measure C-1988 May 25, 1993 Page Two of the Annual Compliance Checklist qualifies the County to receive its Fiscal Year 1993 allocation of Measure C-1988 "return to source" revenues, estimated at $1,412,300. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The County must annually submit a compliance checklist to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) to receive the County's portion of the 18 percent of sales tax funds available for local street maintenance and improvements. Of the estimated $6,934 , 500 in "return-to-source" funds available county-wide for Fiscal Year 1993, the County is eligible to receive $1,412,300. Three related actions must precede completion and submittal of the Checklist: 1) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed 1993- 1998 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities; 2) adoption of this CIP; and 3) designation of San Pablo Dam Road by the Southwest Area Transportation , Committee as a Route of Regional Significance. To comply with CEQA, the Community Development Department staff has found, pursuant to adopted County CEQA Guidelines, that the 1993-1998 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not a project subject to CEQA (see Exhibit A) . This follows from the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. No significant physical change in the environment will result from the adoption of the CIP: all capital facilities programmed are either fully committed, constructed, awaiting occupancy, or undergoing separate environmental review. Projects that may be funded in the future consistent with the CIP which are as yet undefined will be subject to separate environmental review. Under the provision of Section 15061(b) (3) , of the State and County CEQA Guidelines, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of this CIP could have a significant effect on the environment. The 1993-1998 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B) was prepared as part of the Department's Development Mitigation Program. This CIP is authorized by Implementation Measure 4-n of the 1991 County General Plan. Any capital projects sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain adopted levels of performance must be identified in a five-year CIP. Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvements, and phasing, if any, must also be identified in the CIP. This CIP demonstrates that development anticipated between 1993 and 1998 will satisfy the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. Compliance with traffic performance standards is described in the 1992/93 - 1998/99 County Road Improvement Program adopted by the Board on August 4 , 1992. Compliance with performance standards for fire, water, flood control, and sanitary facilities must be demonstrated by the developer prior to granting final discretionary approvals of such development. The intersection of San Pablo Dam Road with Camino Pablo, at Bear Creek and Wildcat Canyon roads, does not meet the Level of Service standard designated for Basic Routes in rural areas as shown in the Growth Management Element of the County General Plan, and will not meet this standards following implementation of the County's adopted CIP. Failure to meet the Level of Service standard on any Basic Route in the unincorporated area prevents the County from complying with the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program. A Route of Regional Significance designation for the San Pablo Dam Road portion of this intersection, which is within the unincorporated area, will allow the County to be in compliance with Measure C-1988. This action is consistent with Policy 4-3 of the County General Plan. The Authority's procedures delegate Route of Regional Significance designations to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees. The County requested San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo be designated as Routes of Regional Significance in Resolution 89/786. The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee has so designated their portion of San 1 Annual Compliance Checklist and CIP for Measure C-1988 May 25, 1993 Page Three Pablo Dam Road. The Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT) Committee has not acted on the County's request. Be aware that the Lamorinda Traffic Study, prepared pursuant to Measure C-1988, recommended in 1992 that Camino Pablo and San Pablo Dam Road in the SWAT Committee area be designated as a Route of Regional Significance. The attached resolution (see Exhibit C) has revised the County's request to designate only San Pablo Dam Road within the SWAT Committee area, which lies solely in unincorporated Contra Costa County, as a Route of Regional Significance. The County General Plan provides the policies and programs that enable the County to comply with the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program. The Checklist (see Exhibit D) was completed based on these policies and programs. The Authority requires that the Board review and approve the completed checklist, and find that the County's policies and programs conform to the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION Failure to adopt the CIP, designate San Pablo Dam Road as a Route of Regional Significance, or approve the Checklist will prevent the County from qualifying for its Fiscal Year 1993 allocation of "return to source" funds. ''LG:chcklist.bo E X H I B I T C THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this order on May 25, 1993 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Bishop, McPeak, Smith, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 93/283 SUBJECT: Request the Southwest Area Transportation Committee designate San Pablo Dam Road, north of its intersection with Camino Pablo/ Bear Creek Road/Wildcat Canyon Road, as a Route of Regional Significance and a Principal Arterial. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE: WHEREAS, the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road/Camino Pablo/Bear Creek/Wildcat Canyon Road (intersection) is within unincorporated Contra Costa County and the City of Orinda; WHEREAS, this intersection does not meet the Level of Service standard designated for Basic Routes in rural areas as shown in the Growth Management Element of the County General Plan and will not meet this standard following implementation of the County' s adopted Capital Improvement Program; WHEREAS, failure to meet the Level of Service standard on any Basic Route in the unincorporated area prevents the County from complying the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program; WHEREAS, a Route of Regional Significance designation for the San Pablo Dam Road portion of the intersection, pursuant to Measure C-1988 , as referenced in the Growth Management Element of the County General Plan, will allow the County to be in compliance with the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program despite the inability to meet the Level of Service standard at this individual location; WHEREAS, the County has requested San Pablo Dam Road be designated as a Route of Regional Significance in Resolution 89/786 ; WHEREAS, the 1991 Contra Costa Congestion Management Program identifies San Pablo Dam Road within the Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT) Committee area as a potential Route of Regional Significance currently under review; WHEREAS, the Lamorinda Traffic Study, prepared pursuant to Measure C-1988, in consultation with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, recommended in 1992 that Camino Pablo and San Pablo Dam Road within the SWAT Committee area be designated as a Route of Regional Significance; WHEREAS, the SWAT Committee has not acted, at this time, on the Route of Regional Significance designation ; WHEREAS, the San Pablo Dam Road portion of the intersection is located solely in unincorporated Contra Costa County; and RESOLUTION NO. 93/ 283 I WHEREAS, the portion of San Pablo Dam Road outside the SWAT Committee area is currently designated as a Route of Regional Significance pursuant to Measure C-1988, and a Principal Arterial pursuant to California Governmment Code referencing Congestion Management Programs. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby: REQUEST, the Southwest Area Transportation Committee designate San Pablo Dam Road, north of its intersection with Camino Pablo/Bear Creek Road/Wildcat Canyon Road as a Measure C-1988 Route of Regional Significance and a Congestion Managment Program Principal Arterial. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and Seal of the Board oh.Supervisors affixed on this hh day of May , 1993 . Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Adminis a r by: . 6&109 Deputy Clerk SLG:regroute.res Orig. Dept. :CDD/TP RESOLUTION NO. 93/ 283 Attachment A ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993 BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1-e. Development pursuant to any General Plan Amendment adopted by the Board of Supervisors in the past year is contingent on demonstration of compliance with the Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa General Plan at the time final discretionary approvals are sought. 2-b. Reporting intersection on Basic Routes in the unincorporated area are as follows: 1. Port Chicago Highway/Lynbrook/Riverside 2 . Morello Ave/Arnold Dr. 3 . Buskirk Ave/Wayne Dr. 4 . Oak Rd/Las Juntas Way 5. Diamond Blvd/Concord Ave. 6. Pomona Ave/Second St. 6-d. County CIP documents only address transportation, sheriff, and park facility performance standards. Compliance with fire, sanitary facilities, water, and flood control must be demonstrated by the developer at the time final discretionary approvals are sought. �4 Joriid cdion Year Contra Costa Transportation Asthority Growth Management Program Anneal Compliance theddist 1993 J 11. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CHECKLIST FOR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING This checklist was prepared for submittal by. Harvey E. Brandon Director of Corn unity Develorment (Name) (title) (510) 646-2131 (Phone) The sommooard of_Supervisors has reviewed the completed checklist and found that the policies and programs of the jurisdiction as reported herein conform to the requirements for compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. Certified Date: �� 7 Title: Chair, Board of Su rvisors i Phji.Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Attest:_ Supervisors and County Adminictratm Jerk .�B3: Deputy DETERMINATION THAT AN ACTIVITY IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FILE NO. CP 93-30 ACTIVITY NAME: Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program: Ca iD tal Improvements Program for Parks and Sheriff Facilities PREPARED BY: Steven L. Ga-,tz DATE: May 1.7 1993 This activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of Chapter 3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certain.y that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Adoption of a capital improv aments program for the provision of Sheriff and parks facilities in order to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Measure C-1988. No significant change in the environment will result from the adoption of this program: all capital facilities programmed are either fully committed or constructed, and awaiting occupancy or are undergoing separate environmental review. Projects which may be funded in the future consistent with this program which are as yet undefined will be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Location of site: Countywide in County of Contra Costa, State of California. LQCATION: Countywide in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. Date:"W 9 Reviewed by: =� mmunity Development Departm8Npresentative E X H I B I T B Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program 1993-1998 Capital Improvements Program for Provision of Parks & Sheriff Facilities Prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department May 1993 I. INTRODUCTION This document is Contra Costa County's Capital Improvements Program (CIP)for providing park and sheriff facilities in the unincorporated parts of the County. A companion document, the County Road Improvement Program, describes projects to mitigate the transportation impacts of new development as well as facilitating access to housing opportunities for all income levels. Both documents fulfill the County's obligations as described in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) "Annual Compliance Checklist," which is used to measure how well individual jurisdictions are complying with the standards established under the growth management requirements of Measure C - 1988. This reps rt first describes the performance standards which were established by the County's Growth Management Program and integrated into the 1991 Countywide General Plan. Because the CIP is based on a five-year horizon, growth estimates, developed by the CCTA, for that time period are presented in the following section. Based on the estimated population growth, the analysis d. scribes in further detail the facilities which are needed to meet the performance standards set forth in the Growth Management Program. The remaining sections of the report describe a list of projects and estimated costs and the various funding mechanisms which would be used to secure financing for the projects. II. GROWTH 1ViANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The Contra Costa County Growth Management Program establishes certain standards for the provision of public services in the unincorporated areas. The standards for parks is set a three acres of"Neighborhood Parks" per 1,000 population, while the sheriff services facility standard is 155 square feet of station per 1,000 population. These performance standards are applied to all development approved after adoption of the County General Plan in January 1991. The standards which are described in further detail in the County General Plan Growth Management Element are established for the entire unincorporated area. Because there is no requirement for analyzing separate sub-areas within the County, the discussion and analysis are on an overall basis. The next section presents population estimates for the five-year period between 1993-1998 and describes the status of compliance with the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. 1 III. POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1993-1998 The CCTA has developed a countywide land use database for transportation demand forecasting purposes. The land use data were compiled using information from the individual jurisdictions throughout the county. The CCTA land use database is a further refinement of the County's land use database which was used for updating the General Plan. The CCTA database established a 1990 base year which relied on the 1990 Census for developing housing and population estimates; these numbers are within one percent of ABAG estimates. The database is supplemented with information from each jurisdiction within the county. This information describes in further detail the development applications which are being processed and also provides estimates on remaining buildout potential within that jurisdiction's boundaries. The estimates on buildout potential reflect existing land use policy which is in effect at that moment in time. Growth Projections for the Unincorporated County Table 1 is a summary of the CCTA growth projections between 1990 - 2000 for the unincorporated county area. This table shows an overall increase in households of about 11,593 and a population increase of 30,721. Table 1: CCTA Growth Projections for Unincorporated Contra Costa 1990 2000 10 yr. HH 1990 2000 10 yr, PgR HH's HH's Increment Pon Pon Increment Total 54,433 66,026 11,593 144,247 174,968 30,721 One Yr. Increment 1,159 3,072 Staff used a straight line projection for the purpose of determining one year growth increments and based on these increments developed household and population estimates for each year for the next five years (1993 up until 1998). County staff has made some adjustments to the CCTA figures which should be noted here. Because the County is only obligated to provide services to urban areas shown on the County Land Use map, growth envisioned in the Antioch sphere of influence, a 2 :: general plan amendment recently approved by that city, has been subtracted from the totals. The increment for the Antioch sphere area is 1,935 households and 5,266 people. Using a straight-line method, each year would result in about 1,159 additional households and 3,072 additional people. Unincorporated Housing do Population Increments: 1993 - 1998 Using the one year increments for housing and population, Table 2 shows the additional amount of housing and population for each year within the five year period between 1993 - 1998. The table also shows the amor nt of parks and.sheriff facilities which are needed to conform with the Growth Manage,sent Standards for these facilities. Sheriff Facilities Table 2 indicates that the total amour of new sheriff facilities which are needed to conform with the adopted standard o: 155 square feet per 1000 population is slightly 3,800 square feet of new facilities. The West County Justice Center which did not exist when the General Plan and Growth Management Standards were adopted in January 1991 is a new facility which wa; completed in 1992. This facility provides approximately 237,000 square feet of gross building area. An estimated 3.5 percent of this square footage (or 6,680 sq. ft.) is utilized for patrol and investigative services. Although this facility provides enough space to meet growth management standards, financing of future sheriff facilities may become an issue because at present, there is no financing mechanism which ensures that as new development occurs adequate facilities are provided. Fees are currently in place for new development in the unincorporated area to provide ongoing support for sheriff operations, but the fee does not account for additional capital facilities which may be needed in the future. Funding requirements for capital facility needs will be addressed by the County in the future. Park Facilities The Growth Management Standard for parks is three acres of neighborhood parks per 1000 population. Table 2 reveals that the five year population growth estimated by the CCTA will result in the need for an additional 73 acres of parks. 3 Proposed Parks Since the adoption of the County General Plan, the County has already committed funds for the acquisition and development of future park sites which totals approximately 74 acres. These sites are located throughout the unincorporated county and are described in Table 4 below. Table 4 -Park Acquisitions since January 1991 Total Acreage Site Acres for GMP Comment Compliance ',) Crockett Park 4.5 4.5 2) Laurel Park 14.0 14.0 3) Maura Park 6.5 6.5 �) Laurel Detention Basin 10.0 10.0 5) Cornell Park 9.9 2.9 7 acres opened 1988 6) Vintage Park 6.0 6.0 7) Montalvin Park 7.0 7.0 -g) Montara Bay Ball Field 4.0 0.0 Renovation 9; Alamo Park 4.4 4.4 10) Lefty Gomez Field 11.0 11.0 11) Marie Porter 2.0 2.0 12) El Sobrante 100.0 0.0 Regional Park 13) Hap McGee Park - 12.0 LQ Joint County/city Total Acreage Credited Towards Meeting Growth Management Reqs: 74.3 QP for Parks The five year need is presently fulfilled by existing park commitments and improvements. In addition to those facilities which are secured through new development or are already in place, there are other sources of revenues available to buy and develop parks to meet Growth Management Standards. These revenue sources are Measure AA funds; State bond money; and Parkland Dedication fees which are assessed to each new lot or housing unit that is developed in unincorporated county areas. To date, the most recent available figures for Measure AA and State bond monies is approximately$1.05 million and$15.8 million for parkland dedication fees. 4 •r. Based on the growth estimates provided Table 2, County staff has devised an estimate of the approximate amount of housing units which would be developed for the five year period. Housing units are derived from the household estimates. Households assume a 5% vacancy rate. Table 3 shows the estimated number of housing units which would be constructed over the five year period is 5636 units. The total amount of parkland dedications fees which would be collected during this time period is about$15.8 million. The parkland dedication fee is applied to all subdivisions, consistent with the provisions of the Quimby Act. The maximum dedication allowable under the Act is three acres per 1,000 population. Adherence to this standard by application of the Park Dedication ordinance ensures that su:ficient funds will be generated to meet the future growth management standards F,,ecified in the County General Plan. MT:\ DOS Disk:19MIP 5 •CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Jurisdiction GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Annual Compliance Checklist County 'of Contra Cost Year This checklist is required to be submitted to the CCTA for the receipt of 18% Local 1993 Street Maintenance and Improvement funds beginning in FY 1992-93 and every year thereafter. 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Measure C requires that each jurisdiction adopt a Growth Management Element of its General Plan that includes traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards and performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. The standards are to be applied in the develop-tent review process. 1-a. During the past year, did the jurisdiction approve any General Plan amendments? Yes No ® ❑ 1-b. If the answer to 1-a is yes, could any of the amendments have an impact on the ability to Yes No implement standards and policies of the local Growth M aagement Element? ® ❑ 1-c. If the answer to 1-b is yes, did the amendment process include a review of consistency with Yes No policies and programs of the Growth Management Element and other General Plan elements? ❑ ❑ 1-d. If the answer to 1-c is yes, were the amendments consistent with the General Plan Growth Yes No Management Element? ® ❑ 1-e. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to the Growth Explanation Not Management Element have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here Attached Applicable and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑X 2. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Measure C requires each jurisdiction to adopt traffic Level of Service (LAS) standards keyed to types of land use. Each jurisdiction.must comply with the adopted standards in order to be judged in compliance with the Growth Management Program. The Measure provides for the CCTA,jointly with local jurisdictions, to establish mitigation measures or determine that intersections exceeding applicable standards be subject to a Finding of Special Circumstances. The Measure also states that intersections exceeding standards that will be brought into compliance in the most current five-year capital improvement program shall be considered to be in compliance, and that the CCTA,jointly with affected local jurisdictions, shall determine and periodically review the application of standards on Routes of Regional Significance. All questions in this section assume that procedures and analysis implemented by the jurisdiction are in substantial conformity with procedures described in the Implementation Guide: Traffic Level of Service Standards and Programs for Routes of Regional Significance. 2-a. Over the past year, have traffic impact studies been conducted as part of the application Yes No review process for all development projects estimated to generate more than 100 peak-hour vehicle trips? Page 2 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program Aaaual Compliance Checklist 2-b. Is one of the following conditions met for all Reporting Intersections within the jurisdiction Yes No (excluding those intersections for which Findings of Special Circumstances have been made)? (Please note the number of Reporting Intersections at which each condition applies.) Number 2.b.I Adopted LOS standards are met based on measurement of actual conditions; 2.b.2 Intersections are reasonably expected to meet standards, assuming implementation 6 the jurisdiction's adopted CIP and projected changes in demand over he next five years; or 2.b.3 A request for Findings of Special Circumstances accompanies this submittal for any intersections not reasonably expected to meet standards assuming implementation of the adopted CIP. Please note here if any such requests are being submittP A at this time: 2.b.4 Total number of Reporting Intersections 2-c. If any intersection(s) in the jurisdiction are subject to Findings of Special Circumstances and conditions for compliance have been specified, list these and indicate what actions have been taken over the past year to implement the coi 1tions. Conditions Implemented Not a=l i cable 2-d. If traffic service objectives and actions have been adopted for designated Routes of Regional Significance in the jurisdiction, list these and indicate what implementation actions have been taken over the past year. Not applicable Actions Implemented : Not applicable I Page 3 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist 1993 2-e. Has the jurisdiction implemented all Regional Route Action Plans Yes No adopted in the region, with respect to the following procedures: ❑ (a) Circulation of Environmental Documents; (b) Analysis of the impact of proposed General Plan amendments and, as needed, proposed revision(s)to Action Plans; and (c) Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with Action Plan policies. 2-f. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Exr.anation Not relative to traffic Level of Service standards have been satisfied in a Areched Applicable way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an L] explanation. 3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt and maintain performance standards for the following urban services: a. Fire c. Parks e. Water b. Police d. Sanitary Facilities f. Flood Control These standards are to be maintained through capital projects and should take into account both fiscal constraints and the application of standards through the development review process. Jurisdictions may review their performance standards on an annual basis, in conjunction with Special Districts where appropriate, and modify them to maintain continued applicability. 3-a. Is the jurisdiction now in compliance with adopted performance Yes No standards? ® ❑ 3-b. If the answer to 3-a is no, what action does the jurisdiction intend to take to comply with the standards within the next five years? Implement five-year CIP X Other 3-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Not relative to performance standards have been satisfied in a way not Attached Applicable indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ 4. DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PROGRAM Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that development pays its fair share of the costs associated with that development. In addition, the Measure requires that local jurisdictions ensure that no funds from the Measure will be used to replace private developer funding which has been or will be committed to any project. Page 4 Jorisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportatioa Authority Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist 4a. Have the development mitigation programs cited in the jurisdiction's Yes No previous submittal been implemented over the past year? ® ❑ 4b. Is the jurisdiction participating in the regional mitigation programs Yes No developed by the CCTA? ® ❑ Please list: General Plan Amendments and Development Agreements include requirements to participate in a regional transportati, n mitigation program as determined through Measure C-88 Growth Management process. 4c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Not relative to development mitigation programs have been v.tisfied in a Attached Applicable way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attac",, an ❑ Q explanation. S. PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE, MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING The Growth Management Program specifies that the CCTA shall establish a forum for jurisdictions to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts. This wid be accomplished through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and be supported by an ongoing countywide comprehensive transportation planning process in which all jurisdictions shall.participate. 5-a. Over the past year, has the jurisdiction regularly participated in Yes No meetings of the Regional Transportation Planning Committee or a ❑ other forums established by the CCTA? 5-b. Over the past year, have the local representatives to the Regional Yes No Transportation Planning Committee regularly reported on the a ❑ activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or board? 5-c. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the Yes No countywide transportation computer model, data on land use and ® ❑ traffic patterns? 5-d. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Not relative to cooperative multi jurisdictional planning have been Attached Applicable MV satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and ❑ attach an explanation. Par 5 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Aatbority �,—, —� 93 Grvwtb Management Program Annual Compliance Cbeckilst t14AlLLa 6. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Measure C requires that local jurisdictions develop a five-year capital improvement program to meet and maintain adopted traffic service and performance standards. The capital improvement program will be based on development to be constructed within the five-year framework of the program. It will include an analysis of costs of the proposed projects as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements. 6-a. Does the jurisdiction have an adopted capital improvement program Yes No (CIP)? MV 1:1 If yes, date of adoption or most recent update of the CIP fnr Parks & Sherif f's Facilities 1533-1998 Resolution # May 25, 1993 6-b. Does the CIP include a financing plan that identifies general Yes No financing mechanisms for all transportation projects included in the CIP? 6-c. Does the CIP include a financing plan that identifies general Yes No financing mechanisms for all projects sponsored by the jurisdiction and included in the CIP that relate to facilities for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities,water and flood control? 6-d. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Not relative to the CIP have been satisfied in a way not indicated by Attached. Applicable this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. S 10 7. HOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES Measure C requires that, as part of its five-year capital improvement program and pursuant to the State- mandated housing element of its General Plan, each jurisdiction develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels. Each jurisdiction shall also address land use information as it relates to transportation demand, and discuss its efforts to address housing options and job opportunities on a city, subregional and countywide basis. 7-a. Has the jurisdiction, as part of its five-year capital improvement Yes No program and pursuant to the State-mandated housing element of its General Plan, developed an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels? Specify which plan or policy of the jurisdiction includes the implementation program: County General Plan and County Road Improvement Program Resolution or Ordinance # 91-68 Date 1/29/91 CR I P adopted: 8/4/92 7-b. Does the jurisdiction have a Housing Element in its General Plan Yes No which meets the requirements of State law? Page 6 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority ' Growth Management Program Annual Comolaoce Checklist 1993 7-c. Has the jurisdiction's adopted Housing Element been judged by the Yes No State Department of Housing and Community Development to be in MV compliance with State law? If"YES", Date of HCD Determination December 15, 1992 If the answer is "YES", then go to question 7-d. If the answer to 7-c. is "NO" then please respond to the following questions 7A-c: IF 7-c IS "NO", PLEASE RESPOND TO: 7A-c. If the answer to 7-c is "NO",does the jurisdiction have an adopted Housing Element in its General Plan which includes (please provide Plan reference pages after each answer): 7A-c.I A fair share housing allocation as established by ABAG for Yes No all income levels, including very low, low and moderate income housing; specifically, an identification and analysis of the community's share of the regional housing needs, as determined by ABAG, addressing the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by the community's general plan? [Government Code Sec. 65583(a) and 65584 (a).] Reference: 7A-c.2 A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions Yes No to implement the policies and achieve the goals of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, including the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs, when available? Will the program assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of all households including those of very low, low, and moderate income? [Sec. 65583(c)] Reference: 7A-c.3 Identification of adequate sites which will be made Yes No available through appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the development of housing to meet the needs of households of all income levels? [Sec. 65583(c) (1)] Reference: P&V7 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist bxtra1993 7A-c.4 A Resolution by your jurisdiction finding the Housing Yes No Element is substantially in compliance with State Law? ❑ ❑ Resolution # If the answer to any of questions 7A-c.] through 7A-c.4 are "NO", then continue with question 7-d and please identify any reasons your jurisdiction may have for believing that you have nonetheless met the requirements of Measure C in question 7-f. 7-d. In order to promote more efficient use of the transportation system, Yes No has the jurisdiction evaluated its land use plans in relation to ® ❑ transportation demand, and, in that context, discussed in its adopted General Plan efforts to address housing options and job opportunities in the jurisdiction, the subregion and the County? If"YES", go to 7-e. If"NO", go to 7A-d. Text pages:5_9 to 5-13 policy,# 3-1 to 3-4 19 to 2-21 IF 7-d IS "NO",THEN RESPOND TO: 7A-d. If the answer to 7-d is "NO", has the jurisdiction adopted Yes No any other report, statement or discussion regarding local ❑ ❑ effort to address housing options and job opportunities within the jurisdiction's limits,the limits of the subregion and the County in order to promote more efficient use of the transportation system? Title Date I I 7-e. Separately attach or use the space below to specify, in relation to questions 7-a, 7-b and 7-c (or 7A-c.), what implementation actions, if any, have been taken during the past year. In particular, please indicate what housing has been constructed or provided in the past year to contribute towards achieving the housing allocations established by ABAG for all income levels. The jurisdiction may frame its response in the context of its implementation actions over the preceding five years. Response is required, is for information only, and will not bear upon the determination of compliance with the Measure C program. 7-f. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Not relative to housing options and job opportunities have been satisfied Attached Applicable in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an ❑ ❑ explanation. Par 8 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Antbority 1 Cla6ta 1993 Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Cbecklist 8. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt a transportation systems management ordinance or alternative mitigation program. 8-a. Has the jurisdiction adopted a transportation systems management Yes No ordinance that incorporates required policies consistent with the ® ❑ model ordinance prepared by the CCTA for use by local agencies? TSM Ordinance #92-31 Date of Adoption 4-21-92 8-b. If the answer to 8-a is no, has the jurisdiction adopted an alternative Yes No mitigation program to achieve a significant reduction in ❑ ❑ single-occupant vehicle trips, an increase in the use of alternate commute modes, and an improvement in air quality? N/A Ordinance Title Ordinance # Date of Adoption 8-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Not relative to transportation systems management have been satisfied in Attached Applicable a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an ❑ LW explanation. 9. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT 9-a. Has the jurisdiction met the maintenance of effort requirements of Yes No Measure C as stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation ® ❑ Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance? 9-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Not relative to maintenance of effort have been satisfied in a way not Attached Applicable MV indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ 10. POSTING OF SIGNS 10-a. Has the jurisdiction posted signs in accord with specifications by Yes No the CCTA for all projects funded fully or partially by Measure C ® 13revenues? 10-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Not relative to posting of signs have been satisfied in a way not indicted Attached Applicable by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑ Excerpts from the General Plan , t Referenced in the Annual Compliance Checklist CONTRA COSTA COUNTY i GENERAL PLAN °I 1990 - 2005 f I� i January 1991 i f i � i t , Contra Costa County I Community Development Department f 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-2035 FAX (415) 646-1309 j �I i 2. Planning Framework for 27 percent. Although rental apartment building has flourished during the mid-1980s, construction has begun to weaken in the last year due to changes in Federal tax laws. C EMPLOYMENT In terms of employment growth since 1980, employment in the County has grown by approximately 21 percent (See Table 2-3). Much of the job increase has been measured in the categories associated with the tremendous office and retail development along the I-680 corridor. The num:.)er of jobs in the predominantly "white collar" FIRE category (finance, insurance, real estate) inc,eased by 11 percent between 1980 and 1990. Likewise, the "transportation, communications, utilities" sector increased by 75 percent to 26,227 jobs. This latter category includes a major firm (Pacific Bell) that relocated thousands of office jobs to the Bishop Ranch Business Park in San Ran: n. I , i i Another area of job growth was registered in the "services" sector, where over 6,536 new positions were created. Within this category, the fastest growing employment areas were business services, heal'n services, and engineeringlaccounting services. Large numbers of new jobs (over 5,863) were j also added in retail trade, primarily through positions created in the restaurant/bars sector. Manufacturing and wholesale trade continue to be important employers, although overall the number of manufacturing and wholesale trade jobs in the County has remained stable over the last ten years. The strongest growth occurred in the petroleum refineries, where over 2,000 jobs were added Older industries such as metal fabrication, however, showed significant job losses as did some large high technology "instruments" producers, who cut work forces during the 1980s. JOBS/HOUSING RATIO Growth policies of this General Plan will not significantly change the Countywide jobs/housing ratio. Over the next 20 years, the jobs/housing ratio is expected to reach approximately 0.74 jobs per employed resident, only a slight improvement over the ratio for the existing land use plus approved projects. In most areas of the County, recent and projected job growth will be matched by an equal amount of housing growth, so the ratio will remain roughly the same. 2-19 2. Planning Framework TABLE 2-3 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR (1980-1990) Change 1980 1990 # % Agriculture/Mining 3,567 4,920 1,353 37.9 Mfg./Wholesale Trade 33,778 39,110 5,332 15.8 Transportation/Com- munication/Utilities 10,918 28,350 17,432 159.7 Retail Trade 44,297 60,160 15,863 35.8 Services 59,844 86,420 26,576 44.4 Government 16,887 18,190 1,303 7.7 Other 31,946 55,550 23,604 73.9 TOTAL 201,237 292,700 91,463 45.4 Source: ABAG Projections '90 2-20 2. Planning Framework The jobs/housing ratio under the buildout of the General Plan will become "better" in West County as more jobs are created, and will become stabilized in Central County. But in the fastest-growing areas of Pittsburg-Antioch and the remainder of East County,so much new housing is planned that employment will continue to lag far behind. For every new job created in the Pittsburg-Antioch area, two new workers are expected to move in. However, the lopsided jobs/housing ratio in the East County communities of Oakley, Brentwood, and Discovery Bay will continue through the early years of the next century, with only one local job expected for each five new employed residents. The projected jobs/housing .atio in eastern Contra Costa County should be improved, however, during the decades beyonr; the 15-year planning period of this General Plan. Based upon the market-driven construction trends in other parts of the County and region, the pattern of development in rural areas begins with the construction of suburban housing. As the influx of 1 new residents creates the de! -and for new services, retail and other businesses follow the growing population base, although there can be a lag of five years or more between the construction of new t housing and the creation of local jobs. This phenomenon occurred in the San Ramon Valley. the 1 period of rapid suburbanization during the 1970s and the early 1980s has been followed by the 1 location of numerous local a rd regional businesses in the valley during the 1980s. 1 As noted previously, this jobs/housing analysis assumes that some of the job-generating land uses J in the County and Cities' General Plans (the vacant land that is planned for commercial and i industrial growth) will not be developed during the next 15 years, because there is too much of this 1 type of land (especially in East County) set aside for the market to absorb during that period. 1. State of California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Sacramento, l June 1987, page 7. J J J 2-21 i ' 3. Land Use Element i 3-L. To safeguard the County's obligations to provide its fair share of safe, decent and affordable housing. I � 3-M. Protect and promote the economic viability of agricultural land. 3-N. To coordinate effectively the policies of the Land Use Element with appropriate Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) determinations. r POLICIES i Countywide The following are broad, Countywide policies which apply to all properties. More detailed development policies for specific areas in the County are found in the "Local Plan Policies" section at the end of this chapter. Jobs/Housing Balance 3-1. Housing infill shall be supported and stimulated where the jobs/ housing ratio shows an overabundance of jobs to housing. 3-2. Job infill shall be supported and stimulated where he jobs/housing ratio shows an overabundance of housing to jobs. 3-3. As feasible, areas experiencing rapid urban growth shall be developed so as to provide a balance of new residential and employment opportunities. 34. Financing mechanisms shall be developed which spread the costs of facilitating jobs/housing balance between existing and new development. Growth Management, 65/35 Land Plan, and Urban Limit Line 3-5. New development within unincorporated areas of the County may be approved, providing growth management standards and criteria are met or can be assured of being met prior to the issuance of building permits in accordance with the growth management. 3-6. Development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision of essential Community services or facilities including, but not limited to, roads, law enforcement and fire protection services, schools, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. 3-7. The location, timing and extent of growth shall be guided through capital improvements programming and financing (i.e. a capital improvement program, assessment districts, impact fees, and developer contributions) to prevent infrastructure, facility and service deficiencies. 3-44 �J 5. Transportation and Circulation Element L EXISTING TRAVEL DEMAND —� The most comprehensive and recent data on local travel was collected during . the 1981 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Travel Survey. The travel behavior of nearly T� 5,000 Bay Area households were surveyed. The survey found that Contra Costa households generate more trips than the average Bay Area household (9.8 trips/day vs. 8.7 trips/day, ` respectively). Contra Costa households are also more likely to use a car for their trips than other Bay Area households (8.1 in-vehicle trips/day vs. 6.8 in-vehicle trips/day, respectively). To develop a more up-to-date estimate of travel a emand in Contra Costa County, a computerized =� travel model was used. This model was developed in 1986 and 1987 for use in evaluating alternative transportation and land use scenarios for the General Plan. The model was validated to 1985 level traffic conditions, and then used as - means of forecasting year 2005 level traffic conditions for various scenarios. Since the model was validated to year 1985 conditions, extensive information on estimated travel conditions are available for that year. This information has been updated, where possible, to reflect recently obtained information about 1990 conditions. A discussion of the 1990 estimates of travel behavior in Contra Costa County based on this information is provided below. In 1990, it is estimated that over 1 million trips were made by Contra Costa County residents on an average weekday. The need for transportation facilities is most acute during commute travel _ periods, in both the morning and the evening. Of the daily commute trips generated in Contra ] Costa County in 1990, about one-quarter were work related. Of these trips, close to half were destined for work locations outside the County, with the most significant destinations in Alameda County and San Francisco. Contra Costa County imported about 65,000 workers to fill jobs in the County in 1985, while exporting about 120,000 residents workers to fill jobs outside the County. An estimated 190,000 work trips were attracted to jobs in Contra Costa County each weekday in 1990. Approximately 68 percent of the work trips destined for the County were made by County residents, 16 percent by Alameda County residents, and 6 percent by Solano County residents. A considerable amount of the traffic that entered Contra Costa County during peak hours in 1990 was through traffic 5. Transportation and Circulation Element going to jobs in other counties. For example, about one-half the traffic on I-80 and I-580 in Contra Costa County is estimated to be through traffic. The result of these travel patterns is that considerable congestion occurs on the County's regional roadway system, as well as on many arterial streets in specific communities. Locations that act as bottlenecks on a regular basis include: o Much of I-80 through Contra Costa County, especially at the Carquinez Bridge and through Richmond; o Much of San Pablo Avenue in Contra Costa County; o State Route 24 at the Caldecott Tunnel, and on the approach to the I-680 interchange; o I-680 at the Benicia Bridge, at the junction with State Route 242, and through the State Route 24 interchange, and through San Ramon; o State Route 4 at the Willow Pass Grade; o Ygnacio Valley Road, through Walnut Creek and Concord; o Camino Pablo through Orinda. FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND Travel demand forecasts were made for year 2005 using the computerized transportation model developed in 1990. Travel demand is primarily a function of the projected land-use in Contra Costa and neighboring counties. The General Plan is the basis for projected land use in Contra Costa. ABAG's projections for year 2005, described in Projections 90, is the basis for land use forecasts in neighboring counties. The ABAG data was adjusted to account for 163,000 surplus jobs that could not be matched to employed residents in the region. An assumption that 56,000 jobs would be matched with employees living in the Central Valley and south of Santa Clara County was incorporated into the transportation model. The remaining 107,000 surplus jobs were removed from the ABAG forecasts and were assumed to locate outside the Bay Area, or to occur after 2005. An estimated 1.5-million person trips will be generated in Contra Costa County each weekday by year 2005. This represents a 35 percent increase above the 1985 level. Work trips, a primary factor in peak hour congestion, will increase by 46 percent to nearly 350,000 person trips per day. 5-10 5. Transportation and Circulation Element 1 J The rapid increase in work trips reflects a greater number of workers per household anticipated in the demographic forecasts. The characteristics of the future transportation system will determine the routes and mode of travel for these future trips. These characteristics will be described in later sections of the Transportation and Circulation Element. 1 Since the model was developed, ABAG has updated it forecasts of Bay area population and employment characteristics. In addition, Contra Costa County has updated its land use projections for the General Plan. The main changes to the estimates used for travel pro;-actions are: o Addition of approximately 4,300 households in the Cypress Corridor in East County; o Inclusion of recently approved general plan amendment such as the Bethel Island General Plan Amendment (See Appendix K); o Addition of 2,000 employed people in East County; o Inclusion of updated list of pending General Plan Amendments (See Appendix L). The results of these changes is an overall increase in trip making of 6.5 perce.�t, from 1,460,000 trips per day to 1,552,000 trips per day. Work trips would increase by 6.4 percent, from 350,000 trips to 368,000 trips. Unless indicated otherwise, all discussion of 2005 model estimates are based on the earlier forecasts. The impacts of truck traffic was incorporated into the road capacity assumptions at the critical locations of State Route 4 over the Willow Pass and Kirker Pass Roads. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS THAT SHAPE THIS ELEMENT The projected increase in travel demand will require expanded transportation facilities and services, since existing facilities are strained to near capacity during rush hours. The need to provide greatly expanded facilities poses both environmental and financial problems. The Transportation and Circulation Element can be used to guide, shape and control growth itself and should therefore relate to the issue of growth. However, it is only one component of a General Plan designed as a development, conservation and economic blueprint for the County. ,J Roadway and transit improvements do not necessarily lead to uncontrolled growth. The Land Use 5-11 r 5. Transportation and Circulation Element Element and Growth Management Element set the timing and densities of future growth. A well- planned and balanced transportation network provides for and accommodates anticipated employment and residential growth and helps to relieve existing congested roadways. A defined transportation network also gives public and private interests a vision of needed improvements and an opportunity to assess costs and develop funding programs well in advance of actual growth. r- The following fundamental concepts have been recognized in developing this Transportation and Circulation Element: o Traffic flow is limited by capacity acity of the system. P Ys o There are formidable limits to expansion and/or improvements to the system. o A desirable living environment and a prosperous business environment cannot be maintained if traffic levels continue to increase without limits. Various methods must be used to control and reshape the impact of automobiles on Contra Costa County and to use other means of transportation to improve the environment. f o When traffic demand exceeds the capacity of the system, many negative effects result, including congestion, loss of time and productivity, accidents, personal frustration, increase in pollution, adverse community reaction; and use of residential streets for commuting purposes. o Contra Costa County, the Bay Area and California will continue to experience population t` growth over the next 20 years and transportation systems will continue to be strained. o Near-term solutions to conflicts between traffic demands and system capacity limits require utilizing existing roadways to the effective limits of their design capacity in order to relieve congestion. o Longer-term solutions require either significant enhancements to the system, fundamental changes in travel behavior patterns, or a combination of both. o Some of the specific approaches proposed in this Element for both near-term and longer- term solutions include the following: — Place limits on the capacity of streets and highways which enter the County (near-term) — Improve inter and intra-County transit service (longer-term) — Expand undersized roadways and plan for new roadways (longer-term) — Accept congestion until improvements occur (near-term) 5-12 5. Transportation and Circulation Element i All. I , — Improve the design of new development to provide alternative routes for circulation I on the roadway system (near- and longer-term) Improve the design of new development to allow convenient access to alternative forms of transportation ! — Encourage ride sharing and staggered work hour programs (near-term) . i Construct HOV lanes and on-ramp metering lights along commute corridors (near- term)- 0 near-term)-o Even with the investment of$3.2 billion in transportation improvements over the life of this plan, the amount of growth in the region and the attractiveness of travel by private ! automobile will make desired level of service standards (LOS) unattainable along portions of County roadways. 5.6 ROADWAYS AND TRANSIT INTRODUCTION I : The need for roadway and transit facilities is most directly tied to the land use patterns set forth in the Land Use Element. As described above, buildout of the land use plan through the year 2005, together with anticipated growth outside of the county, would place excessive demands on ' II the existing circulation infrastructure in the County. The goals, policies and implementation ' ! I + measures set forth in this section, together with those in the Growth Management Element, are i . intended to address the future circulation needs of Contra Costa County. i � I � ROADWAY AND TRANSIT NETWORK PLANS i The Roadway and Transit Network Plans are the result of a coordinated planning process that incorporates the goals, policies and implementation measures of this Transportation and Circulation Element, in addition to the Land Use Element and Growth Management Element. As such, these j network plans are a compromise between the ultimate transportation needs of the County, fiscal reality, and the potential development constraints imposed by the Growth Management Element. � i The premise of the Roadway and Transit Network Plans is therefore best summarized as follows: U A roadway and transit network plan to accommodate travel demand that would result from assumed year 2005 buildout of the land use plan was developed. This plan, called the �! Maximum Improvements Plan would cost $5.3 billion and cannot be fully funded with �I i i 5-13 i .